IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THIS MEETING: To protect our residents, officials, and staff, and in alignment with AB 361 and Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21, in which certain teleconference requirements of the Brown Act have been suspended, including the requirement to provide a physical location for members of the public to participate in the meeting, this meeting will be held by Teleconference.
BY
TELECONFERENCE
VIA
ZOOM WEBINAR
By PC:
MEETING URL:
https://tinyurl.com/ncusvn4h
MEETING ID: 924 9319 5201
By Telephone:
+1 669-900-9128
MEETING ID: 924 9319 5201
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 01.18.22
How to follow or participate in the meeting:
Members of the public may observe and participate in the meeting at the teleconference location highlighted above. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by following instructions below:
Send your e-mail to [email protected] by 3pm on the day of the meeting.
Those e-mails will be forwarded to the City Council. They will also be made a part of the public record and be available to view upon request by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 925-253-4221. In addition, they will be available electronically by 5pm on the day of the meeting by selecting the date of the meeting in this Box link:
https://cityoforinda.box.com/s/aqrelwbwv0wc37m5hkju2o8a0sta7bup Comments may also be submitted by e-mail during the meeting up until the closure of public comment period on the relevant agenda item. These will be read into the record by staff at their normal cadence and will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes. To be read into the record, e-mail must contain in the subject line “Public Forum – Not on the Agenda” or “Public Comment – Agenda Item #” with the relevant agenda item indicated.
City Council
Agenda Page 2 01.18.22
To comment orally in real time during the meeting, you may use the Zoom “raise your hand” function on your computer screen or the *9 function on your phone. 7:00 PM - REGULAR SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Darlene Gee, Nick Kosla, Amy Worth
Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.
D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Vision Zero presentation by Tim Haile, Contra Costa Transportation Authority
E. PUBLIC FORUM
The public forum provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of the City Council that is not on the agenda.
Additionally, a speaker has the option of addressing the Council on an item listed on the agenda, if the speaker will not be present when that agenda item is taken up. When an item is not listed on the agenda, State law prohibits Council discussion or action. Councilmembers may only “briefly respond” to statements made and questions posed. For example, State law allows Councilmembers to ask questions for clarification and provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. Additionally, consistent with the “Matters Initiated” rule contained in its Policies and Procedures Manual, the Council may also direct staff to report back and/or place a matter on a future agenda for discussion.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. November 17, 2021 Joint Meeting with Planning Commission F.2. Monthly Report of Receipts and Disbursements for the Period November 1, 2021 through November 30, 2021 and Summary of Revenue, Expenditures, and Preliminary Fund Balances for July 1, 2021 through November 30, 2021
Recommendation:
City Council
Agenda Page 3 01.18.22
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report of receipts, disbursements, and preliminary fund balances for the month of November 2021.
F.3. Adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City of Orinda’s application for, and receipt of, Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid Program Matching Funds
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to file an application with the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the amount of $700,000 for the Orinda Community Park Renovation Project, and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all required documentation.
F.4. Approve a Grant Application for the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle funding
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Transportation Development Act grant application for the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk, crossing Moraga Way, find the project categorically exempt with respect to CEQA by adopting Resolution No. 03-22, in a format specified by the grant requirements.
F.5. Approve Real Property Acquisition of Right of Way for Seismic Retrofit Project at Miner Road Bridge over San Pablo Creek (Project #0044) and Accept said Grant of Easement
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-22, to approve Agreement for Acquisition of a portion of Dickerson property (24 Miner Rd.) and accept said grant of easement upon execution by the Grantor (Dickerson).
G. PUBLIC HEARING
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Review of City Council Policy & Procedure Manual
Recommendation:
Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 05-22 amending the City Council Policy & Procedures Manual or give direction to staff on any further changes.
I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Council
Agenda Page 4 01.18.22
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 9:00 AM.
Please visit the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org to view the City Council Calendar.
I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this special meeting agenda has been posted at least 24 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way. Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org. At least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, this agenda was also delivered to and received by each member of the City Council as well as each local newspaper, radio station and television station requesting written notice of special meetings.
I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this regular meeting agenda has been posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way.
Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org
~ Notice ~
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders, which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting. For information on the next regular or special City Council meeting, please call 925.253.4221 or visit the website at www.cityoforinda.org.
~ Accessible Public Meetings ~
The City of Orinda will provide special assistance for disabled citizens to participate in public meetings upon advance notice. If you need auxiliary hearing aid or sign language assistance at least two (2) working days advanced notice is necessary.
Please contact the City Clerk’s Office, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, Ca 94563 or 925.253.4221 or [email protected] with the following information: name, mailing address, phone number and type of assistance requested.
AGENDA TITLE: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. November 17, 2021 Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Attachments:
A. City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (DOCX)
Respectfully Submitted by:
Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
F.1
Packet Pg. 5
Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 1 of 22 11.17.21
November 17, 2021
CITY OF ORINDA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL WORKSHOP MINUTES
Note: Written communications received from the public prior to the start of this meeting can be viewed at: https://tinyurl.com/54ebjbpj.They are also kept in the City Clerk’s Office as part of the public record and available upon request. 7:00 P.M. – SPECIAL MEETING– BY TELECONFERENCE
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:
Mayor Worth called the Regular Meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Nick Kosla, Inga Miller Vice Mayor Dennis Fay, Mayor Amy Worth
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Robert Hubner, Brandyn Iverson, Marian Jelinek, Willy Mautner
Vice-Chair Ann Parnigoni, Chair John Lynn Smith
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lina Lee
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Vice Mayor Fay.
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Director of Planning Drummond Buckley announced there are no revisions to the agenda.
MOTION by Commissioner Hubner and seconded by Chair Smith to adopt the agenda.
Said motion carried by unanimous (11-0-1; Lee absent) roll call vote.
D. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Worth opened the Public Forum.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 2 of 22 11.17.21
Michelle Jacobson clarified that at the Council meeting last night there was a statement made that figures used for density on the Orinda Way block of 86 units/acre and on the BevMo block of 66 units/acre were based on EPS’s analysis and that the development needed to be at that density to be economically feasible. However, page 13 of the EPS report from the April 2nd states those densities would be economically infeasible and that the density would need to be higher. She asked that this be corrected.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR – None.
F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – None
G. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Draft Objective Design Standards
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council and Planning Commission receive the staff report, take public comment, and provide feedback. No action will be taken.
Director of Planning Drummond Buckley introduced the matter and stated Senior Planner Winnie Mui will provide a staff presentation which will give an overview of meetings held to date and he will then provide a presentation. Thereafter, a main presentation will be given by Opticos regarding the draft Objective Design Standards (ODS).
Senior Planner Mui provided a PowerPoint presentation detailing a comprehensive background of the various meetings and actions from January 2020 to date, described tonight’s request for further feedback and direction on the draft ODSs from the Council, the Commission and the public. Feedback includes input on the proposed zones, building height, civic spaces, Mediterranean style, and architectural styles. Next steps include incorporation of feedback into the next draft version of the ODS and thereafter staff will start with a kickoff of the EIR based upon direction.
Mr. Buckley provided an overview of the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) and existing maximum heights of buildings structures within downtown Orinda of 35 feet. What is proposed in the DPP is 35 feet with some areas going up to 45 to 55 feet. He then presented various examples of approximate building heights varying from 28 (Wells Fargo building) to 77 feet (Orinda Theater marquee) using Google Earth.
He discussed current parking requirements for residential, non-residential, proposed parking requirements, definitions of SB 35 parking requirements and density bonus projects’ parking requirements. He then provided an overview of the density bonus law, density bonus percentages per categories of affordability, implications of density bonus law for the downtown, and things to note regarding development standards.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 3 of 22 11.17.21
Councilmember Miller thanked staff for the helpful charts and asked if the developer just needs to meet one of the affordability categories. Mr. Buckley said the developer could have a portion of lower income, a portion that is moderate and another portion which requires calculations to what concessions will be, and the chart is a simplified version.
There is no requirement for the developer to do all three of them but if they do 15% very low income they would get 3 concessions.
Councilmember Miller asked to explain the other chart and Mr. Buckley explained and said if you have 15% of the project at very low income the developer would get a 50% density bonus.
Commissioner Mautner referred to the first chart and said if a developer proposed a total of 39% of the project with mixed affordability, he asked if they would get 6 concessions.
Mr. Buckley said he was unsure if it maxes out at 4 or not.
Mayor Worth opened the Public Forum.
Erin Schultz said with raising the height of a building to 55 or 60 feet and then adding a 15% low income housing project she asked if this would result in three extra stories which would be 30-35 feet or over 90 feet. She said Mr. Buckley mentioned having higher heights by the creek which is what has been suggested through the planning process, but she asked if those were the areas where higher heights are not allowed in the design standards.
Nick Waranoff said he thinks something was omitted from the overview of the density bonus law. It is his understanding that in addition to the specified number of incentives and concessions a developer is entitled to an unlimited number of waivers. The line between a waiver versus an incentive or concession is not clear but he has seen attorneys for developers argue that a height limit is something subject to a waiver and that it would mean a developer could ask for as many stories as deemed appropriate.
He also commented that it seems to him regardless of whether there are waivers, incentives or concessions once they recognize a developer can add three additional stories on top of a height limit this would indicate it would make most sense to retain the existing height limit and have the developer use one of their waivers or incentives to go higher or use two to get up to 55 feet.
Michelle Jacobson said in following up on the concept of keeping it low with the idea of adding floors via concessions it seems like a wise bet if it is true that most developers will stick to a maximum of 55 feet. Therefore, it seems better to keep development more pedestrian in scale and hope for the best.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 4 of 22 11.17.21
Mr. Buckley responded to comments and said there are many ways for a developer to get from 35 to 55 feet even if the City stays with 35 feet. What they are trying to do with the ODSs is actually be proactive by planning for that additional height and having standards that require step backs as you go up and other design standards. Staff thinks there is an economic incentive for developers to generally stop at that height, although he cannot say this is what would happen in all circumstances. It is quite possible that many developers could build lower than that even if they are allowed to go higher.
Regarding the waiver item, he learned about this recently and would have included it if he remembered it in this presentation, and it is a murky area as to how it applies, etc.
But, there are a number of ways for a density bonus project to get around the rules.
City Manager Biggs added that they are looking at architecture for the ODSs and the fact that they might illustrate what a 5 story building would look like does not necessarily mean that the new zoning would allow 5 story buildings in all locations. He observed that when building heights increase above 5 stories, the developer would have to change the type of construction and health and safety systems that make the building much more expensive.
He noted that incentives apply to projects that have an affordable component above certain thresholds but if there was a market rate project it would be subject to the lower level, which is something to factor in when meeting RHNA goals within a mix of building heights.
Councilmember Miller said staff has spoken internally about the two bills that have required projects be at least 55 feet. She asked and confirmed SB 50 relates to this which came close to passing, but there is the chance something like this could be proposed again.
Commissioner Iverson asked about the 85 feet question and Mr. Buckley said developers could propose going taller and this is also something to consider when the Council finally makes a decision on this issue. The City is always going to be risking the use of concessions, incentives and waivers to increase density and bypass development standards. Staff is not proposing 55 feet everywhere but there are certain parts of downtown where that is currently proposed. Economics should be a factor to consider by decision-makers as well; however, staff thinks developing beyond 55 feet is not likely.
Mayor Worth agreed with increases in costs going beyond 55 feet. When looking at existing law, it is easy to get from 35 to 55 feet which will happen given the cost of land.
It is important to have objective design standards that focus on 55 feet. Otherwise, if they base them on 35 feet, when someone goes up higher they do not have those same standards in the City’s toolbox. Mr. Buckley concurred.
Commissioner Hubner questioned some of the height and setback models in the proposed standards, and Mr. Buckley said this will be discussed in the next presentation.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 5 of 22 11.17.21
Stefan Pellegrini, Principal, Opticos Design, gave a PowerPoint presentation beginning with project background and milestone dates and activities in creating ODS for Downtown Orinda which he said intends to implement the Precise Plan vision of revitalizing the downtown and encouraging housing production.
He covered the following topics in the presentation:
Definition of Objective Design Standards
Reasons for Objective Design Standards
Project Area
How the ODS is organized into sub-chapters and sections and key content Downtown zones
Sections in the ODS
Regulating the Plan with:
o Zones including sub-zones
o Frontage requirements
o New civic spaces and pedestrian access
o New streets (for large sites)
o Additional height areas
o Additional Height
o Methodology which builds upon previous visioning efforts o Potential Built Form examples and their methodology and options 1 & 2 Downtown Commercial (DC) Zone:
o Downtown Core (DC) Zone
o DC Zone: allowed building types
o DC Zone: allowed frontage types
o DC Zone Standards
Downtown General (DG) Zone:
o DG Zone: allowed building types
o DG Zone: allowed frontage types
o DG Zone Standards
Sub-Chapter 5: Massing and Façade Articulation Standards o 5.03: Massing and Composition
o 5.04: Tripartite Façade Articulation
o 5.05: Windows and Openings
o 5.06: Corner Elements – Mansard Roofs
Sub-Chapter 7: Civic Space Standards
o 7.03: Creek Greenway
o 7.04: Plaza w/Frontage Road
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 6 of 22 11.17.21
o 7.05: Pedestrian Passage
o 7.06: Pocket Park/Plaza
Things to consider:
o Architectural Style Standards:
Mediterranean style
Contemporary style
Craftsman
Main Street Classical
Tudor
Victorian
Mr. Pellegrini concluded his presentation and Mayor Worth asked for questions and comments from Councilmembers and Commissioners.
Commissioner Mautner referred to the frontage slides and a stoop elevation. He believes given ADA this is not an option and he wondered if it should be included.
Commissioner Huber referred to Figure 2.02.4 and asked for background and voiced concern as to why the plan selected the antique store to be given extra height which is counter to the character of the Village District and General Plan when coming into the City from San Pablo Dam Road. The height at BART and downtown makes sense but he thinks it affects the Village concept when putting that much height at the end of town.
Mr. Buckley said one thing he learned through this process is a key element of most successful retail streets in the Bay Area is they typically have retail on both sides of the street. One thought was to create nodes on the Village side that would allow for that and in this case, it is Camino Sobrante and not Orinda Way.
Mr. Pellegrini explained that a number of factors were considered. The opportunity to think about Camino Sobrante as a main street that would have retail on both sides was one concept through that area which has the potential to redevelop. They also looked at that area as an opportunity because the adjacencies to those parcels do not present significant transition issues.
He noted there are many parcels adjacent to the golf course. The Camino Sobrante frontage is internalized where taller buildings could be placed facing each other, and there is a great distance between where the taller buildings would be placed and the adjacent residential development in the near vicinity by the frontage along Camino Pablo. Those parcels are the least impacted by the high tension lines so they were seen as providing opportunities for potential intensification in that area.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 7 of 22 11.17.21
Commissioner Hubner said he understands the Camino Sobrante concept but he is more concerned about where Orinda Way converges with Camino Pablo or the point where the bridge is. He understands there must be some consistency but it presents the possibility with that being zoned for 55 feet when just coming into town which is not at all subtle and suggested some transition in the model.
Mr. Buckley said this is a very good point and it could be accommodated with some changes. Mr. Pellegrini clarified that the zoning standards would impose a step back at that corner at the 35 foot level in the draft.
Commissioner Hubner stated, however, there is the issue of concessions and waivers coming into play where the 35 feet mark for a setback falls away as one of the first concessions.
Mr. Buckley stated this is an issue no matter what with whatever plan they come up with.
Commissioner Mautner commented that the fact that there is height at that end is sort of an anchor point to the City. In looking at the yellow circles, there are a couple of anchor points with things infilling. The other thing is that the area Commissioner Hubner is concerned about is that when thinking about setbacks they will not be very close to that corner anyway.
Councilmember Miller appreciates the 35 feet and then stepping back or choosing to have that corner detail. Given discussion, she wondered about the awnings, flower pots, and balconies that would be lower down and asked if these could be implemented and helpful on those important corners and/or elsewhere in the objective design criteria.
Mr. Pellegrini said he thinks there is an opportunity if desired to add an additional layer of regulation which could be incorporated into the architectural styles sub-section. That kind of attention to detail is also something that can emerge through the discretionary review process for anything except buildings that come under SB 35. There would continue to be an opportunity for Design Review to make improvements to building proposed. One could argue with putting this level of detail into the standards because they could be part of the discretionary discussion.
City Attorney Osa Wolff noted that this exact question was discussed by herself, Mr.
Buckley and the City Manager today. She asked which sorts of projects were the ODSs intended to apply to and whether this would apply to everything that comes in, only some projects or all residential projects and she does not have a definitive answer. It is clear for SB 35 that the City’s discretion is very limited. With SB 330 projects which are housing projects including mixed use housing. There is both the possibility of objective standards and theoretically some design review but it is not yet clear for those sorts of projects how these rules will apply.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 8 of 22 11.17.21
Councilmember Miller recognized Opticos Design for their expertise because they are also working on the City of Santa Barbara’s ODSs. She wondered how they are treating this.
Mr. Pellegrini said that work is not as far along as Orinda’s, but the expectation is that they will try to impose ODSs only on particular kinds of projects. To the City Attorney’s comment, that means projects proposed under SB 35 or those which would elect a streamlining process through the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) or SB 330 where ODSs might be proposed.
Additionally, there could be a housing project that is a market rate project that elects to go through the regular process. He noted Santa Barbara has a strong tradition of design review and have two different review bodies based upon the geography of their city and historically have a lot of control over what gets built in a high quality outcome. All cities are grappling with this, and the solution they are finding is to create a higher level of prescription so the outcome can be more predictable. What this also does is create an environment where applicants still have the ability to ask for concessions and waivers but they are asking for those against a more highly prescribed zoning envelope.
Vice Mayor Fay referred to Slide 14 showing the Village area and zoning. His question has to do with the finger that is sticking to the north out of the McCaulou’s and Safeway buildings and why the 55 feet does not go all the way down to the creek. It appears to miss the Post Office, half of the Bank of America and the McCaulou’s building.
Mr. Pellegrini said they looked at that area in section and what was expected. You can accommodate an additional floor or sort of tuck-in some additional development leveraging the existing grade as you get closer to the creek. It was felt that additional height made it less necessary to increase the height across the full width of those parcels and focus it only against the proposed civic space which would run parallel to Orinda Way. He thinks there was also an expectation in that area that the intensity of development as it was oriented to the creek would be more appropriate at a townhouse or lower scaled apartment buildings fronting the creek frontage. That sort of scale against the creek would be a much more beneficial development outcome than thinking of it as a higher intensity.
Vice Mayor Fay said it seems odd that they would have a building wall in front of that area in going to the maximum height. He would ask Opticos give some thought to that area because it looks a bit strange and he was not sure it works very well.
Matali Ganguly, Associate, Opticos Design, stated just for these parcels this is where the plaza was located. Since these owners have to give up a portion of their developable land and even though parking could only be accommodated given the overhead power lines, the idea was that this was sort of like a compensatory bonus in a way they could at least get additional height fronting the plaza.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 9 of 22 11.17.21
Mr. Buckley said the point Vice Mayor Fay is making is they could give more of a bonus by extending it further towards the creek. Vice Mayor Fay said as a de facto and leaving it the way it is, it is a stepdown as you get closer to the creek.
Mr. Buckley noted that there has been one comment by Friends of Orinda Creek expressing concern about having too high of a building height close to the creek, so this addresses that concern although he does not think it was designed that way because of that comment.
Commissioner Mautner added that there is a triangular piece in front of the power line setback and he wondered why that is not included.
Mayor Worth confirmed Commissioner Mautner was talking about the land behind the lower portion of McCaulou’s by the pharmacy and on the other side which is the triangular piece and is 55 feet to the PG&E line. He said It starts at the fire station coming to a point, and Ms. Mui pointed to it on the display with a red line.
Mr. Buckley said the question is why the 55 feet doesn’t continue down there. He thought this is a good point, noting that Camino Pablo is quite a bit higher than the ground elevation in that area. He said this is something staff and Opticos can look into.
Commissioner Hubner referred to the general issue of frontages in the DC-L definition.
When it says “Required frontage as allowed by zone” there were some pictures presented that showed what would and would not be included in those things. In the DC-L zone, he thought the Shopfront and Gallery concept were not included in the CD-L zone.
Ms. Ganguly referred to the regulating plan which highlights where those specific frontages are encouraged and required on the plan. Wherever there are red lines is where the frontages are of that category.
Commissioner Hubner stated he was more concerned with the areas where there is yellow in the DC-L zone. He asked if that includes some of those Shopfront activities or not.
Ms. Ganguly replied it allows but does not require these commercial frontages, with the logic being that these are areas where they do not anticipate retail uses on the ground floor because of the location of some of these areas. Mr. Buckley said the concept there is that it is horizontal mixed use as opposed to vertical mixed use.
Mayor Worth said the City is currently working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board on Permit 3.0. There are increasing requirements for settling ponds or greenery in space for water percolation between the building and the street. She asked how they accommodate that kind of requirement in this planning process. Secondly, she asked if it is because it is a government requirement that it would need to be incorporated on the property but not go against the City’s design review requirements.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 10 of 22 11.17.21
Mr. Buckley responded that this is a good question and this is called “green infrastructure” requirements. This typically has a big footprint often. The main way the City would accommodate that would be those standards which are objective would be applied in addition to these other things. The City should probably include a section of the Precise Plan that discusses that issue.
Mr. Pellegrini said he thinks as buildings become more urban you can apply different techniques for water retention and treatment that might be more expensive than doing yard spaces, so they do not render those kinds of buildings infeasible.
Mayor Worth commented that this typically provides an additional visual buffer between the building and where pedestrians are.
Commissioner Mautner said his reaction is the code requirement can be mitigated by putting an underground surge tank which can meter out the rainwater so it does not overflow the system. He did not think this as something that should be involved in this master plan as it is more of a code issue.
Commissioner Hubner said one of his pet peeves with the food court building across from the civic center is the Fire Department’s requirement that street trees be removed. All illustrations in the Opticos presentations have a lovely foliage tinge to them. If they are talking 55 feet it is a lot more than the 27 foot street trees. He is concerned that the standards include requirements that the buildings be constructed in such a way that that does not happen again.
Mr. Buckley stated he and Ms. Mui have talked to the Fire Marshal about this issue and there are measures that can be incorporated into the building design that go beyond the standard additional measures required in the Wildland Urban Interface that would allow MOFD to sign off on projects without the need to remove trees. Staff is still working that through with MOFD. Their intent is to include a section in the Precise Plan that requires those measures in order to preserve trees where necessary.
Mayor Worth opened the Public Forum.
Erin Schultz agreed with many of the concerns Commissioners raised, one being directing height allowances and then increasing the likelihood of the large development that does not go through design review. She questions the logic that they are taking the best real estate of the proposed main street and the most “Villagey” part of the Village side of Orinda and directing the large development that the City would have no subjective control over. She thinks keeping these design criteria as a guideline to projects that would have to through subjective review similar to what Santa Barbara is doing would make more sense than giving away that additional height to projects that are not going to go through subjective design review.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 11 of 22 11.17.21
Regarding the tree points, she strongly supports having requirements in the ODSs that address trees and landscaping at the street front. They have not talked much about the other side of Orinda but the civic space requirements for the BevMo block is very low and she thinks if they want to foster a widened sidewalk that would promote that vibrancy and possibly publicly open plaza, that requirement should be increased. She also asked why there is a maximum façade zone of 10 feet. She asked if this is not to have the suburban parking look or she asked what the thinking is here. Also, splitting the retail to the two sides of North Orinda just seems like they are splitting apart a limited resource as it is.
They are not going to get that much retail and it is also proven in planning theory that grouping retail is a good idea.
Nick Waranoff said on behalf of local small businesses he lodged a protest that nothing is being done in the slightest to acknowledge their existence and, more importantly, to make any effort to design this plan to protect their existing small businesses to the maximum extent possible. He thinks the lack of empathy shown is shameful and disheartening, with no regard for those whose livelihood depends on their businesses that will be displaced. He also joined in concerns expressed with the Fairs block or country club block. That is the most beautiful block in the entire downtown and has a fabulous Village-feel to it with social interaction and food destinations and everything should be done to preserve that block.
He would also say the drawings provided by Opticos are completely inconsistent with the lip service paid by the references to the parking requirements in the Orinda zoning code.
Opticos is known for housing that does not include parking, is anti-automobile establishment which should be taken into account. He thinks the design standards need to include something inside the box. It is vital in attracting families and seniors to downsize that the City require some percentage of 2 bedroom or more units. Otherwise, studios will be built and 1-bedrooms because those are the most profitable for developers.
Michelle Jacobson referred to page 15 of a drawing trying to replicate Camino Sobrante and it showed a courtyard on the corner and described it as a community benefit. If these are ODSs she asked if that was a discretionary action required as a trade-off for something else. She thinks all drawings and photographs should represent what is being proposed in the ODSs so if it is a 55 foot high building with a 10 foot step back at the top and no setbacks, this is what should be drawn and photos should be examples of architectural styles of at least 5 stories because these styles change as they get taller.
She asked where the pocket parks be able to go in the Theater District, asked if Opticos has addressed the fire issue of no combustible materials of no wood on the Mediterranean styled buildings, and she does not understand why there are no setbacks, especially with narrow sidewalks. This provides the opportunity for street cafes and trees and urged this be reconsidered. Lastly, she would like to hear from Opticos as to how they would describe the downtown of Orinda from 10,000 feet and not why things were done but what is the end result and philosophy of the downtown approach, how is retail being preserved, where is retail and why it is located where it is.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 12 of 22 11.17.21
Marianne Moser said she believes the City of Lafayette has maintained its 35 foot height limits without concession and asked that Orinda look to that as a model. Regarding architectural styles, it was mentioned that Victorian could be synonymous with a farmhouse style and she would say one style overlooked was the rancher style which is prevalent here and asked if this could be considered.
Mr. Buckley referred to the ranch style and he thinks it is very much associated with single-family residential but there is not a ranch style associated with a traditional or even 1950’s downtown so he was not sure how this would translate into a downtown area. He asked Mr. Pellegrini could respond about the philosophy of the downtown.
Mr. Pellegrini said understanding what the community’s goals were for the downtown expressed in the broader process there was a value of having a downtown where people could come together, that had walkable components, that was a clear heart of the community, understanding there have not been many investments in the downtown in quite some time with room for new development to inject life into that area. From a standards approach they sought to leverage those ideas and understand where there were opportunities to create some vitality or build upon existing vitality. One of the things they talked about was the idea of creating some retail environments that were across both sides of a main street. The best example of that is on Moraga Way in the Theater District and they are seeing some key opportunities to increase and grow that, particularly focusing on the BevMo block.
In the Village District the stretch of Orinda Way because of the non-residential uses and institutional uses on the north side of Orinda it made a main street area to emerge in the core of the plan much more difficult and challenging. So this was seen as an opportunity to focus that activity both closest to the Theater District on the eastern portion of the project area closest to the BART Station and on the western side at the intersection of Camino Pablo and Orinda Way.
So, the idea of creating these two nodes was at the core of that. Also, there is the idea they could leverage those areas as “park once” opportunities where if someone is coming to the downtown in a car, they are parking in an area where it is easy to walk to a variety of destinations without moving their car again and they would think of that as an opportunity with the idea that the residential infill opportunity that could be in between those nodes would create an opportunity for people to live downtown and also walk to those areas with focused amenities.
Lastly, he pointed out that there is an opportunity to build a public network of space in the downtown. The sidewalks are somewhat limited, not always wide enough to support a lot of activities they would want to see in a vibrant downtown, and the degree of connectivity is not very high. They know in places that are vibrant they want to have multiple intersections, multiple blocks and opportunities for different types of downtown exchanges to happen.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 13 of 22 11.17.21
On one hand there are frontage requirements within the zones and they look at that as flexible frontage as zero to 10 in the DC and the 10 to 20 in the DG to actually provide opportunities to increase the amount of publicly accessible space that can occur between the sidewalk and the fronts of buildings. The frontage standards create those opportunities.
The civic space requirement, the square footage based on project size is also intended to create targeted public spaces and the threshold for that thinking about a development opportunity within a single parcel is really thinking of it as the size of a parklet; the size of one or two parking spaces that can create a public space that could be a benefit for that parcel and a benefit for the surrounding neighborhood. This is the lower threshold they are trying to achieve with the idea it could start to build some incremental public spaces in the downtown.
The additional standards or some of these pedestrian paseos that would emerge out of larger development projects is again a design to create new opportunities for frontage, connectivity and public space within the downtown that could enhance vitality. He thinks the expectation is when thinking about doing these things through zoning there will always be incremental things occurring over time. The City will see existing businesses continue to be maintained until those property owners are ready to make a move and redevelop.
What you should ensure there is that when they are ready to redevelop that the form and character can actually benefit the larger downtown.
These are some of the ways that the standards start to translate into a vision for the downtown which is embedded in these ODS.
Mr. Buckley said one comment was why there are no setbacks, but he thinks there are setbacks required based on a number of factors and he asked Mr. Pellegrini to explain this.
Mr. Pellegrini explained that in the Downtown Core Zone it is a flexible zero to 10 foot front setback. There is an expectation that the side yards that these buildings are built to the zero lot line because they are making continuous main street environments similar to what is seen within the Theater District. The idea with the zero to 10 foot front setback is that the setback is being treated as an extension of the sidewalk. It could be articulated as a wider sidewalk, active frontages, but it is expected to be enhancing the public realm.
In the DG zone they have a 10 to 20 foot flexible setback and that is articulated by a broader range of frontage, including residential frontages. That is designed to provide transition zones behind the back of the sidewalk and the front of buildings that promote livable environments for residents so they can come out of a unit and not be right on the back of the sidewalk or have a porch or stoop that is creating a transition zone between the unit and the public realm that can start to promote a livable environment in downtown.
This is the thinking of where the flexible setbacks comes from.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 14 of 22 11.17.21
Mr. Buckley said they are flexible but also required based on the length of the wall, and Mr. Pellegrini confirmed. The DC zone has a much higher percentage of building that is required to be in that zone. He thinks it is 80% with the idea that buildings are making a continuous façade or an almost continuous façade when walking along the sidewalk. In the DG zone the percentage is actually lower with the idea that side yards and ancillary spaces become more of the streetscape experienced when walking along the sidewalk.
Mr. Buckley said there was a comment about describing something as community benefits, and he said originally they did have a number of different community benefits discussed and they still may be using that term but they are trying to convert all of that into requirements that come into play based on specific standards such as the size of the parcel, etc. They recognize the traditional idea of community benefits as a negotiation tool is problematic given the objective standard world they are moving towards based on all of the State legislation.
Regarding the comment about why would they want to split the retail into two different places as opposed to maintaining continuity throughout, he asked Mr. Pellegrini to respond to this.
Mr. Pellegrini said the central core of Orinda Way is challenged. One is that the land uses on the north side of the street are predominantly institutional in nature so it is very difficult to think about Orinda Way as a two-sided main street. Retail in principle usually functions the best when it is in an environment that has access from more than one side.
There are some examples at neighborhood centers where retail is focused along one side of a street but in order to have a vibrant environment you look for that. They looked at opportunities to bolster the existing area within the Theater District and make an area within the Village District that could have that double-sided experience.
The power lines are also a big issue in that they are going to challenge significant redevelopment investment within the core of the plan area. They looked again for areas that would not be hindered by the town and dealing with the interface of those power lines.
Mayor Worth said there must be objective standards and have a particular architectural style. She thinks Mediterranean and Spanish Revival are the City’s roots and so there is a lot of interest. She referred to the front page of the architectural styles overview. As a lay person she asked if it is possible to set a style or a range like Mediterranean and then do modifications and she pointed to the building next to the Theater.
Mr. Buckley said this is a real struggle with ODSs and how you have a complete set of standards that can be used to create beautiful buildings. The goal is to allow a certain amount of flexibility with different choices but within that architectural vocabulary. You would not be able to mix and match and if they wanted more than one architectural style they would need to sign up for more than one.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 15 of 22 11.17.21
Mr. Pellegrini displayed an image from the presentation having to do with details for the Mediterranean style. What is objective here are the dimensioned described and annotated on the diagrams on the bottom half. This is an example of making choices as to what the City wants to regulate. What would uphold as an ODS here is something like the open eave section which is the overhang of the eave would be indicated by a letter C and the depth of the eave is indicated letter A.
There are a whole variety of architectural outcomes, materials, colors that could actually be compliant with that eave but the overhang and depth of the eave is what would remain consistent. Unless you put in the standards that “there shall be Spanish tile on every roof” you cannot apply it as an objective standard. So what they want is a balance between flexibility where there can be different outcomes that can be expressed and some predictability, particularly for projects that do not have an opportunity for somebody that is well versed in design review who would ask to make the eave deeper to improve the scale of the building.
Commissioner Iverson said this was her question and concern, and said she was worried about a design booklet that tries to do what Wilder did with 6 styles but with only one. We are not Santa Barbara but Orinda has a variety of styles. She feels like what they saw with the Wilder design booklet is some homes interpreted the styles where phenomenal, but they also saw some that did a big stucco box and stuck a cross on it and said it was Spanish or they would take a 5,000 square foot cottage and put fake rocks on the front, so sometimes these architectural styles can result in worse implementations and not better. She thought they could allow it being more agnostic on what the style is but be very rigorous with rooflines, balconies, windows, and human scale usability.
Mr. Buckley said that would be the ODSs without any architectural style specified. He believes what they have is much more rigorous set of requirements that apply to the kind of aspects Commissioner Iverson mentioned even without the architectural styles. The concern is they are completely exposed if someone wants to misinterpret that and they are only subject to ODSs. They could use stucco material or use colors or do things even if they met all other requirements which could result in an abomination of a project.
From his perspective, it is very important to include the architectural piece which gets into more and better details which they did not have in Wilder. He thinks it is unlikely that the day after they adopt the Precise Plan they will get a flood of applications. The more likely scenario is that eventually they get one project, see how it works, and they would have an opportunity to decide whether to amend the rules to add more architectural styles so they do not end up with a community with all one style.
Vice Mayor Fay said he would like to explore Commissioner Iverson’s mention of Art Deco. He asked if there is a way to construct some ODSs that would allow Art Deco elements in a building if it was consistent with the area around it such as nearby the theater and community center.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 16 of 22 11.17.21
Mr. Buckley said there is definitely a vocabulary to Art Deco and to that period of architecture. It is one of those styles that has proven difficult to do with newer buildings.
They tend to look Disneyland-ish for some reason even though it is a beautiful style of architecture from the period. For elements, if they go with architectural styles they must stick with it and have the full suite of standards that apply to that one style.
Commissioner Hubner said he is a little concerned that the opposite to the Village point which is the Santa Maria intersection with Orinda Way. There is some opportunity for some across the street retail frontage but it seems so tiny that the opportunity to stretch it down to the civic center at least in the first block past the greenway might be an opportunity for vital retail on that end of that part of town, and he suggested looking into this.
Secondly, he would be careful about Art Deco style as they will get the Chevron station proposal a while back. It is tricky because Art Deco and Streamlined Modern is a style that does not repeat very well with modern materials. The flipside is that if you do not prescribe some red clay tile or some oak turned balustrades they will get funny looking eaves with the Spanish Revival and Mission style. He was unsure how to create a style without identifying the materials that are a key element of that style, so he would be concerned they do include some of the materials requirements.
Mr. Buckley said one point they did not respond to was that in the Wildland Urban Interface there are restrictions on natural materials when it comes to wood, so this is something to keep in mind. However, manufactured wood can be used.
Councilmember Miller said one of the things she notices in the Marina District in San Francisco is that Crunch Fitness has tried to replicate the Art Deco style and it has not done a successful endeavor at it. There have been other places that are very unattractive with Art Deco elements as well, and what she found that she was on a mission to find Art Deco and she found that some of the Art Deco elements that come into the Mediterranean styles a bit. In addition were the tile colors. She thinks the Mediterranean style also includes almost like a teal or blue darker tiles and different colors of the same shaped tile and different things people can do to differentiate their design while still meeting it.
Therefore, she is worried if the City does not have rigorous ODSs and it seems the State is getting more strict on any other discretion items and will tell the City they are trying to block housing. She also said the gallery discussion with the articulation with the sidewalk seems very important and they really should have that activated sidewalk and pedestrian areas, green spaces, and implementing this into the City’s drainage or bio swales standards.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 17 of 22 11.17.21
There was also discussion about the end of the Village where the historic bridge is. This is an important block and she questioned why they are going so dense there. One thing she would say is that they have to find some place they are zoning for residential, and she asked if this was zoned for residential. On one side is El Toyonal where there is a hillside and they are not blocking views and on the other side is the golf course versus the community center where people at the park and library plaza want to be able to look out and look into the hills. There is a different situation at the Fairs block that makes it seem to be potentially more tenable for that height. They also have to find spaces for housing and it is a challenge, as some of the sites for study are not ideal and include going into the Wagner Ranch Nature area which most residents will not want. Therefore, she questioned what could be done.
Councilmember Gee said she appreciates the conversation and she understands how important the ODSs are. If she understands correctly, the 55 feet as an ODS is wonderful right up until someone fits into the SB 35 or any other law that will allow them to not have to completely adhere to it, meaning they could potentially be three stories higher than 55 feet. The belief is that would not happen because economically it would not be something someone would want to develop. But, the City does not know that 100% and they would not be able to stop it.
Mr. Buckley confirmed this is correct.
Councilmember Gee said she has been supportive of the idea of 55 feet in certain locations which is probably appropriate and feasible. In other locations, the idea it could be that height and then more worries her. She thinks that is the area the community will focus in on fastest in terms of concerns with the downtown. So, she was not sure what the solution is. She appreciates the architectural experience and expertise but she is just not sure what the right answer is.
Vice Mayor Fay said the Council knows in general the market will determine what is going to get built which will get used properly, but not all of it will. Developers make mistakes occasionally, so he asked how to construct something to avoid the worst mistakes they might make such as flooding the downtown with studio units. He would like to see a mix of housing that allows young couples to move in and then move into a larger unit when needed as well as those that need to downsize. He agrees with Councilmember Gee and is very concerned with how high the development could be in some areas.
Mr. Buckley said there is also the issue of the length between the building height and density. The way RHNA works, it is based on the allowable density and not on the density with the density bonus and the allowable building height that goes along with that.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 18 of 22 11.17.21
The Council is not approving the ODSs tonight. Staff is trying to kick off the EIR and one piece most relevant to that is the building height issue. At a minimum, it would be helpful to know what to include in that EIR analysis. They would see the impacts of those taller heights if they go with the plan as proposed and that would give the Council the option of making this decision at that time.
Mayor Worth clarified that if they are doing an EIR if they have an envelope they can go down but cannot go up. Councilmember Miller’s points are very good about the RHNA as the City must get a State-approved housing element and accommodate numbers. She was not sure what would happen in the legislative session with a successor to SB 50 which would dictate height near BART.
Commissioner Hubner said one question originally posed in the presentation was whether they have an opinion on 35, 45, or 55 feet as the height limit. He recalled that the units per acre density are materially reduced when taking 55 down to 45 feet.
Mr. Buckley said for 45 feet it is not that big of a deal, but to 35 feet it is as they would start to look at smaller unit sizes. His goal would be to give the Council the most flexibility at the end of the day when it comes time to make the final decision regarding that issue.
Mayor Worth confirmed they could always go down from 55 feet, testing an envelope and it would give the City the opportunity what that would look like and then the Council can set the limit.
Commissioner Hubner said he is concerned the City achieve its numbers but he has the same concerns about opening the flood gates.
Mayor Worth said it would be helpful to get more detail regarding the distinctions between 55 feet or 5 stories and going up because she knows there are huge differences in costs and facilities.
Councilmember Kosla said he and Councilmember Miller have heard much of these conversations over the year. He thinks a lot of this conversation reiterates the fact that he wants a chapter or section in the Precise Plan is very clear on how to amend the Precise Plan, how to amend the ODSs and when they will be used. As it stands he is hearing the ODSs are only really required for SB 35 and maybe for SB 330 which is for everything.
They could have this whole thing turn out very narrow on the ODSs for very certain projects.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 19 of 22 11.17.21
He was hoping the Precise Plan would have guidelines that made it easier for development that they could all agree on which would lead these not to be just specific for SB 35 or SB 330. That is one thing they should nail down. Or, that there be a matrix for SB 35 or SB 330 projects with criteria one must use but they also have to use these for discretionary projects, but they can do contemporary or other style, but there is going to be some discretion. So, he would like to figure out all of this and be able to understand how to amend it over time.
Mr. Buckley confirmed staff is looking at this.
Councilmember Kosla said he has been a big fan on one-stop-shop for the Precise Plan.
The Council talked about carving out an area being a “zone” such as calling it the “Downtown Precise Plan Zone” and then everything else in the zoning code does not apply. A developer can look at this Precise Plan with the two sub-zones of DC and DG within this overarching zone. Also, a lot of the conversation is about the muttons and bullions and the high end materials, not using foam, making the lighting and treatments and buildings really good on the outside. Right now the parking in the ODSs kicks it to the zoning code. When they get there, everything should be in the Precise Plan as much as possible and in the ODSs.
With regard to density bonus, a developer can waiver out of everything and they do not even have to ask for more density because it is easier to waiver than use the concessions or incentives because they must show financial hardship for those whereas waivers are gimmies. The Council also talked about using those downslopes more such as where the Village Barber is. They could extend that and maybe have 5 stories back there and then it could come down to 3 as it plateau’s off looking towards the park. He thinks if treatments and step backs are used these will not bother him and could help that a bit, especially along Camino Pablo. He also likes contemporary architecture because it just looks less massive, and he would be open to looking at one other design, as well as roof decks on condo buildings which are very popular.
Regarding the EPS study, there is good information in it, but he would not use it necessarily as the Gospel. At the end of the day 5 stories works great at a certain price of land but 4 stories works great at a certain price of land too. There are new technologies that come out all the time as there is timber now where buildings can be built higher with it, so he thinks being sensitive of the height issue is important. Regarding the bio-swales, they look horrible most of the year as well as the detention ponds and he hoped there might be new plant materials or something that can improve upon the aesthetic yearround when not being used.
Mayor Worth re-opened the Public Forum.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 20 of 22 11.17.21
Michelle Jacobson said the Planning Commissioners might not have been aware of what happened when PlaceWorks adjusted the demand for affordable housing. The number increased because of having to do with the Mixed Use zone where the State is worried that a City might call a group of parcels for mixed use and then build it all out in retail and not follow through on the residential. They give a City a certain amount of credit for these which was a serious reduction. In the Mixed Use zone in the DC she does not see a protection for the retail side of things, and perhaps in some areas it might be wise to have mixed use but in other areas have full retail next to full residential, given the size of the downtown. She would prefer this simply to retain the protection of the retail spaces in downtown.
Erin Schultz said she wanted to build on Councilmember Kosla’s comment that there can easily be a tiered approach to this document where certain pieces are made for SB 35 fast-track elements and certain guidelines are laid out the City would be willing to accept for other developments with some design review to give developers confidence in their project moving forward. She reiterated that she does not think they should be directing SB 35 development to the best parts of Orinda.
In the DC zone there are lined buildings allowed up to 300x400 feet. In her comments she emailed she overlaid that footprint and it is really massive and out of scale with the small downtown, so this is not appropriate. Also, circulation parallel to Orinda Way on the north side is not really addressed within the blocks so she cannot visualize what is the goal of those blocks that are being created for residential with the pedestrian walks.
Nick Waranoff said it seems what makes the most sense is to retain the 35 foot height limit in terms of zoning and to have the EIR consultants contemplate in the DEIR the fact that there are possible waivers that might result in 65 foot heights. He thinks this is a more prudent approach than to tell the EIR consultants analyze a 55 foot limit and then have to understand it might be 3 stories above that. In looking at the City of Lafayette, they have retained a 35 foot limit downtown and the block across from the library and from Whole Foods this is being redeveloped. The developer asked for a waiver of the 35 foot height limit which illustrates the benefit of retaining the 35 feet.
In terms of setbacks, Mr. Buckley and the Mayor assumed that you could not have a setback standard for above 35 feet if they have a 35 foot limit. He would take issue with that assumption and did not see why it wouldn’t take into account the waiver, incentive and concession provisions where if a higher height was allowed these setbacks would come into play.
Mayor Worth asked if staff had enough direction. Mr. Buckley asked to get an understanding about the height issue for purposes in the EIR.
Mayor Worth referred to flexibility, said the City needs to have a downtown framework that will enable the City to accommodate RHNA, as well as other sites. She asked how Commissioners and Councilmembers felt.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 21 of 22 11.17.21
Vice Mayor Fay asked if there wasn’t any reason why they couldn’t have 35 feet as the standard but also test alternatives at 45 and 55 feet. This might make the EIR more expensive but this would also maintain the City’s flexibility.
Mr. Buckley said this is a bit late to add this complexity into the EIR process. The Notice of Preparation needs to be done and staff needs to start on this tomorrow.
Commissioner Iverson said she believes they have to do that as part of the scoping requirement, but she suggested not confusing what is done with an EIR with what you do for real life. She would be in favor of staff’s recommendation and then dropping down.
Councilmember Kosla said just because they say 55 feet is the cap, he asked what would happen if someone uses the density bonus and go up to 80 feet. He asked if a supplemental EIR would need to be done.
Mr. Buckley said this is a complicated question and something they discussed with the EIR consultant as to what they analyze; allowable or allowed with density bonus. Most places go with what is allowed by the code. Perhaps there is a way to deal with that with the alternative analysis, as well.
Commissioner Hubner said if someone came in with an 85 foot proposal and the City has an EIR that is 55 feet, they would require a new EIR. Mr. Buckley said he believes at that point you would have a ministerial project not subject to environmental review.
City Attorney Wolff said for CEQA purposes the key is ‘reasonably foreseeable’. The discussion has focused on the fact you can have a height limit but you know that density bonus projects will come through and they are likely to use waivers and concessions, etc. to get themselves up to the 55 feet. It might be this is what is analyzed in the EIR not because it is the height limit the City ends up approving but instead because it is the reasonably foreseeable height development might come through at.
Councilmember Gee said she is fine with the logic of analyzing 55 feet for the EIR. In her world if someone came in and wanted to build something that was 85 feet it would not be environmentally cleared. She guessed this is just an area that will be fraught with litigation.
She would hope that would potentially be a way to stop something like that, but she is fine with the 55 feet for purposes of the EIR but she is very concerned with where this goes for the rest of the questions.
Mayor Worth said it will be tested in the courts and she thinks it is what is reasonably foreseeable as the City Attorney said, and she said that the direction was to go with the 55 feet analysis for the EIR.
H. OTHER COMMISSION MATTERS – None.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council & Planning Commission
Special Workshop Minutes Page 22 of 22 11.17.21
I. PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS – None.
J. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S UPDATE – None.
K. ADJOURNMENT
The Special Meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:40 p.m. ______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: City Council Joint Meeting Minutes with Planning Commission - November 17, 2021 (2651 : City Council Minutes) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: January 18, 2022
Department: Finance
AGENDA TITLE: Monthly Report of Receipts and Disbursements for the Period November 1, 2021 through November 30, 2021 and Summary of Revenue, Expenditures, and Preliminary Fund Balances for July 1, 2021 through November 30, 2021
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report of receipts, disbursements, and preliminary fund balances for the month of November 2021.
BACKGROUND:
This report combines monthly reporting to the City Council of two separate financial benchmarks: 1) The issuance of checks and payments for obligations incurred by the City during the month; 2) A monthly report of Revenue and Expenditures for the month and preliminary fund balances based on year to date activity.
State Code References to City Financial Reporting
Section 37208 of the Government Code specifies the presentation of payments made by the City to the City Council. An option is available to forego the presentation of these lists provided the City Council ratifies an audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The City practice has been to present a monthly listing of payments, which goes above and beyond the minimum requirements in State law. Separate from the Payment Listing, California Government Code Section 41004, requires that the City Treasurer submit a monthly report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. This is contained in the second half of the report.
DISCUSSION:
Payment Listing
The disbursement listing includes detail for the month of November including: A) Checks and electronic fund transfers (EFT) issued for accounts payable (Listed in descending order of the amount of the payment); B) A summary of purchases made with Credit Cards (US Bank Corp); and C) A listing by name of payroll checks and direct deposits. The total payroll costs are disclosed in the aggregate.
The payment and disbursement report includes detailed itemization of City issued payments as follows:
NOVEMBER 2021 DISBURSEMENTS
F.2
Packet Pg. 28
Type of Transaction Check #’s $ Amount (Incl.
Wires)
General Checks / Wires 65676-65812 907,719.98
Payroll 9475-9478 185,023.94
51474-51551
Payroll Tax Withholding Electronic 56,774.99
Retirement/Medical/Clipper Electronic 97,459.44
TOTAL 1,246,978.35
Payments / disbursements processed for the month including general accounts payable plus payroll and benefits totaled approximately $1.2 million. The General Accounts Payable payments totaled $907,720. Approximately 52% of the general accounts payable was comprised of the following categories of expense: 1) County Contract Services for Police and Library ($344,878), and 2) Pavement Rehabilitation Project contractor payments ($128,897).
Included in the listing of General disbursements is a payment to US Bank Corporation for expenses made with purchase cards. In addition to disclosing the total payment to the bank for credit card purchases, a separate summary list detailing the charges is provided (Attachment B). The purchases were made between September 17, 2021 to October 16, 2021 and the total expenditures made with credit cards was $8,584.
Report of Revenue / Expenditures and Fund Balances as of November 30, 2021 The following Table displays the activity for the month of November in the first three columns. The right side of the table reports year to date results including the preliminary beginning and ending fund balance as of November 30, 2021. Rather than listing all of the funds individually the table combines funds by common groups.
Monthly Report of Revenue, Expenditures, and Preliminary Fund Balance (Includes Inter-fund Transfers in Revenue / Expenditures –Preliminary Unaudited) For the Period Ending November 30, 2021
F.2
Packet Pg. 29
CURRENT PERIOD 7/1/2021 YEAR TO DATE: Jul-Nov 11/30/2021 Fund Name / Group
Current Month
Revenue /
Transfers In
Current Month
Expenses /
Transfers Out
Beginning Fund
Balance
Year To Date
Revenue
Year To Date
Expenses
Fund Balance
End of Period
General Fund $ 527,087 $ 1,257,839 $ 11,021,922 $ 2,066,983 $ 5,790,728 $ 7,298,176 G.F. Measure L Sales Tax 2,208 13,904 3,646,087 86,511 57,845 3,674,753 Add-on Sales Tax Measure R 371,761 41,070 587,348 846,050 426,963 1,006,435 Gas Tax 105,058 72,182 452,543 413,206 199,322 666,426
Impact Fees 37,725 7,950 4,207,943 189,438 99,478 4,297,903 Grants 53,926 134,043 669,380 3,075,667 806,754 2,938,293 CCTA Funds 40,023 19,741 799,949 163,333 64,975 898,307 Road Maintenance Fund 196,693 (11,105) 948,301 493,535 191,572 1,250,263 Trust Funds - - 1,466,395 3,150 12,089 1,457,457
Maintenance Assessment Dist. - 7,551 10,877 16 41,430 (30,537) Stormwater Fund - 17,642 279,664 13,156 106,815 186,005 Library Fund - 47,873 302,123 514 116,310 186,327
Wilder Community Facilities Dist. - 14,519 205,263 - 90,263 115,000 Debt - - 2,163,069 11,341 1,906,269 268,142
Internal Service Funds - 10,680 2,510,294 1,014,911 500,457 3,024,749 Road Emergency Stabilization - - 825,526 1,498 - 827,024 Other Capital Projects - 10,474 2,444,992 20,521 36,491 2,429,022 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 1,334,481 $ 1,644,365 $ 32,541,676 $ 8,399,831 $ 10,447,762 $ 30,493,746 In the monthly report of Revenue and Expenditures above, total revenue recorded in November was $1.3 million and total expenditures were $1.6 million. The amount of reported expenditures is different from the amount reported earlier in the discussion of checks issued, due to a financial system accrual for October County Police Service in the month of November while the payment wasn’t issued until December.
As noted in the Table above, the total fund balance across all funds as of November 30th has decreased by approximately $2.0 million from the July 1, 2021 beginning balance of $32.5 million. The areas of the most significant variances include: General Fund (-$3.7 million) which is common at this time of year due to the delay in the receipt of General Fund Property Tax revenue; GO Bond Debt Services (-$1.9 million) expense to date includes annual principal payments; and Grants Fund ($2.3 million) for the receipt of American Rescue Plan (ARP) Federal Local Fiscal Recovery Fund in July.
The deficit in the Maintenance Assessment District occurs since the General Fund transfer to support these activities does not occur until June 30th at year end.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting these reports.
Attachments:
A. November 2021 Check Listing(PDF)
B. November 2021 Cal-Card Transactions (PDF)
C. November 2021 Payroll Listing (PDF)
Respectfully Submitted by:
Doug Alessio
Administrative Services Director
Prepared By: Nancy Zhang,
F.2
Packet Pg. 30
Approved by:
F.2
Packet Pg. 31
City of Orinda
Check/Voucher Register
From 11/1/2021 Through 11/30/2021
Check # Check Date Payee Transaction Description $Amount 65684 11/5/2021 Treasurer of Contra Costa Coun SEPT. 21 POLICE SERVICES 313,619.32 65698 11/5/2021 MCK SERVICES INC. SEP. 21 ORINDA WY PAVEMENT REHAB. PROJ. 85,510.64 65799 11/23/2021 MCE CORPORATION OCT. 21 LANDSCAPING SVCS. 33,432.30 65757 11/17/2021 PARK ENGINEERING JUL 21- SEPT. 30, 2021, PAVEMENT REHAB. - ORINDA WAY
32,690.90
65729 11/17/2021 CCC LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION JULY - SEPT. 21 ADD'L HOURS OF LIBRARY SERVICE 31,259.00 65805 11/23/2021 SHUTE MIHALEY & WEINBERGER OCT. 21 LEGAL FEES 29,580.34 65680 11/5/2021 Branagh Custom Homes REFUND LANDSCAPE PERFORMANCE BOND 22,750.00 65803 11/23/2021 P G & E 10-6/11-3-21 SVC. 17,166.75
65766 11/17/2021 Thorn Hauling OCT. 21 CHIPPER SERVICE 17,149.00 65785 11/23/2021 COWAN & THOMPSON CONSTR. CLEAR CREEK OF DEBRIS - 216 CRESTVIEW DR 16,966.10 65791 11/23/2021 EBMUD 9-1/10-28-21 SVC. 16,959.32
65701 11/5/2021 PlaceWorks, Inc. SEPT. 21 DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN 16,924.39 65697 11/5/2021 MAZE & ASSOCIATES AUDIT FOR YEAR ENDED JUN. 30, 2021 16,273.00 65772 11/23/2021 GRC ROOFING CO ROOF REPAIRS - ORINDA COMM. CENTER 15,600.00 65788 11/23/2021 DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC. 9-25/10-29-21, LAVENIDA CULVERT REPAIR 12,817.82 65742 11/17/2021 DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC. 5-1/9-24-21 LAVENIDA CULVERT REPAIR 11,979.49 65801 11/23/2021 BOB MURRAY & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 11,972.52 65764 11/17/2021 SWINERTON MANAGEMENT 2019 PAVEMENT REHAB. PROJECT 10,695.00 65763 11/17/2021 Jamieson & Stephanie Suriyakam REFUND PERFORMANCE BOND - 66 BOEGER RANCH 10,000.00 65743 11/17/2021 EBMUD 8-26/10-26-21 SVC. 9,944.57
65771 11/17/2021 U S BANK CORPORATION CREDIT CARD CHARGES FOR NOV. 21 8,584.12 65711 11/5/2021 WEX INC OCT. 21 GASOLINE CHGS. 8,206.17 65689 11/5/2021 CSG CONSULTANTS 518 BEAR CREEK RD. - EBMUD SOLAR PANELS 8,020.00 65699 11/5/2021 MOUSER LAW FIRM, REPLACEMENT CK. FOR JAN. 21 HR SERVICES 7,917.00 65784 11/23/2021 CINTAS CORPORATION CLEANING SERVICE 7,322.04 65781 11/23/2021 CINQUINI & PASSARINO INC BOUNDARY SURVEY - OAKS PARK/DESCANCO DR. 7,225.00 65769 11/17/2021 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES OCT. 21 JANITORIAL SERVICE 6,617.00 65767 11/17/2021 PATRICIA TOMLINSON INSTR. CONTRACT - BALLET 6,095.00 65812 11/23/2021 YBA SHIRTS INC 2022 BASKETBALL JERSEYS 5,576.40 65760 11/17/2021 PRECISION IT CONSULTING OCT. 21 MONTHLY SUPPORT SVCS. 5,375.00 65727 11/17/2021 California Consulting, Inc. NOV. 21 GRANT WRITING SERVICES 5,000.00 65807 11/23/2021 Tripepi, Smith and Associates KICKOFF STRATEGIC PLAN 4,825.00 65775 11/23/2021 ASSOC OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS NOV. 21 NATURAL GAS 4,586.45 65773 11/23/2021 Advanced Mobility Group 10-31-21, ON-CALL ENGR. SVCS. 4,161.20 65811 11/23/2021 West Coast Sound Solutions ACOUSTIC CEILING TILES 4,151.50 65752 11/17/2021 Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. 6-25/10-24-21, CITY HALL SLOPE STABILIZATION PROJ. 4,020.00 65690 11/5/2021 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION JULY-SEPT. 2021 - TRAFFIC SIGNALS 3,870.77 65712 11/17/2021 T-MOBILE USA, Inc. EQUIPMENT ONLY - 7 IPHONES 3,478.32 65724 11/17/2021 Bison Controls LLC CONTROLLER/REMOTE SVC. 3,414.00 65759 11/17/2021 P G & E 9-3/10-4-21 SVC. 3,170.43
65794 11/23/2021 Geocon Consultants, Inc. 05-16-21 PEER REVIEW - 2 MODOC ROAD 2,860.00 65678 11/5/2021 Atlas Technical Consultants SOILS PEER REVIEW - 6 PATRICK LANE 2,547.50 65745 11/17/2021 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. JUL - SEPT. 21 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 2,526.28 65786 11/23/2021 DC ELECTRIC GROUP INC OCT. 21 EXTRA WORK SIGNALS 2,513.34 65708 11/5/2021 Tripepi, Smith and Associates COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT 2,325.00 65755 11/17/2021 MID-COUNTY OFFICIALS NETWORK SEPT. - OCT. 2021 SOCCER REFEREES 2,294.00 65768 11/17/2021 Tripepi, Smith and Associates COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT 2,225.00 65686 11/5/2021 CINTAS CORPORATION CLEANING SERVICE 1,854.71 65732 11/17/2021 CCC SHERIFF FORENSIC SERVICE FORENSIC SERVICES 1,830.50 65800 11/23/2021 Municipal Pooling Authority NOV. 21 LTD/LIFE INSURANCE 1,757.53 65715 11/17/2021 AMS AMERICAN MECHANICAL SVCS HVAC MAINT. - CITY HALL 1,705.39 65726 11/17/2021 SPORTS SUPPLY GROUP INC BASKETBALL EQUIPMENT 1,536.48 65798 11/23/2021 SUSAN MCALLISTER INSTR. CONTRACT - ART CLASS 1,474.92 65735 11/17/2021 Comcast Business 11-13/12-12-21 SVC. 1,433.55 Page: 1
F.2.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: November 2021 Check Listing (2622 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - November 2021) City of Orinda
Check/Voucher Register
From 11/1/2021 Through 11/30/2021
Check # Check Date Payee Transaction Description $Amount 65721 11/17/2021 BASIC Benefits LLC 11-12-21 FLEX SPENDING 1,433.48 65696 11/5/2021 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ON-CALL ENGR. SVCS. - MINER ROAD 1,411.25 65718 11/17/2021 AUTOMATED CONTROL INC BUILDING CONTROLS NETWORK - LIBRARY 1,400.00 65693 11/5/2021 GRANICUS INC NOV. 21 AGENDA MTG. SOFTWARE 1,359.60 65749 11/17/2021 GRANICUS INC SEPT. 21 AGENDA MTG. SOFTWARE 1,359.60 65739 11/17/2021 DIAMOND K SUPPLY DRAINAGE MAINT. - SAND & SANDBAGS 1,272.38 65790 11/23/2021 EAST BAY TREE SERVICE EMERGENCY TREE REMOVAL - 104 CAMINO PABLO 1,200.00 65753 11/17/2021 KONICA MINOLTA BUSNSS SOLUTION COPIER MAINT. FOR QTR ENDING 07-01/09-30-21 1,191.28 65676 11/5/2021 Advanced Mobility Group ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENG. SERVICES 1,105.00 65741 11/17/2021 JEANNE DOWELL INSTR. CONTRACT - YOGA 1,078.00 65761 11/17/2021 RINCON CONSULTANTANTS, INC DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN/HOUSING ELEMENT 1,047.50 65692 11/5/2021 GRAINGER MAINT. SUPPLIES 1,040.44
65702 11/5/2021 PURCHASE POWER POSTAGE METER REFILL 1,020.99 65804 11/23/2021 Curtis Roberts Mold Inspection MOLD INSPECTION 1,020.00 65762 11/17/2021 Stephanie Spellman REFUND OVER-PAYMENT OF PERMIT OR-2020-514 1,017.00 65738 11/17/2021 DIABLO STRIPING OIS FIELD LINING 1,000.00 65796 11/23/2021 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES OCT. 21 CAMINO PABLO BICYCLE ROUTE 950.00 65710 11/5/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS 9-11/10-10-21, CELL SERVICE 945.26 65809 11/23/2021 VERIZON WIRELESS 10-11/11-10-21 CELL PHONE SERVICE 945.00 65770 11/17/2021 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 10-15/11-11-21, ADA PORTABLE RENTAL 923.26 65717 11/17/2021 AT&T 10-4/11-3-21 SVC. 883.84
65688 11/5/2021 CREATIVE SUPPORTS INC ERGONOMIC WORKSTATION UPDATE 837.32 65733 11/17/2021 CINTAS CORPORATION CLEANING SERVICE 807.68 65792 11/23/2021 ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS OCT. 21 HOUSING ELEMENT 775.00 65700 11/5/2021 P G & E 8-17/9-15-21 SVC. 759.66
65722 11/17/2021 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP EAST BAY OCT. 21 CLASSIFIED ADS 691.44 65694 11/5/2021 LISA HARPER OCT. 19, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 645.00 65797 11/23/2021 ISSCO BACKFLOW REPAIRS - WILDER PARK 593.00 65731 11/17/2021 Treasurer of Contra Costa Coun CLETS FY 20-21 ANNUAL FEES 577.20 65714 11/17/2021 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT NOV 21 STORAGE DOCUMENTS 545.16 65776 11/23/2021 Avila Project Management OCT. 21, LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN 525.00 65810 11/23/2021 Larry Wadford INSTR. CONTRACT - MARTIAL ARTS 493.20 65756 11/17/2021 ORINDA MOTORS INC VEHICLE MAINT. - '04 TOYOTA TACOMA 453.09 65730 11/17/2021 CCC POLICE CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION FISCAL YR. 21/22 MEMBERSHIP DUES 387.50 65709 11/5/2021 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 10-6/11-2-21, PORTABLE RENTAL - 80 IVY DRIVE 387.48 65808 11/23/2021 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 11-3/11-30-21, PORTABLE RENTAL - IVY DRIVE 387.48 65716 11/17/2021 ARAMARK JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 371.88
65777 11/23/2021 BROADCAST MUSIC INC 11-01/10-31-2022, LICENSING FEE 368.00 65725 11/17/2021 BOMAC'S INC. LOCK REPAIRS 365.00
65744 11/17/2021 ECOFERT INC OCT. 21 FERTIGATION SERVICE 365.00 65802 11/23/2021 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY NOV 20, ELEVATOR SERVICE - LIBRARY 350.00 65793 11/23/2021 FAST SIGNS CORRUGATED PLASTIC 330.75
65720 11/17/2021 Avila Project Management OCT. 21 ORINDA WAY PAVEMENT REHAB. 330.00 65685 11/5/2021 CCC SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN-SERVICE COURSE - RADAR OPERATOR 319.00 65747 11/17/2021 FORENSIC SERVICES DIVISION JULY-SEPT. 21 FORENSIC SERVICES 308.28 65750 11/17/2021 LISA HARPER NOV. 2, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 255.00 65795 11/23/2021 LISA HARPER NOV. 14, 2021,SSTOC MTG. MINUTES 255.00 65705 11/5/2021 Cyle Sherman REFUND SECURITY DEPOSIT - PERMIT #3658 250.00 65758 11/17/2021 Pestfinders Pest & Termite Svc MO. PEST CONTROL SERVICES 250.00 65723 11/17/2021 BERRY BROS. TOWING & TRANSPORTTOW SERVICE - VEHICLE #84 230.00 65774 11/23/2021 ARAMARK P & R UNIFORMS & SUPPLIES 217.02 65713 11/17/2021 ABSOLUTE PLUMBING GARBAGE DISPOSAL REPAIRS 217.00 65687 11/5/2021 COUNTY ASPHALT LLC PAVEMENT MAINT. 216.31 65746 11/17/2021 FAMILY JUSTICE ALLIANCE 7-1/6-30-22, POLICE CHIEF'S ASSOC. CONTRIBUTIONS 200.00 Page: 2
F.2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: November 2021 Check Listing (2622 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - November 2021) City of Orinda
Check/Voucher Register
From 11/1/2021 Through 11/30/2021
Check # Check Date Payee Transaction Description $Amount 65787 11/23/2021 DIAMOND K SUPPLY DRAINAGE MATERIALS - WILDER 151.17 65748 11/17/2021 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 11-12-21 GARNISHMENT 145.00 65728 11/17/2021 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT 11-12-21 GARNISHMENT 144.00 65736 11/17/2021 Concentra Medical Centers PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING 132.00 65706 11/5/2021 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 128.75 65806 11/23/2021 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES 125.85 65765 11/17/2021 ROBERT THOMPSON 11-7-21 MILEAGE 124.00 65704 11/5/2021 Screening One, Inc. OCT. 21 PRE-EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 120.95 65737 11/17/2021 CONCORD UNIFORMS LLC POLICE UNIFORMS 87.69 65683 11/5/2021 CCC GENERAL SERVICES DEPT SEPT. 21 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT. 79.08 65779 11/23/2021 CCC PUBLIC WORKS DEPT OCT. 21 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT. 73.81 65677 11/5/2021 ARAMARK PW UNIFORMS 73.67
65695 11/5/2021 JANET KAUFMAN INSTR. CONTRACT - NIA CLASS 64.90 65740 11/17/2021 DOJ ACCOUNTING SERVICES OCT. 21, FINGERPRINTING APPS. 64.00 65751 11/17/2021 Ricky Hernandez 11-7-21 MILEAGE 50.40
65778 11/23/2021 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK FILING FEE 50.00 65754 11/17/2021 JOHN LENNY REFUND COMPLETED PROJECT - PERMIT DRA-2018- 040
45.50 65780 11/23/2021 SCOTT CHRISTIE ENGR. ADVISORY COMMITTEE MTG. - 12-10-21 45.00 65789 11/23/2021 EAST BAY BLUE PRINT 09-13/10-12-21 SERVICE CONTRACT 42.50 65734 11/17/2021 Sylvia Colucci REIMBURSEMENT FOR FINGERPRINTING 41.00 65681 11/5/2021 SPORTS SUPPLY GROUP INC SOCCER UNIFORM 22.99 64601 11/3/2021 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT VOID CHECKS (144.00) 64604 11/3/2021 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD VOID CHECKS (145.00) 64606 11/3/2021 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 856 VOID CHECKS (1,204.00) 64603 11/3/2021 BASIC Benefits LLC VOID CHECKS (1,244.17) 64605 11/3/2021 RINCON CONSULTANTANTS, INC VOID CHECKS (2,812.50) Report Total 907,719.98
Page: 3
F.2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: November 2021 Check Listing (2622 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - November 2021) City of Orinda
Payment Summary for US Bank CalCard Payment
November 2021 (Attachment B)
U. S. BANK CORPORATION
SEPTEMBER 17, 2021 THROUGH OCTOBER 16, 2021
STMT. 10-16-21
Transaction Description $Amount
WEBINAR - 10-14/3-17-21 ZOOM ACCT. 293.01
OFFICE SUPPLIES, SURGICAL MASKS 175.59
HD TV, CLEANING SUPPLES, WOOD STAIN, SANDER 1,054.88
MO. IRRIGATION CONTROLS 59.80
MISC. HARDWARE 911.81
PW MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1,390.98
GARDEN STAKES FOR POSTING NOTICES 90.98
HARDWARE FOR SOCCER GOALS 75.68
SHIPPING CHARGES FOR INTOXIMETERS 15.85
PORTABLE POWER STATION 291.92
CELLPHONE SUBSCRIPTION 696.00
TEMPERATURE MONITORS FOR SERVER ROOM 802.20
FUEL FOR GENERATOR 22.65
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR PRESENTATION AND DINNER 150.00
HOTEL STAYS FOR LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES - 2 ATTENDEES 1,047.55 INTERVIEW PANEL SUPPLIES 168.00
TOUCHLESS FAUCET, CLEANING SUPPLIES, ELECTRIC FAN 607.57 VARIOUS FACILITY SUPPLIES 300.59
SUBSCRIPTIONS - EAST BAY TIMES AND COGITO FORMS 30.63
SOCCER UNIFORM 27.43
MEETING SUPPLIES 15.01
MAYOR'S & CITY MGR. MEETING 20.36
SOCCER COACH WHISTLES 108.50
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION - STATE OF CALIFORNIA 20.00
CAR WASH 9.00
SURGICAL MASKS 109.42
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - SEALANT 88.71
US BANK CHECK #65771 Issued November 17, 2021 8,584.12
Page: 1
F.2.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: November 2021 Cal-Card Transactions (2622 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - November 2021) City of Orinda
Summay Check/Transaction Register
Payroll Register for November 2021
Document # Document Date Employee Name First, MI Name
9475 11/12/2021 Casey Cynthia C.
9476 11/12/2021 Hayashi Daniel T.
51474 11/12/2021 Amerman Jennifer K.
51475 11/12/2021 Arroyo Miguel A.
51476 11/12/2021 Biggs David C.
51477 11/12/2021 Bodner David C.
51478 11/12/2021 Buckley Drummond F.
51479 11/12/2021 Chatman Rasha
51480 11/12/2021 Chen Jason Y.
51481 11/12/2021 Cheng Ly
51482 11/12/2021 Christie Scott
51483 11/12/2021 Cortez Christopher A.
51484 11/12/2021 Cronin Michele B.
51485 11/12/2021 Delmartini Matthew C.
51486 11/12/2021 Ecklund Steven C.
51487 11/12/2021 Ehrhardt Stephen D.
51488 11/12/2021 Fierner Tod D.
51489 11/12/2021 Flores Jennie
51490 11/12/2021 Gerk Rueben A.
51491 11/12/2021 Hayden Carla L.
51492 11/12/2021 Hernandez Ricardo
51493 11/12/2021 Hughes Darin E.
51494 11/12/2021 Karuppusamy Natarajan Sivakumar
51495 11/12/2021 Laris Jane
51496 11/12/2021 Leach Mark S.
51497 11/12/2021 Low Jamila
51498 11/12/2021 McCourt Kevin
51499 11/12/2021 Mui Winnie
51500 11/12/2021 Needoba Roger
51501 11/12/2021 Rankin Paul
51502 11/12/2021 Rubalcava Israel P.
51503 11/12/2021 Schaufler Lori B.
51504 11/12/2021 Smith Sheri
51505 11/12/2021 Tamayo Julia M.
51506 11/12/2021 Thompson Linda M.
51507 11/12/2021 Thompson Robert A.
51508 11/12/2021 Trimble Todd
51509 11/12/2021 Wellman-Miner Sheena
51510 11/12/2021 Zhang Ning
9477 11/26/2021 Casey Cynthia C.
9478 11/26/2021 Hayashi Daniel T.
51511 11/26/2021 Amerman Jennifer K.
51512 11/26/2021 Arroyo Miguel A.
51513 11/26/2021 Biggs David C.
51514 11/26/2021 Buckley Drummond F.
51515 11/26/2021 Carter Stephen M.
51516 11/26/2021 Chatman Rasha
51517 11/26/2021 Chen Jason Y.
51518 11/26/2021 Cheng Ly
Date: 12/27/2021, 4:03 PM Page: 1
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: November 2021 Payroll Listing (2622 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - November 2021) City of Orinda
Summay Check/Transaction Register
Payroll Register for November 2021
Document # Document Date Employee Name First, MI Name
51519 11/26/2021 Christie Scott
51520 11/26/2021 Cortez Christopher A.
51521 11/26/2021 Cronin Michele B.
51522 11/26/2021 Delmartini Matthew C.
51523 11/26/2021 Ecklund Steven C.
51524 11/26/2021 Ehrhardt Stephen D.
51525 11/26/2021 Fierner Tod D.
51526 11/26/2021 Flores Jennie
51527 11/26/2021 Gerk Rueben A.
51528 11/26/2021 Hayden Carla L.
51529 11/26/2021 Hayes Judith A.
51530 11/26/2021 Hernandez Ricardo
51531 11/26/2021 Hughes Darin E.
51532 11/26/2021 Karuppusamy Natarajan Sivakumar
51533 11/26/2021 Laris Jane
51534 11/26/2021 Leach Mark S.
51535 11/26/2021 Low Jamila
51536 11/26/2021 Maples Joseph T.
51537 11/26/2021 McCourt Kevin
51538 11/26/2021 Mui Winnie
51539 11/26/2021 Needoba Roger
51540 11/26/2021 Perez Norma
51541 11/26/2021 Rankin Paul
51542 11/26/2021 Rubalcava Israel P.
51543 11/26/2021 Schaufler Lori B.
51544 11/26/2021 Smith Sheri
51545 11/26/2021 Staton Virginia K.
51546 11/26/2021 Tamayo Julia M.
51547 11/26/2021 Thompson Linda M.
51548 11/26/2021 Thompson Robert A.
51549 11/26/2021 Trimble Todd
51550 11/26/2021 Wellman-Miner Sheena
51551 11/26/2021 Zhang Ning
Payroll Payments Pay Period 11-12: 89,148.20
Pay Period 11-26: 95,875.74
Subtotal Payroll 185,023.94
Payroll Taxes 56,774.99
EE Benefits 97,459.44
Accounts Payable (See Attachment A) 907,719.98
Grand total 1,246,978.35
Date: 12/27/2021, 4:03 PM Page: 2
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: November 2021 Payroll Listing (2622 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - November 2021) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: January 18, 2022
Department: Parks and Recreation
AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City of Orinda’s application for, and receipt of, Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid Program Matching Funds
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to file an application with the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the amount of $700,000 for the Orinda Community Park Renovation Project, and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all required documentation.
BACKGROUND:
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a federal program to assist States in planning, acquisition, and development of recreation lands and dates back to 1964.
Outer Continental Shelf mineral receipts, sales of federal surplus real property, federal recreation fees, and federal motorboat fuel taxes all serve as funding sources for the LWCF.
The National Park Service (NPS) administers the LWCF program at the federal level.
Funds allocated to California are administered by the California Department of Parks And Recreation under the provisions of the California Outdoor Recreation Resources Plan Act of 1967, (Public Resources Code §5099 et seq.).
When an LWCF project is completed, the land within the approved 6(f)(3) boundary map is placed under federal protection to preserve the public’s outdoor recreational use of the site in perpetuity for the benefit of our nation’s future generations.
DISCUSSION:
Staff proposes to file an application for the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid program to advance an additional phase of the Orinda Community Park Renovation Project. The City Council last discussed the Orinda Community Park Master Plan on October, 5, 2021. The staff report from that meeting provides additional background and is attached. That report highlighted that Phase 1 would be the replacement of the aging restroom structure using Prop 68 funding. Since that time, the City has received an updated final master plan which is attached, and updated cost estimates were developed to assist us in crafting the next grant submittals. The project will have to occur in multiple phases, as the total updated estimate of the entirety of the project is $3.4 million or more.
F.3
Packet Pg. 38
The funding under the LWCF grant, if awarded, will be used to renovate the southwest portion of the park, including the addition of an outdoor exercise area and bioswale, the replacement of the existing tot playground with two age-appropriate play areas, the renovation of the adjacent pathways, and the creation of an accessible park entrance from Orinda Way. These elements fit within the amount of funding expected to be supported by funds available for the 50% match which was a critical decision point in the scaling of the project. In addition, focusing work on these areas allows the remainder of the park to remain open and active.
Depending upon timing, this work would be done perhaps as a Phase 1B, or Phase 2 of the project, with our goal being to minimize disruptions. If funding is awarded, staff will likely conduct an RFP process for the final design and management of this phase of the park renovation.
LWCF Priorities that make the Orinda Community Park Renovation Project, and these specific elements, eligible include: 1) the Project will renovate existing and create new outdoor facilities in an existing park not currently under federal 6(f)(3) protection, 2) the Project will provide community space for healthy lifestyles, children’s play areas, cultural activities, and historic preservation for people for all ages, 3) the Project will provide safety and beautification in an existing park with renovated and new facilities, and 4) the Project provides for preservation of this land as a recreational amenity.
Applications by local agencies under the program, and the City, as the applicant, certifies by resolution the approval of the application and the availability of eligible matching funds prior to submission of the application to the State.
NEXT STEPS:
The City is prepared to submit the grant application and meet following deadlines:
- Grantee submits the application and adopted resolution to LWFC by February 1, 2022.
In addition, if successful, we will need to modify the adopted CIP in the future to reflect the award of the grant funds and to appropriate the match.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Project costs of $792,000 identified in the adopted CIP only contemplate the initial phase of this project and the corresponding funding consists of Prop 68 State Bond Act funds of $177,000, and local funding of $615,000 consisting of Park Dedication Fees ($415,000), and donations or private grants ($200,000). As outlined in the CIP, the initial phase of the project consists primarily of planning and design cost as well as addressing the restrooms. The LWCF grant would help partially address funding for future improvements contemplated in the master plan.
Conditions in the LWCF grant require projects include at least a 50% local match. Of the $615,000 in local funding already identified above, $44,250 is committed as local match for the Prop 68 grant, leaving $570,750 available as local match for the LWCF F.3
Packet Pg. 39
grant. Based upon current CIP needs and budget projections, staff anticipates another $129,250 of local funding, consisting primarily of Park Dedication Fees, are available to commit as local matching funds resulting in the request of approximately $700,000 to the LWCF program.
Attachments:
A. Resolution 04-22 Land Water Conservation Fund (PDF)
B. Staff Report Park Master -Tuesday, October 5, 2021 (PDF) C. Orinda Community Park Master Plan Revised_211223 (PDF) Respectfully Submitted by:
Todd Trimble
Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Todd Trimble, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by:
F.3
Packet Pg. 40
Resolution No. 04-22
RESOLUTION OF THE (Applicant’s Governing Body):
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND
AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Congress under Public Law 88-578 has authorized the establishment of a federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid program, providing Matching funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for acquiring lands and developing Facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for administration of the program in the State, setting up necessary rules and procedures governing Applications by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, the Applicant certifies by resolution the approval of the Application and the availability of eligible Matching funds prior to submission of the Application to the State; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the (Governing Body):
hereby:
1. Approves the filing of an Application for Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance for the proposed;
(Project Name):
2. Agrees to abide by Section 6(f)(3) of Public Law 88-578 which states “No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the National Secretary of the Interior, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.”
3. Certifies that said agency has Matching funds from eligible source(s) and can finance 100 percent of the Project, which up to half may be reimbursed; and
4. Appoints the (Authorized Representative Designated Position Title):
as agent of the Applicant to conduct
all negotiations and execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, Applications, Contracts, amendments, payment requests, and compliance with all applicable current state and federal laws which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned Project.
Approved and Adopted on the day of , 20 .
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by (Applicant’s Governing Body):
following a roll call vote:
Ayes
Noes
Absent
Dennis Fay, Mayor
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Resolution 04-22 Land Water Conservation Fund (2653 : LWCF Resolution) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: October 5, 2021
Department: Parks and Recreation
AGENDA TITLE: Orinda Community Park Master Plan Conceptual Design Update RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive this update regarding the Orinda Community Park Master Plan conceptual design and provide feedback. If applicable, a motion to adopt may be sought.
BACKGROUND:
Capital Improvement Plan project 4112 was proposed and approved in April 16, 2013.
Initially planned to improve the Community Park restrooms and rehabilitate the existing park gazebo, the scope of the project grew to include several other amenities in the park that were at, or nearing, the end of their useful life, including the children’s’ play structures, the pathways, and the picnic areas.
In mid-2016, the City retained a landscape architecture firm for the purpose of design and development of an overall master plan for Orinda Community Park. A draft master plan was approved by the Park and Recreation Commission on December 14, 2016 and recommended for presentation to the City Council. On March 6, 2018, the City Council received a presentation from the architect regarding Orinda Community Park Master Plan conceptual design. During public testimony on the proposal certain aspects of the conceptual plan were not seen as favorable changes.
The City Council directed staff to work with the design consultants on revisions. The revised Plan was presented at the June 12, 2018 meeting, and the City Council approved the revised Orinda Community Park Master Plan conceptual design.
DISCUSSION:
In 2018, the intention was to direct the architect to complete the design development and cost estimate, proceed with surveying and site mapping, create construction drawings, and develop a phasing plan. However, other projects and priorities took precedent through 2019 and, then, early in 2020, the pandemic changed everything and priorities evolved again, bringing us to present time.
Also in June 2018, California voters passed Proposition 68, the $4.1 billion “Parks, Environment, and Water Bond Act”. The proposed project funding for several years identified a variety of funding sources, including contributions from local foundations and private donors, park bonds, and local Park Dedication and Improvement Funds. In 2018, it appeared the per capita portion of the bond act would provide Orinda with $200,000. The amount available from the State Bond Act has been decreased to approximately $177,000 and there is a mandatory 25% local match. The application H.2
Packet Pg. 109
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Staff Report Park Master -Tuesday, October 5, 2021 (2653 : LWCF Resolution) deadline for the State Bond funding is December 31, 2021; contracts must be encumbered by June 1, 2022; and the project benefitting from the per capita funds is to be completed by December 31, 2023.
Adopted CIP Budget
The project as shown in the CIP adopted June 29, 2021 had planned to have project design underway in FY 2021/2022, and construction to occur in FY 2022/2023. The current budgeted cost for the entire project as presented in the CIP is $792,000. Of this amount a total of $200,000 is shown as donations or private grants that would still need to be secured. The Orinda Park and Recreation Foundation had planned to initiate fundraising efforts, but the process has been delayed and it is unknown at this time as to when and to what extent the effort may resume. Staff will continue with discussions on this matter.
The following is a breakdown of the current identified funding:
Project 4112 Community Park Renovation Plan and Improvements Funding FY 2021/2022 FY 2022/2023 TOTAL
Park Ded. Funds $ 140,000 $ 275,000 $ 415,000
State Prop 68 Grant 177,000 177,000
Other Donations 200,000 200,000
TOTAL $ 140,000 $ 652,000 $ 792,000
It was anticipated that the detailed design would need to be undertaken in phases depending on the funding available. Phase 1 of the design is proposed to encompass addressing the restrooms based on funding available from the State Park Grant and budgeted Park Dedication and Improvement Fees. Staff would also work with the Designer to identify potential additional elements that could be incorporated with the secured funds available, and from a phasing and timing would be best done in conjunction with the restroom work.
Conceptual Design Changes Reviewed By Parks & Recreation Commission The conceptual design that the Council received at the March 6, 2018 meeting showed the removal of the existing restroom (in the southeastern section of the park) and the addition of a slightly larger restroom between a new children’s play area and the tennis courts (slightly north of where the tire swing is today). However, as a result of public testimony received at the 2018 meeting, changes were made to the design which retained the smaller restroom (currently located adjacent to the Kindergym building and in front of the outdoor amphitheater). The design as last presented also included the addition of a new restroom building in the northwestern section of the park.
Having a second location would significantly add to the project cost as it would also require utility connections to an area not currently services. A rough preliminary estimate is that this element could require $400,000 of the available funding. A second location also has incremental on-going operating costs.
H.2
Packet Pg. 110
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Staff Report Park Master -Tuesday, October 5, 2021 (2653 : LWCF Resolution) At the September 8, 2021 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, Staff presented the Commission Members with an alternative recommendation to enlarge the smaller park restroom in lieu of the addition of a new restroom building. The design would increase the size from 2 stalls to 3 stalls at a location currently serviced by water and sewer connections. Estimates of the incremental cost are pending, however, it is expected to be significantly less than the $400,000 cost of a separate building. The Commission was supportive of this change.
NEXT STEPS:
If the Council agrees with the recommended revision, Staff, will proceed with submitting the Proposition 68 per capita grant application; and will direct the architect to complete the design for a phased improvement project. Depending upon funding source availability, the project could be implemented in phases, though, the goal is to undertake the project in as few stages as possible with the elimination of a second restroom building contributing to that goal by freeing up some capacity for other elements.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The adopted Budget and CIP includes $140,000 for Design Services in Fiscal Year 2021-2022. Prior to seeking bids Staff will return with more detailed estimates and the proposed Phase 1 scope. Staff is also will working with our grant consultant (California Consulting) to submit an application for a competitive Land and Water Conservation Fund grant which has an application deadline of February 1, 2022. Because the announcement of any grant award would be sometime following February the grant may need to be considered as a source of funding for a future.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Original and Revised Conceptual Designs (may not be to scale) Respectfully Submitted by:
Todd Trimble
Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Todd Trimble, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by:
H.2
Packet Pg. 111
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Staff Report Park Master -Tuesday, October 5, 2021 (2653 : LWCF Resolution) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Original and Revised Conceptual Designs (may not be to scale) (2558 : Community Park F.3.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Staff Report Park Master -Tuesday, October 5, 2021 (2653 : LWCF Resolution) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Original and Revised Conceptual Designs (may not be to scale) (2558 : Community Park F.3.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Staff Report Park Master -Tuesday, October 5, 2021 (2653 : LWCF Resolution)
ORINDA COMMUNIT Y PARK
Orinda, California 16043 Orinda Community Park Master Plan Revised_211223.indd
MASTER PLAN
wood fiber surfacing
existing tree to remain, typ.
picnic area
existing picnic tables to
remain
seatwall
asphalt pavement
sand play area
youth play area
entry feature paving
relocated art piece
entry pergola
tot play area
service vehicle access gate
new pedestrian ramp
existing guardrail to
remain
bbq, typ.
amphitheater slope
stabilization
amphitheater access
improvement
permeable concrete pavers
tree, typ.
existing asphalt pavement
prefab restroom with
concession
existing building to remain
bandstand storage container
drinking fountain
existing ball wall and
half court
existing tennis courts
new light, typ.
existing light to
remain, typ.
fitness cluster
existing wall
plantings, typ.
bench, typ.
swale
ornamental metal
fence
decomposed granite pavement, typ.
mulch
interpretive sign
ORINDA WAY
December 23, 2021
metal screen wall
F.3.c
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Orinda Community Park Master Plan Revised_211223 (2653 : LWCF Resolution) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.4
Date: January 18, 2022
Department:
Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Approve a Grant Application for the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle funding RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Transportation Development Act grant application for the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk, crossing Moraga Way, find the project categorically exempt with respect to CEQA by adopting Resolution No. 03-22, in a format specified by the grant requirements.
BACKGROUND:
Annually, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) notifies local agencies of available Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the design and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and improvements as well as the development of pedestrian and bicycle master plans and education programs. The basic objective of the TDA program is to increase the safety and efficiency of bicycle and pedestrian travel and to encourage non-automobile modes of transportation. MTC requires the City’s Bicycle Advisory Committee to review and approve the selected TDA grant application project.
The Orinda Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) is the designated Bicycle Advisory Committee for Orinda. TSAC is recommending the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive RRFB Crosswalk Project for the TDA grant application to the City Council. The application seeks grant funds to install an RRFB Crosswalk at the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive intersection as shown in the attached map (Attachment B). Grant Applications are due by January 27, 2022.
During the October 18, 2021 TSAC meeting, the TSAC reviewed the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive RRFB Crosswalk and the Estabueno Drive/Lavenida Drive Walkway, a project from the adopted Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan, and requested staff reach out to the residents in the neighborhood for feedback. Staff received negative feedback from all responding residents for the Estabueno Drive neighborhood due to the projects potential additional parking restrictions. At the subsequent December 20, 2021 TSAC meeting, the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive RRFB Crosswalk project was approved for consideration by City Council without the inclusion of the Estabueno Drive/Lavenida Walkway.
DISCUSSION:
F.4
Packet Pg. 48
Staff has prepared the TDA grant application for the installation of an RRFB Crosswalk at Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive.
The project elements include Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (solar powered) on each side of the roadway, with pedestrian push buttons, striping for a crosswalk, and pedestrian landings at each side of the crosswalk on Moraga Way.
Staff has prepared the grant application (Attachment B) for a $107,400 RRFB crosswalk project. The application includes a project description, cost estimate, map and Resolution No. 03-22. The application requests TDA funding in the amount of $97,400. $87,400 for construction with $10,000 in engineering and design work. The remaining $10,000 covered by in-kind services for staff project management.
The specific location will be determined in the design and engineering phase of the project. A potential location for the RRFB crosswalk is on the south side of the Moraga Way and Valley View Drive/Ardor Drive intersection as shown in the application.
The MTC allocation for the TDA grant varies annually. MTC has not notified Contra Costa County of the amount of funding available for bicycle and pedestrian projects for fiscal year 2022-2023. Generally, most agencies who are awarded grants receive funding ranging between $25,000 and $150,000 per project. It is possible that an award for less than the request is granted which will require the City to identify additional funding sources in order to proceed with the project.
Staff has evaluated the subject project with respect to CEQA and recommends that it be found categorically exempt under Section 15301.c “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines. Staff has filed the CEQA Notice of Exemption (Attachment C) with the County Clerk; submission of the filed Notice is required as part of the application process.
Final applications are due to the County and TDA Subcommittee on January 27, 2022.
A field review will be conducted by the TDA Subcommittee in February 2022 to evaluate the competing projects in Contra Costa County and recommend zero, partial or full grant funding for submitted projects. The grant funding recommendation will be presented at the Mayor’s Conference for approval in April/May 2022 and County’s Board of Supervisors approval in May/June 2022. Lastly, the final recommended applications will be forwarded to MTC for allocation approval. Historically, MTC does not formally approve the project list and funding allocation until late summer or early fall. If the project is recommended for TDA grant allocation, the project funding will be updated in the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2023.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will likely need to make non-substantive changes to application package for details such as including the stamped filed CEQA notice, edits to application form, adding photos and title sheets, etc. The complete application will be submitted to the County by the deadline of January 27, 2022.
F.4
Packet Pg. 49
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts at this time. If the project is recommended to receive a TDA grant, then the project will be included in the future Capital Improvement Plan. If the grant is less than requested, then Staff will propose additional matching City funds for Council approval.
Attachments:
A. TDA Application 2023 (PDF)
B. Resolution 03-22 Approve TDA Grant Application (DOCX) C. Notice of Exemption CEQA (PDF)
Respectfully Submitted by:
Scott Christie
Acting Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kevin McCourt, Assistant Engineer
Approved by:
F.4
Packet Pg. 50
22 Orinda Way Orinda California 94563
General Information Administration Planning Parks & Recreation Police Public Works (925) 253-4200 (ph) (925) 253-4220 (ph) (925) 253-4210 (ph) (925) 254-2445 (ph) (925) 254-6820 (ph) (925) 253-4231 (ph) (925) 254-9158 (fax) (925) 254-2068 (fax) (925) 253-7719 (fax) (925) 253-7716 (fax) (925) 254-9158 (fax) (925) 253-7699 (fax) January 27, 2022
Jerry Fahy
Division Manager - Transportation Engineering
Public Works Department
Contra Costa County
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: City of Orinda 2022/2023 TDA Grant Application Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk Transmittal of TDA Application
Dear Mr. Fahy:
The City of Orinda is pleased to submit a 2022/2023 TDA Grant Application for the Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive RRFB Crosswalk. Enclosed is a complete original application and 10 copies.
If you need further information or clarification, please contact Kevin McCourt at (925) 253-4251 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Scott Christie
Acting Director or Public Works & Engineering
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) City of Orinda
TDA 2022/23 Application
Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular RapidFlashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk Table of Contents
Application Form
Cost Estimate
Location Maps
CEQA Notice of Exemption, filed with County Clerk
Authorizing City Council Resolution, January 18, 2022
Neighborhood Presentation and Support E-mails
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) Resolution No. 03-22
Attachment B
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
Fiscal Year of this Claim: 2022-23 Applicant: City of Orinda Contact person: Kevin McCourt
Mailing Address: 22 Orida Way, Orinda, CA 94563
E-Mail Address: [email protected] Telephone: 925.253.4251 Secondary Contact (in event primary not available) Scott Christie, Senior Engineer E-Mail Address: [email protected] Telephone: 925.253.4219 Short Title Description of Project: Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive RRFB Crosswalk Amount of claim: $97,400
Functional Description of Project:
Installation of a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, Crosswalk striping at the intersection of Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive, ad installation of pedestrian ramps on crosswalk ends.
Financial Plan:
List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, engineering, construction, contingency).
Use the table below to show the project budget for the phase being funded or total project. Include prior and proposed future funding of the project. Planning funds may only be used for comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Project level planning is not an eligible use of TDA Article 3.
Project Elements: Solar Powered Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon and Cross-walk Striping Funding Source All Prior FYs Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals TDA Article 3 $97,400
list all other sources:
1. In-Kind Services $10,000
2. 3.
4. Totals $107,400
Project Eligibility: YES?/NO?
A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate date approval is anticipated).
YES
B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page. NO C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via: http://www.dot.ca.gov).
BA
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)? (If "NO," provide an explanation). Enter date the project was reviewed by the BAC:____12/20/2021_______________________ YES
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only for projects that include construction).
YES
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of project (month and year) October 202______
YES
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name:
City of Orinda will maintain the proposed project )
YES
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon Crosswalk Estimate 1/10/2022
Item Description Quantitiy Units Unit Estimate Total Estimate Costruction
1 RRFB 2 $20,000.00 $40,000.002 Striping 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.003 Landing 2 $15,000.00 $30,000.004 Signage 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 Subtotal $76,000.00Contingency (15%) $11,400.00
Total Construction $87,400.00
Engineering
Engineering Design $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Total Engineering $10,000.00
Total Project Estimate $97,400.00
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) Notice of Exemption
To: County Clerk
County of Contra Costa
555 Escobar St.
□ Martinez, CA 94553
From: City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda CA 94563
Project Title: Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk
Lead Agency & Applicant: City of Orinda
Project Location – Specific: Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive intersection Project Location – County: Contra Costa
Project Location – City: Orinda
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
Install pedestrian crossing deceives (push button activated beacon (RRFB, Rectangular RapidFlashing Beacon), stripe a crosswalk per Caltrans Standards, and install pedestrian ramps on crosswalk ends.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Orinda Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Department of Public Works and Engineering Services
Exempt Status: Categorical Exemption, 15301 Class 1 (c) Reason Why Project is Exempt:
Section 15301, Class 1, consists of minor alterations of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the determination. Section (c) includes existing streets and bicycle facilities. This project involves minor alteration to existing street facilities, with no expansion in use.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Christie, Senior Engineer Telephone: 925-253-4219
Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _______________ F.4.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023)
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:
Request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the
allocation of fiscal year 2022-2023
Transportation Development Act
Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle project
funding for the Moraga Way and
Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk
)
)
)
) Resolution No. 03-22
)
)
)
)
)
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds; and WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests from eligible claimants for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim, composed of certain required documents; and WHEREAS, the City of Orinda has undertaken a process in compliance with MTC Resolution No. 4108 for consideration of project proposals submitted by eligible claimants of TDA Article 3 funds in the Contra Costa County, and a prioritized list of projects, included as Attachment A of this resolution, was developed as a result of this process; and
WHEREAS, each claimant in Contra Costa County whose project or projects have been prioritized for inclusion in the fiscal year 2022-2023 TDA Article 3 countywide coordinated claim, has forwarded to the City of Orinda a certified copy of its governing body resolution for submittal to MTC requesting an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds; WHEREAS, the City of Orinda desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; and F.4.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023)
WHEREAS, Staff has evaluated the subject project with respect to CEQA and recommends that it be found categorically exempt under Section 15301.c “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Orinda declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code, and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Orinda to carry out the project; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that the project has been reviewed by the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee which acts as the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) of City of Orinda; and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Orinda attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Orinda approves the submittal to MTC, of the Contra Costa County fiscal year 2022-2023 TDA Article 3 countywide, coordinated claim, composed of the following required documents:
A. transmittal letter
B. a certified copy of this resolution, including Attachment A; C. one copy of the governing body resolution and required attachments, for each claimant whose project or projects are the subject of the coordinated claim;
D. a description of the process for public and staff review of all proposed projects submitted by eligible claimants for prioritization and inclusion in the countywide, coordinated claim; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that of the City of Orinda finds the subject project categorically exempt under Section 15301.c “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines and directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on January 18, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023)
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) Resolution No. 03-22
Attachment A
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding Findings
1. That the City of Orinda is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Orinda legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.
2. That the City of Orinda has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s).
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested.
5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).
7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or design engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of Orinda within the prior five fiscal years.
8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B is included in a locally approved bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, complete streets, or other relevant plan.
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a bikeway meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual.
10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed before the funds expire.
11. That the City of Orinda agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition TO: Honorable Members of the Orinda Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) TOPIC: Installation of a crosswalk at Ardor Dr/Valley View and Moraga Way OVERVIEW: Our local neighborhood in Orinda is committed to enhancing pedestrian and bike safety throughout Orinda.
We are very aware of all the great work that TSAC and the City Council have been doing to make our community safer for all pedestrians, bicyclists, commuters, and drivers. With the tragedy that occurred recently at Stanley Middle School, we have coalesced around the immediate need to install a crosswalk at what we consider to be one of the most dangerous intersections to cross in Orinda.
Our coalition (ON-TRAC) is requesting that TSAC consider the selection of Ardor Dr/Valley View as the yet-to-be identified location for the installation of a new signal-based crosswalk (exactly like the one on Moraga Way and Brookside adjacent to the McDonnell Nursery).
LOCATION: Ardor Dr/Valley View and Moraga Way
Driving Forces:
Safety of our children – Del Rey has over 400 students, OIS has between 800-900 students and Miramonte is around 1,200 students. Ability of children of any age to cross Moraga safely is currently not possible. Increased traffic flow due to development, increase of delivery drivers and commuters to and from Moraga. Pedestrian inability to cross Moraga Way safely to utilize the County Connection bus system as well as BART. Limited sight lines for drivers going both directions during major commute hours that coincide with school children pedestrian needs.
o The incline on Moraga Way headed north give drivers a short amount of distance and time to recognize this highly used intersection of Ardor/Valley View & Moraga Way. o The curve on Moraga Way headed south has the same impact on drivers Influx of new student drivers – this will provide an invaluable safety measure not only for pedestrians but also for the newly licensed drivers.
Longest stretch of Moraga Way without a safe way to cross.
Community Benefits:
Relatively inexpensive way to provide immediate safety to the Orinda Community. Increases commuter usage of County Connection bus as well as BART thereby reducing traffic on Moraga Way. Protects our two most precious resources the most – our children and our elderly -- by providing them a safe and non-time constrained ability to safely cross Moraga Way.
Proposed
Crosswalk
Proposed
Crosswalk
CC Bus / Bart Bus
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition Community Support:
Canvased 75 homes and directly connected with 45 households. Selection of emails from community members is attached as an addendum – the stories, insight, and passion for this project are all very evident in the emails.
Thank you for your review and consideration of this request. Look forward to meeting all of you via Zoom next Monday.
Bill Doyle
ON-TRAC
415-412-0558 / [email protected]
21 Sandy Ct
Notice incline of Moraga Way
towards Ardor / Valley View
intersection. During commuting and
school hours in the afternoon, the
sun is directly in the drivers’ eyes
Line of Sight for Drivers Going North on Moraga Way –
roughly 75 yards from intersection
Valley View intersection
Standard view for anyone trying to cross The curve on Moraga Way. AM sunlight directly impacts drivers headed South
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
Emails from Community Members
Total Homes Canvassed: 75
*****
Hi Bill,
Nice to meet you yesterday and thanks for taking on the crosswalk cause. We LOVE the idea for a crosswalk at Ardor/Valley View. We live on La Sombra Ct and there are 13 children on our court! I know between Loma Linda, Ardor, and Daisy Ln there are at least 18 more children! As for us, we have 3 children: 7yr old, 5yr old, almost 4yr old and all will be at Del Rey next year! We cross over from Ardor to Valley View to walk/bike and we would love to walk our neighborhood kids to Del Rey, a cross walk would make this a much safer option! Additionally, my husband and I (pre-pandemic) would take the bus to/from Bart everyday, and let me tell you the sprint across Moraga at dusk is NOT safe!! Best,
Katie Tuck
5 La Sombra Ct
****
Honorable TSAC Members,
First, I wish to again add my thank you for your thoughtful deliberations leading to the stop sign at Valley View Drive and Don Gabriel Way. Your support has provided a safer school route to Del Rey, with noticeable changes in the behavior of drivers. Xenophon has noted far fewer incidents of horses startled by high-speed vehicles, and a safer environment for their vulnerable participants. Anecdotally, more area kids are riding bikes to Del Rey and Miramonte. Also, the short path between the stop sign and the PG&E curve for Lost Valley-bound traffic has no doubt contributed to much calmer traffic rounding the PG&E substation curve, as our City Council asked us to continue monitoring.
Second, while we have more to do in Lost Valley for our Neighborhood Advisory Team, we’re turning our next priority to the Moraga Way end of Valley View. Kevin McCourt met with us earlier this summer and we appreciate his practical ideas and guidance as we make plans.
Third, an expanded circle of residents who live near or drive through that intersection have joined in identifying the compelling need for a crosswalk at the Moraga Way and Valley View intersection.
Consider the following:
There is a County Connection bus stop on both sides of the intersection. No matter which side of Moraga Way someone lives on, they will necessarily have to cross Moraga Way either in their outbound or inbound trip.
Valley View is part of a School route, which adds an element of risk beyond that of a similar bus stop crosswalk at McDonnell Nursery on Moraga Way.
A blinking-light, signed crosswalk is a relatively cheap way to improve pedestrian safety without impeding traffic flow.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
The Orinda City Council, having already shown their inclination to support pedestrian/bike safety and protect school routes, may have heightened interest after the tragic death of a school crossing guard in Lafayette September 9, and subsequent injury of a child there. The Lafayette Council’s deliberation and re-prioritization amidst the public angst and anger have no doubt been noticed by Orinda’s City Council.
Fourth, Orinda is not far behind Lafayette in having high pedestrian/bike risks to address. The East Bay Times in a September 26 follow-up article about School Route safety, at link (https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/09/26/east-bay-crossing-guards-death-renews-debateabout-traffic-safety/), characterized Orinda as not far behind Lafayette in an embarrassing index. We compare quite unfavorably to our Moraga or Danville counterparts, even Berkeley.
I have included an excerpt from that article below my signature. Thank you as ever for your time and effort making Orinda safer for all.
Sandy Roadcap
18 Edgewood Ct.
Excerpt:
“Over the past 10 years, there have been 23.08 pedestrian and bicycle fatalities per 100,000 population in Lafayette compared with 18.22 in Berkeley and 12.89 in Walnut Creek, according to a state database that collects and processes information gathered from collision scenes.
Lafayette was also the least safe of comparable nearby suburban communities in terms of bike and pedestrian fatalities or serious injuries as a result of collisions from 2014 to 2019, the system’s data shows. Those numbers are 22.62 per 100,000 population over the five-year period in Lafayette, 20.20 in nearby Orinda, 12.31 in Moraga, and 9.36 in Danville.”
****
To whom it may concern,
This is our letter of support for installing a crosswalk at the intersection of Ardor Drive and Moraga Way.
We have been residents of Orinda since 2008 and currently have two children in the Orinda school district. Since our time here the volume of traffic has increased along Moraga Way, particularly at times when children and other residents are also using the streets to get about. It is precarious to cross Moraga Way on foot in order to walk to school, or even cross Moraga Way to get to the bus stop for County Connection. We are within easy walking distance of schools and parks, but unfortunately walking feels unsafe due to the cars speed, heavy traffic flow, and limited visibility around the bend or over the rise of the road. We know of many families on our street and close by who feel the same way. In addition, we feel unable to fully take advantage of the public transportation options due to lack of safe ways to cross Moraga Way. The nearest crosswalks to us are significantly far away from us and leaves the residents of our immediate neighborhood(s) without safe options. Please consider installing a crosswalk in this area and make Orinda more accessible to all residents for alternative modes of commuting to school, work, or recreation. We know how highly the Orinda Community values its youngest residents and additional crosswalks would promote their safety today and for future generations as well.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
David and Maureen Shindle
13 La Sombra Ct
****
To whom it may concern:
Our family moved to Orinda last year and now live on Sandy Court off of Moraga Way. We love the city and community and are looking forward to getting to know more families as our kids begin school at Del Rey in a couple of years. For now we take our 2 young kids and 2 dogs on walks to the elementary school and around the different neighborhoods. Our only complaint or suggestion for making the community even better is to have safer walking and biking options, especially on and around Moraga Way. Our understanding is that the city is considering a crosswalk at the intersection of Moraga Way and Ardor Dr/Valley View Dr. We would very much support this as it is one of the most difficult areas to cross when there is high traffic. And when there isn't a lot of traffic, there often are cars driving quite quickly making it also difficult/unsafe. We hope you will consider this letter our indication of support for the installation of a crosswalk at this intersection.
Sincerely,
Michael and Jessica Yau
11 Sandy Ct. Orinda, CA 94563
*****
Hi Bill and Catherine,
I am very much in support of a crosswalk at Moraga way and Ardor/Valley View Drive. My name is Dolly Bahrami and I live at 12 Valley View Drive. When I moved to Orinda over 10 years ago, I naively thought that since the schools were close by, my children could walk to school. They were able to do so going to Del Rey as they didn’t have to cross Moraga way. When the time came for them to attend OIS, after a trial walk with my kids, I realized there was no way they could cross Moraga safely to go up Ivy drive.
Cars going up and down Moraga way, especially during the morning commute are in such a rush and are going extremely fast with no incentive to stop for pedestrians. It’s very unfortunate that we live in a beautiful small community with a great crime safety record but yet we have to worry about our children’s safety if they choose to walk to school.
In addition, as you know, there is also a bus stop across from Valley View on Moraga way heading to downtown Orinda and Bart. Again, it would be nice to have the option of taking the Bus as needed without having to worry about crossing a busy street.
Thank you so much for bringing this matter to the attention of Orinda’s Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. Our residence is definitely very supportive of installation of a much needed crosswalk at Moraga and Ardor /Valley View.
Dolly Bahrami
12 Valley View Drive
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
Hello Bill and Catherine,
Thank you for your efforts to make our community safer. I live in the Del Rey neighborhood and walk every morning with my two-year-old son from Ivy Drive, up Moraga to cross Moraga Road into the Valley View neighborhood. I either sprint across Moraga, wait a long time for a break in traffic or even at times I’ve gotten help from construction workers to stop traffic long enough for me to cross with my stroller. In the afternoon I have even witnessed kids walking home from OIS crossing Moraga to get to Valley View. A crosswalk, like the one at McDonnell Nursery or the one by Coral Drive would be a simple and wonderful solution to making our community and our children safer. Thank you for your work, especially from someone who would use it daily.
Thanks,
Jocelyn Bennion
23 Donna Maria Way
*****
Hi Bill,
Thank you for pulling together neighborhood support for a protected crosswalk at the corner of Moraga Way and Valley View/Ardor. We support this effort, and have experienced the danger associated with crossing Moraga Way at this location as pedestrians, as well as entering Moraga Way from Valley View when driving.
Many drivers on Moraga Way ignore the 35 mph speed limit, and this in combination with the limited sight lines due to the curve and hill on Moraga Way makes this a very dangerous intersection. We have witnessed numerous accidents at this location over the years. With more people in our neighborhood walking for exercise, or to access public transportation or get to school, this intersection has become even more dangerous.
We support the effort to install a protected crosswalk at this intersection, and we also strongly encourage the Orinda Police Department to step up their speed enforcement on Moraga Way and Valley View Drive.
Best Regards,
Jim & Sandra Earl
17 La Fond Lane
*****
Hi Bill- I live on Richard Ct, a small cul de sac off of Valley View (entrance opposite Crestview). I have 4 kids (two children currently at Del Rey, one at OIS, and one that is too young for school). I got your flyer related to the crosswalk at Valley View and Moraga. I strongly support this and thank you for any efforts you are making on this.
Brett Gibson
*****
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
Hi Bill,
Thank you for stopping by yesterday. My wife and I would like to express our strong support / desire for a crosswalk to be installed where you have proposed - crossing Moraga Way from Ardor. We have a 20 month old with a second due in January and enjoy walks around the neighborhood often. Additionally, both my wife and I will be commuting back into the city for work as soon as offices re-open and plan on taking the bus to and from BART. The crossing that is required is dangerous and timely having to wait for breaks in the traffic. A crosswalk in place would be a very welcome safety enhancement and would allow to feel comfortable walking, riding bikes, and just exploring the surrounding areas more.
Please let us know how else we may be able to support!
- Andrew Burke
1 Daisy Ln
*****
Bill,
Thanks for your note regarding your efforts to get a crosswalk at Moraga Way and Ardor/Valley View.
We agree with you that a crosswalk at that location makes sense due to the difficult line of sight at that intersection, and the location of two bus stops there. We see many people trying to cross the street at that intersection every day due to the fact that the closest crosswalk is so far away. We think a crosswalk there would make good sense to slow down traffic (to the speed limit) and create a safe place for people to cross the street to get to the bus stops.
Thanks again,
Joel and Jessica Kelly
16 Valley View Drive
*****
Hello Bill,
We are in total support of what you are trying to do at Moraga and Ardor/Valley View. When we purchased our home on Daisy Lane way back in 1996, we were told that there would be a traffic light and crosswalk at that intersection but it never happened. It is a difficult spot for everyone—drivers and/or pedestrians. The cars turning onto Moraga Way from Valley View are making almost blind turns (due to the hill + the glare from the sun) making it even more dangerous for walkers trying to cross Moraga Way. The sun is also a big issue for cars turning from Ardor at certain times of day. Anything to slow down the traffic would be great!
Thank you for taking the lead on this very important issue.
Joanne and Jeff Traeger
6 Daisy Lane
*****
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
Hello, my name is Tom Flynn and I live at 461 Moraga Way. I'd just like to add my support to the idea of a crosswalk at Moraga and Ardor/Valley View. The main reason is that it would make the County Connection bus stop on the other side of Moraga Way accessible, unlike the current situation since at most times of the day it is incredibly dangerous to try to run across Moraga Way. Traffic in both directions comes up to that intersection somewhat blind; northbound cresting a hill, and southbound rounding a curve. The closest crosswalks are nearly a mile away in either direction. I would like my son to be able to take the bus to Miramonte in the morning, but the idea of him trying to make a mad dash across the street to the bus stop is out of the question. There is a continuous 40+MPH traffic flow in both directions at that hour every morning. I am forced to drive him to school (which just adds to the traffic of course!) and the non-stop traffic means it sometimes takes 5 minutes or more just to peel out into traffic to make a left turn out of my driveway. I have also seen kids on bikes trying to cross at Ardor and Valley View in order to get to and from Del Rey school, and it's a scary situation.
Thanks,
Tom Flynn
461 Moraga Way
*****
Dear Bill:
We got your letter. We appreciate you thought about the safety of our neighborhood. Sure it is a great idea to put a crosswalk near the bus stop on the side of Ardor Dr. and to the opposite side of the bus stop near Valley View Road. There are quite a few people getting on or off the bus in these two bus stops on the opposite sides of Moraga Way. Thank you for your concern.
Hoi and Darlene Lee
6 La Sombra Ct.
*****
Hi Bill,
Thanks so much for dropping off that letter regarding advocating for a crosswalk. I’d love to help. Maybe we can connect by phone sometime in the next couple days? I live at 6 Valley View Drive and have been pretty involved with the ongoing battle of traffic calming measures in our area (our group just got the stop signs installed at VVD/DG). I’m optimistic about implementing more traffic calming measures. It sounds like you’ve done a lot of research, so I’m curious to hear what you’ve learned.
My oldest just started at OIS and takes the county connection bus every morning. Those bus stops (and that curve in general) are insanely dangerous. And there is really no safe place for OIS students to cross Moraga Way until you get down to the Del Rey intersection. (I know you know this, I’m just now experiencing this part firsthand and it’s so incredibly frustrating.) As a driver, I’ve also come somewhat close to hitting a pedestrian at VVD and Moraga Way. She had gotten off the bus and was crossing the street and I was just focused on looking for cross traffic. It’s a terrifying intersection in so many ways.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
Anyway, glad to have you working on this! LMK when is a good time to chat.
Alycia Shada
6 Valley View Drive
415.272.0003
*****
Hello Neighbor!! Welcome!!
Thank you for dropping off your flyer.
My husband Kevin and I (Donna) are in full support of a crosswalk signal! Maybe you should consider asking for a Stop light and settle for a signal?
I am wondering if we should also ask for a No Right Turn on Valley View off Moraga Way (from weekdays 7-9am).
Over the years the city has added no left turns and right turns off Moraga way to keep High School students and Parents from taking "shortcuts" past OIS on Ivy Dr. and down Lavenida Dr to get to MHS faster. With the Ivy & Lavenida signs up, the High School students now zoom down Valley View and (windy/narrow) Don Gabriel Way starting at 7:40 am to save a few minutes on their way to MHS. This takes HS students & parents (on cell phones) past Del Rey Elementary, just as the elementary school kids on bikes, or walking are also going to Del Rey.
Give me a call if you would like to chat
Donna Eastman
37 Don Gabriel Way
925-899-1173
*****
To whom it may concern,
My wife Courtney and I (15 Crestview Drive) support these efforts in installing a crosswalk at Ardor and Valley View.
Thanks,
Jason Chandler
15 Crestview Drive
*****
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in support for installing a crosswalk from Ardor to Valley View across Moraga Way. Whether you are a student walking or biking to school, a commuter taking the bus to BART, or a F.4.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
dog walker such as myself, crossing Moraga Way is treacherous any time of day. I wish there had been a crosswalk when I moved to this neighborhood 14 years ago. But it is never too late to make Orinda a more walkable town and safer for both pedestrians and drivers alike.
Regards,
Brian Gunn
31 Sandy Ct
****
Hello Mr. Doyle
Thank you so much for your letter. We have lived at 466 Moraga Way for 42 years.
We agree with you 100% to have a high-tech solar crosswalk at Moraga Way and Ardor/Valley View.
Moraga Way is out of control.
Yesterday, around 4:45 we could not get out of our driveway the traffic was so bad going both ways.
It is getting worse and worse.
When we have morning Dr. appointments in Orinda, we have to leave at least 45 minutes ahead of time to get to our appointment on time. This should take a matter of maybe 5 minutes or so.
As you know, there are three schools going toward Moraga and we worry about the children walking and riding their bikes to school.
You have our support and good luck on the 18th of October.
Steve and Sandy Armanini
466 Moraga Way
*****
Good morning Bill,
This is Behrouz Azarnoush and I live at 32 Ardor Drive.
I am strongly support the Safe Crossing of Moraga Way at Ardor Drive and Valley View. This is a matter of safety issue for our community before any tragedy happen.
Please contact me if I could be any help regarding this matter. Below is my contact information.
Thank you so much for your time and concern for this important issue and wish you all the best.
Best Regards,
Behrouz Azarnoush
32 Ardor Drive
*****
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
Bill:
Thanks for running with this.
I tried to get a crosswalk there 20 years ago when my kids would walk down Valley View and try to get across Moraga Way at rush hour to catch the bus to BART (they went to private school in Oakland). I was told then that a crosswalk would give a pedestrian a “false sense of security”. I almost went out and painted one myself. Instead they had to do the chicken-run across Moraga Way, literally getting stranded in the center sometimes.
This was before the high-tech flashing light versions available today.
Attached is a map of the bus stops at Ardor/Valley View. Also attached are the number of homes that use that intersection to access Moraga Way at that point (I’m ignoring all of the homes up La Cresta and Woodland).
Maybe you could write up a petition and we could post it to the NextDoor Ardor/ValleyView neighborhood.
Steve Cohn
29 La Fond
*****
Hi Bill,
Got your note today about the installation of a crosswalk at Moraga Rd and Vallley View.
Living on Don Gabriel we know all to well the speedsters that come down our street trying to get to the schools.
We are very supportive of your crosswalk installation advocacy.
Additionally, we wish they would install speed bumps on Don Gabriel. Do you know how to get that in front this committee?
Thanks,
Cole and Adreana Cordes
*****
My wife and I strongly support adding a crosswalk to Moraga Way at Valley View. Thanks for your work on this.
Steve and Gayle Goldman
19 Woodland Rd
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) ON-TRAC – Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Response Advocacy Coalition
*****
Gary and Vicky support the crosswalk on Moraga Way.
Gary Yancey
33 Valley View Drive
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: TDA Application 2023 (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023)
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:
Request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the
allocation of fiscal year 2022-2023
Transportation Development Act
Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle project
funding for the Moraga Way and
Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk
)
)
)
) Resolution No. 03-22
)
)
)
)
)
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds; and WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests from eligible claimants for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim, composed of certain required documents; and WHEREAS, the City of Orinda has undertaken a process in compliance with MTC Resolution No. 4108 for consideration of project proposals submitted by eligible claimants of TDA Article 3 funds in the Contra Costa County, and a prioritized list of projects, included as Attachment A of this resolution, was developed as a result of this process; and
WHEREAS, each claimant in Contra Costa County whose project or projects have been prioritized for inclusion in the fiscal year 2022-2023 TDA Article 3 countywide coordinated claim, has forwarded to the City of Orinda a certified copy of its governing body resolution for submittal to MTC requesting an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds; WHEREAS, the City of Orinda desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; and F.4.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Resolution 03-22 Approve TDA Grant Application (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023)
WHEREAS, Staff has evaluated the subject project with respect to CEQA and recommends that it be found categorically exempt under Section 15301.c “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Orinda declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code, and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Orinda to carry out the project; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that the project has been reviewed by the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee which acts as the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) of City of Orinda; and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Orinda attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Orinda approves the submittal to MTC, of the Contra Costa County fiscal year 2022-2023 TDA Article 3 countywide, coordinated claim, composed of the following required documents:
A. transmittal letter
B. a certified copy of this resolution, including Attachment A; C. one copy of the governing body resolution and required attachments, for each claimant whose project or projects are the subject of the coordinated claim;
D. a description of the process for public and staff review of all proposed projects submitted by eligible claimants for prioritization and inclusion in the countywide, coordinated claim; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that of the City of Orinda finds the subject project categorically exempt under Section 15301.c “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines and directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on January 18, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
F.4.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Resolution 03-22 Approve TDA Grant Application (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023)
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.4.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Resolution 03-22 Approve TDA Grant Application (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) Notice of Exemption
To: County Clerk
County of Contra Costa
555 Escobar St.
□ Martinez, CA 94553
From: City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda CA 94563
Project Title: Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Crosswalk
Lead Agency & Applicant: City of Orinda
Project Location – Specific: Moraga Way and Ardor Drive/Valley View Drive intersection Project Location – County: Contra Costa
Project Location – City: Orinda
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
Install pedestrian crossing deceives (push button activated beacon (RRFB, Rectangular RapidFlashing Beacon), stripe a crosswalk per Caltrans Standards, and install pedestrian ramps on crosswalk ends.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Orinda Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Department of Public Works and Engineering Services
Exempt Status: Categorical Exemption, 15301 Class 1 (c) Reason Why Project is Exempt:
Section 15301, Class 1, consists of minor alterations of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the determination. Section (c) includes existing streets and bicycle facilities. This project involves minor alteration to existing street facilities, with no expansion in use.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Christie, Senior Engineer Telephone: 925-253-4219
Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _______________ F.4.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Notice of Exemption CEQA (2650 : TDA Grant Application 2022-2023) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.5
Date: January 18, 2022
Department:
Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Real Property Acquisition of Right of Way for Seismic Retrofit Project at Miner Road Bridge over San Pablo Creek (Project #0044) and Accept said Grant of Easement
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-22, to approve Agreement for Acquisition of a portion of Dickerson property (24 Miner Rd.) and accept said grant of easement upon execution by the Grantor (Dickerson).
BACKGROUND:
The City has an active grant funded project that will complete seismic upgrades to the Miner Road bridge. The project is federally funded and administered by Caltrans. The acquisition services work is being performed by Monument Right of Way Services, a sub-consultant under the design contract with Dewberrry/Drake Haglan. The work includes negotiating with private property owner. The right-of-way phase of the work was authorized by Caltrans for $50,000 in April 2021 and funding is included in the approved project budget for temporary construction easements, and when necessary, permanent easements.
The Miner Rd. bridge, which was built in 1931, encroaches onto the extreme corner of the Dickerson property located at 24 Miner Rd. and shown in the aerial map (Attachment B). Although such encroachment has existed for 90 years, due to federal funding, the encroachment needs to be corrected and therefore a permanent easement for right of way has been negotiated with the property owner. Due to federal funding, the negotiation process has many specialized requirements which Monument Right of Way Services have followed to allow for the acquisition.
DISCUSSION:
The attached acquisition agreement (Attachment C) has been reviewed by the property owner (Dickerson), and reflects a purchase price of $13,830 for the permanent easement and $1,170 compensation for a temporary construction easement, for a total of $15,000. This reflects an increase of $4,920 from the original offer price of $8,910 for the permanent easement, which was rejected by the owner’s attorney. Monument Right of Way Services has recommended the increase on the basis of concluding the transaction without the delays and substantially higher costs that would otherwise occur if the city pursued a condemnation process.
It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the acquisition agreement (in a form substantially conforming to the attached), which would authorize a deposit of $15,000 to an escrow account held by a Title Company. The F.5
Packet Pg. 78
property owner would provide an executed Grant of Easement (Attachment D); it is recommended that City Council accept said Grant. The City Manager would then execute a Certificate of Acceptance (Attachment E), which the Title Co. would use for recording of the Grant of Easement, concluding the transaction. The City will also incur related Title and escrow fees as part of the project cost.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon adoption of the subject resolution by City Council, and execution by Dickerson, the City Manager will execute the acquisition agreement, and after receipt of the signed Grant of Easement, the City Manager will execute the certificate of acceptance. This will enable the Title Company to provide payment to the Grantor and record the Grant of Easement.
The bridge seismic retrofit project is scheduled to be bid out for construction in February 2022, subject to Caltrans approving the right of way certification and issuing an authorization to begin the construction phase (E-76 CON). The estimated construction period is summer 2022. The Miner Rd. bridge project will be bid out with the Bear Creek bridge project under a combined contract, which will be helpful to create economies of scale.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No change is required to the budget as presented in the current CIP (adopted in June 2021). The total budget for this bridge project, including construction, is $844,000. For the right of way and construction phases of the work, 100% of the eligible costs are funded from Federal and State Grants.
Attachments:
A. Resolution 01-22 Authorizing Acceptance of Easement (Miner Rd. Bridge) (DOC) B. 24 Miner Rd aerial map exhibit (PDF)
C. Acquisition agreement (PDF)
D. Grant of Easement (PDF)
E. Certificate of Acceptance (DOCX)
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jason Chen
City Engineer
Prepared By: Scott Christie, Acting Public Works Director Approved by:
F.5
Packet Pg. 79
F.5
Packet Pg. 80
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:
Authorizing Acceptance of )
Easement for Miner Rd. Bridge ) Resolution No. 01-22
WHEREAS, MARJORIE F. DICKERSON, as Surviving Trustee of the William and Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust Dated 05/12/2008, is Grantor and owner of certain real property located in the City of Orinda, California, at 24 Miner Rd. (APN 262- 131-001); and
WHEREAS, the Miner Rd. bridge over San Pablo Creek encroaches on a portion of Grantor’s Property; and
WHEREAS, the City must acquire a permanent easement for the encroachment as part of right of way certification requirements for the federally funded Miner Rd. Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project (City CIP #0044 and Federal Project #STPLZ 5444(019)); and WHEREAS, the City has negotiated with the property owner in accordance with federal requirements and an acquisition agreement has been executed by the Grantor; and WHEREAS, before the easement can be recorded, State law (Government Code §27281) requires an approved City Council resolution authorizing acceptance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby authorize said acquisition agreement, and authorizes Staff to accept and record easement over portion of 24 Miner Rd. (APN 262-131-001) to accommodate public use.
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on the 18th day of January, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Resolution 01-22 Authorizing Acceptance of Easement (Miner Rd. Bridge) [Revision 1] (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property 2 1409242.1
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Resolution 01-22 Authorizing Acceptance of Easement (Miner Rd. Bridge) [Revision 1] (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property F.5.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: 24 Miner Rd aerial map exhibit (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) Agreement for Acquisition
Dickerson Page 1 of 3
(06/09//2021) Version 04202018
Approved TEB
Project: Miner Road Bridge
Retrofit Over San Pablo
Creek Project
Grantor(s): Marjorie F. Dickerson,
Trustee
APN.: 262-131-001-6
AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
This Agreement for Acquisition of Easement is between the City of Orinda (City) and Marjorie F. Dickerson, as Surviving Trustee of the William and Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust Dated 05/12/2008 (Grantor).
1. PROPERTY.
Grantor agrees to sell to City, and City agrees to purchase from Grantor, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Easements described in the Exhibits attached hereto which are incorporated herein by this reference (the “Easement”).
2. DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS/ESCROW.
All documents necessary for the transfer of the Property shall be executed and delivered by Grantor to the City’s designated Acquisition Agent.
This transaction shall be processed through an escrow with First American Title Company.
3. PURCHASE PRICE AND TITLE.
The Purchase Price to be paid by the City for the Property shall be FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00) as consideration in full for the Easement being conveyed in the referenced Deed(s).
City shall deliver the Purchase Price at the close of escrow after the delivery and execution of all necessary transfer documents have occurred.
F.5.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) Agreement for Acquisition
Dickerson Page 2 of 3
(06/09//2021) Version 04202018
Approved TEB
City shall pay all costs of any escrow, title insurance, and recording fees incurred in this transaction.
The Purchase Price to be paid herein shall constitute full and fair compensation and consideration for the Easement.
4. PERMISSION TO ENTER.
Upon Grantor’s signature of this Agreement, Grantor hereby grants to the City, its agents and contractors, permission to enter upon the subject lands prior to the close of escrow.
Entry shall be only for the preparation of construction of the City’s facilities and environmental purposes, subject to all applicable terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the associated grant of Easement
5. POSSESSION.
Grantor agrees that after the City’s acceptance of the Agreement and Deed(s), the date payment is deposited by City into escrow shall constitute the date of possession in which the City may enter upon and take possession of the Easement. Should the Easement be recorded by the City, the date in which the check is mailed from the City to the Grantor shall constitute the date of possession in which the City may enter upon and take possession of the Easement.
6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement and the attached Exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties relating to the sale of the grant of Easement. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force and effect. Any amendment to this Agreement shall be of no force and effect unless it is in writing and signed by the City and Grantor.
7. COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which so executed shall irrespective of the date of its execution and delivery be deemed an original, and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same document.
F.5.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) Agreement for Acquisition
Dickerson Page 3 of 3
(06/09//2021) Version 04202018
Approved TEB
8. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Prior to commencement of construction activities, Grantor shall be added as an additional insured party in the terms of the contract between City and their selected contractor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on ___________ as follows:
CITY OF ORINDA GRANTOR(S)
Marjorie F. Dickerson, as Surviving Trustee
of the William and Marjorie Dickerson
Family Survivor’s Trust Dated 05/12/2008
By: _______________________________ By:__________________________ NAME: Marjorie F. Dickerson, Trustee
TITLE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:____________________________
F.5.c
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
FREE RECORDING:
This instrument is for the benefit of the City of Orinda and is entitled to be recorded without fee or tax. (Gov. Code, §§ 6103, 27383; and Rev. & Tax. Code, § 11922.)
APN: 262-131-001 (Above Space for Recorder’s Use)
GRANT OF EASEMENT
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, MARJORIE F. DICKERSON, as Surviving Trustee of the William and Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust Dated 05/12/2008 (hereinafter, individually and collectively, “Grantor”), hereby grants to the CITY OF ORINDA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, (Grantee”), a permanent easement for a public roadway and utility purposed upon, over, under and across that portion of Grantor’s Property more particularly described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
DATED: __________________, 20__
GRANTOR: Marjorie F. Dickerson, as
Surviving Trustee of the William and
Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust
Dated 05/12/2008
Marjorie F. Dickerson, Trustee
F.5.c
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) F.5.c
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) F.5.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) APN: 262-131-001
GRANT OF EASEMENT
(Temporary Construction Easement)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, MARJORIE F. DICKERSON, as Surviving Trustee of the William and Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust Dated 05/12/2008 (hereinafter, individually and collectively, “Grantor”), hereby grants to the CITY OF ORINDA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, (Grantee”), its employees, agents, representatives, contractors, successors and assigns, a temporary easement for construction of the Miner Road Bridge Retrofit Over San Pablo Creek Project, in, on, over, under, and across that portion of Grantor’s Property depicted in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. The term of the easement described herein will commence upon the start of construction activities and expire Twelve (12) months thereafter.
DATED: __________________, 20__
GRANTOR: Marjorie F. Dickerson, as
Surviving Trustee of the William and
Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust
Dated 05/12/2008
Marjorie F. Dickerson, Trustee
F.5.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) F.5.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) F.5.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Acquisition agreement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
FREE RECORDING:
This instrument is for the benefit of the City of Orinda and is entitled to be recorded without fee or tax. (Gov. Code, §§ 6103, 27383; and Rev. & Tax. Code, § 11922.)
APN: 262-131-001 (Above Space for Recorder’s Use)
GRANT OF EASEMENT
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, MARJORIE F. DICKERSON, as Surviving Trustee of the William and Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust Dated 05/12/2008 (hereinafter, individually and collectively, “Grantor”), hereby grants to the CITY OF ORINDA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, (Grantee”), a permanent easement for a public roadway and utility purposed upon, over, under and across that portion of Grantor’s Property more particularly described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
DATED: __________________, 20__
GRANTOR: Marjorie F. Dickerson, as
Surviving Trustee of the William and
Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust
Dated 05/12/2008
Marjorie F. Dickerson, Trustee
F.5.d
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Grant of Easement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) F.5.d
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Grant of Easement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) F.5.d
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Grant of Easement (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition)
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed to the City of Orinda by the foregoing GRANT OF EASEMENT, which is dated ____________, and executed by MARJORIE F. DICKERSON, as Surviving Trustee of the William and Marjorie Dickerson Family Survivor’s Trust Dated 05/12/2008, is hereby accepted by the undersigned pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 01-22, dated January 18, 2022. The City of Orinda, as grantee, consents to recordation of said GRANT OF EASEMENT.
_______________________________ ____________________________ David Biggs, Orinda City Manager Date
Attest:
__________________________
Sheri Marie Smith
Orinda City Clerk
F.5.e
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Certificate of Acceptance (2623 : Miner Rd bridge property acquisition) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: January 18, 2022
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Review of City Council Policy & Procedure Manual RECOMMENDATION:
Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 05-22 amending the City Council Policy & Procedures Manual or give direction to staff on any further changes.
BACKGROUND:
From time-to-time City staff and City Council review the City Council Policy and Procedures Manual for any updates that may be necessary.
The attached Policy and Procedures Manual (Exhibit A to the Resolution) shows (in redline) the suggested changes that are proposed.
Changes to the Manual include:
Added language pertaining to teleconferenced meetings and the procedural changes as a result.
Added clarifying language to wording under Public Forum. Added and amended language on maintaining civility and avoiding disruptive conduct during meetings.
General clean-up language throughout the document.
SUMMARY:
The Policy and Procedures Manual was last updated on March 16, 2021.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
A. Resolution 05-22 Amending Policies Procedures Manual (1.18.2022) (DOCX) B. City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (DOC) Respectfully Submitted by:
Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
H.1
Packet Pg. 97
H.1
Packet Pg. 98
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
IN THE MATTER OF:
Amending and Adopting the
City Council Policies and
Procedures Manual
_________________________
)
)
)
)
Resolution No. 05-22
WHEREAS, from time-to time the City Council reviews its Policies and Procedures Manual to determine if it needs any updates; and WHEREAS, at the City Council Meeting of January 18, 2022, the City Council reviewed and determined it appropriate to amend its Policies and Procedures Manual.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orinda City Council does hereby amend the Orinda City Council Policies and Procedures Manual as shown in Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the Orinda City Council does hereby adopt the Orinda City Council Policies and Procedures Manual as amended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda on January 18, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Resolution 05-22 Amending Policies Procedures Manual (1.18.2022) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 1 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ORINDA
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Section Page
l. Authority 2
2. Meetings 2
3. Agenda 5
4. Public Participation 7
5. Conducting Meetings 8
6. Quasi-Judicial Hearings 12
7. Voting 15
8. Officers 15
9. Boards, Commissions, and Committees 16
10. Ordinances 16
11. Administrative Matters 17
12. Emergency Procedures
13. Suspension, Amendment of These Rules
18 20
Adopted: Effective November 1, 2005
Amended Effective March 6, 2007 (Resolution No. 11-07)
Amended Effective April 10, 2007 (Resolution No. 14-07) Amended Effective March 2, 2010 (Resolution No. 14-10)
Amended Effective May 7, 2013 (Resolution No. 28-13)
Amended Effective February 18, 2014 (Resolution No. 11-14) Amended Effective February 3, 2015 (Resolution No. 09-15) Amended Effective March 15, 2016 (Resolution No. 20-16) Amended Effective August 2, 2016 (Resolution No. 44-16) Amended Effective February 6, 2018 (Resolution No. 04-18) Amended Effective March 16, 2021 (Resolution No. 14-21) H.1.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 2 l. Authority
The City Council establishes these Rules of Procedure for the conduct of meetings. The following Rules shall be in effect upon their adoption by the City Council and until such time as they are amended or new Rules are adopted in the manner provided by these Rules.
2. Meetings
2.1 Meeting Dates and Times
2.1.1. Dates. Regular meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month or as set by calendar adopted by the City Council in December or January of each calendar year. Adjourned regular, workshop or special meetings may be called by the Mayor or a majority of the Council. If the meeting date should fall on a legal holiday, the Council shall meet at an alternate time and date designated by the Council.
2.1.2. Starting Time. All regular meetings will convene at 7:00 p.m.
Meetings will be held at the Library Auditorium at 26 Orinda Way, Orinda, unless stated otherwise in the notice. Meetings may be preceded or followed by special meetings, including closed sessions.
2.1.3. Ending Time. Meetings will adjourn at or before 11:00 p.m. A majority vote of the City Council will be required to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
A unanimous vote of the City Council will be required to continue meetings beyond 11:30 p.m. A continuance beyond 11:30 shall specify time of adjournment. More than one such continuance may be adopted.
2.2 Closed Sessions
A closed session may be held at any regular or special meeting for any purpose authorized by the Brown Act. It is a violation of the Brown Act to disclose information obtained or presented in anticipation of or during a closed session, which shall be confidential. Public comment shall be received in open session prior to a closed session.
The City Council will report out in open session any actions taken in closed session consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act.
2.3 Special Meetings
Special meetings may be called by the Mayor or by a majority of the Council members.
The City Attorney or the City Manager is authorized to call a special meeting when it is to be held immediately before or after a regular meeting and is to discuss a matter in closed session. The call for a special meeting must specify the day, hour, and place and shall specify the subject(s) to be considered. Twenty-four hours notice must be received prior to a special meeting by each Council member, the local newspaper of general circulation, and radio and television stations which have requested notice. Only matters H.1.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 3 specified in the notice may be discussed at special meetings. The public shall be given an opportunity to address the Council before or during consideration of any matter described in the notice for the special meeting.
2.4 Quorum
Three members of the Council shall constitute a quorum necessary to transact business.
In the event a quorum is not in attendance, those attending will be named in the minutes, and they shall adjourn the meeting to a later set time.
2.5 Adjournment
The Council may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. If all Council members are absent from any regular or adjourned regular meeting, the City Clerk may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place. The City Clerk shall post a copy of the order or notice of adjournment as required by the Brown Act at City Hall and other places designated by the Council within twenty-four (24) hours after the time of adjournment. Whenever a regular or adjourned regular meeting is adjourned as provided in this section, the resulting adjourned regular meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes. When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjournment meeting shall be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings.
2.6 Attendance
Council members must request that the Mayor issue an "excused absence" when they are unable to attend, or it will be noted in the minutes as an unexcused absence. The Mayor shall announce excused absences and reasons for such absences (if publicly known) during the roll call at the beginning of a meeting.
2.7 Minutes of Proceedings
An account of all public proceedings of the City Council shall be recorded by the City Clerk and entered into official minute books of the Council following approval by the Council. Unless the Council directs otherwise in a specific instance, detailed (but not verbatim) minutes shall be prepared for regular meetings of the full Council, and summary action minutes shall be prepared for special meetings of the full Council.
2.8 City Manager
The City Manager shall attend all meetings of the Council unless excused. The City Manager’s designee shall substitute when the City Manager is absent.
2.9 City Attorney
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 4 The City Attorney shall attend all meetings of the Council unless excused. The Deputy City Attorney shall attend in the City Attorney’s absence. The City Attorney shall act as the Council's parliamentarian.
2.10 City Clerk
The City Clerk shall attend all regular meetings of the Council unless excused, and in her/his absence, the City Clerk designee shall substitute. The City Clerk shall record, prepare and maintain the official record of the Council and perform other related duties as prescribed by the Council or the City Manager, or both.
2.11 Department Heads/Employees
Department heads and employees shall attend Council meetings as directed by the City Manager.
2.12 Public May Attend and Record Meetings
All meetings of the City Council (except closed sessions) shall be open to the public, including the news media. Meetings may be recorded by any means by anyone, provided such recording does not constitute disruptive conduct under Rule 4.4.
2.13 Virtual/Teleconference MeetingsCommunication Using Mobile Devices Use of a mobile device (e.g., cellular telephone, personal digital assistant) by a Council member to communicate in any way during a meeting is prohibited. If a Council member urgently needs to communicate via mobile device, the Council member should do so outside the Council chambers after announcing the reason for leaving.The Council may use teleconference technology and hold virtual meetings consistent with State Law, including the Brown Act and Executive Orders issued by the Governor.
2.14 Recordings
All Regular Meetings of the City Council shall, to the extent feasible, be recorded by the City Clerk. Recordings are kept consistent with the City of Orinda Records Retention Program and are available from the City Clerk’s office.
2.15 Avoiding Brown Act Violations Relating to Meeting Attendance Members of the Council shall comply fully with the requirements of the Brown Act, including those in Government Code section 54952.2 to avoid potential violations relating to attendance at meetings of such as conferences, meetings conducted by City staff/consultants, meetings presented by organizations other than the City, and meetings of other legislative bodies.
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 5 3. Agenda
3.1 Order of Business
The business for a Regular meeting shall generally be shown on the agenda in the following order, but this sequence may be modified on a case-by-case basis by the City Manager in consultation with the Mayor:
A. Call to Order/Roll Call
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Closed Session Report (when applicable)
D. Adoption of Agenda
E. Items for the Good of the City
F. Public Forum
G. Consent Calendar
H. Public Hearings
I. Policy Matters
J. Council Reports
K. City Manager’s Report
L. Matters Initiated
M. Adjournment
Closed Session (may be held before or after the meeting, or both)
3.2 Agenda Preparation
Agendas for regular and special meetings shall be established by the City Manager, who shall consult with the Mayor concerning the sequence of agenda items and other procedural matters. The agenda shall be delivered to the Mayor and Council members and made available to members of the public consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the meeting and contain a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session, if any. The descriptions of each agenda items shall may include the action recommended by the preparer of the report for the agenda item.
3.3 Matters Initiated
To place an item on a future agenda, a Council member (including the Mayor) may make a motion to that effect during the Matters Initiated agenda item. In addition, a Council member (including the Mayor) may, at any time during a meeting, make a motion to place an item on a future agenda, if the item proposed for future consideration arises in relation to an item on the current agenda.
If the motion to place an item on a future agenda is seconded and approved by a majority vote of those Council members present, the proposed item will be placed on a future agenda. If the motion is silent regarding timing, the proposed item will be placed on a future agenda at the earliest appropriate time, as determined by the City Manager and H.1.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 6 Mayor. If the motion provides specific direction regarding timing, the proposed item will be placed on a future agenda consistent with that direction. No discussion of the subject of the motion may occur except to explain the general nature of the item, including the issue of timing for Council’s consideration of the item.
3.4 Agenda Posting
The City Clerk shall post the agenda at least 72 hours before a regular meeting and at least 24 hours before a special meeting in the following locations, which are freely accessible to members of the public: Orinda Community Center, Orinda Library, and Orinda City Hall. To the extent feasible, agendas shall also be posted on the City’s website prior to meetings.
3.5 Agenda Materials
3.5.1 Documents. A staff report shall be prepared for each agenda item except in unusual circumstances. Attached to the staff report shall be documents received by or developed by staff that are pertinent to the staff report. Anyone may submit documents pertinent to an agenda item to the City Clerk; such documents shall be included in the agenda materials if they are received in time for inclusion in the packet and if multiple copies of voluminous documents are provided.
3.5.2 Copies of agenda materials. Copies of the agenda materials and other documents distributed to Council members before a meeting (excluding documents subject to attorney-client confidentiality and documents distributed in connection with a closed session) shall be available for public inspection when the packet is released to the City Council. The public can view materials before the meeting at the office of the City Clerk, the Orinda Library and, on the City website. At the meeting, a public copy will be available for review. Copies of materials distributed by City staff and others at the meeting shall be made available to members of the public as soon as practicable.
Changes and additions to staff reports and late correspondence will be provided to Council members and made available to the public before the meeting when possible.
3.6 Consent Calendar
Items listed on the Consent Calendar are those items likely not to require Council discussion. At the meeting, any item may be pulled by a Council member or member of the public for separate discussion or clarification and vote.
3.7 Public Hearings
A matter shall be set for public hearing in the following situations:
a. A quasi-judicial land use decision (e.g., an appeal of a Planning Commission decision)
b. Approval of a CEQA document for a City project.
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 7 c. Any other matter for which a public hearing is required by law or for which a hearing would be in the public interest.
4. Public Participation
4.1 Addressing the Council
Each person wishing to address the Council will be asked to so indicate (e.g., by submitting a speaker slip to the City Clerk or a using similar method available during virtual meetings). Completing this form is optional. People will be permitted to speak even if they elect not to provide some or all of the information requested on the form.
After the Council has heard from everyone who submitted speaker slips, anyone electing not to submit a speaker slip will be asked to form a line at the lectern to indicate their desire to address the Council. Each person addressing the Council in person shall do so from the lectern. Providing a name, address, and other information is voluntary. All remarks shall be directed to the Mayor and Council as a body and not to any particular Council member. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter into the discussion.
4.2 Public Forum
During Public Forum any person may address the Council on an item that is (1) within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council and (2) not otherwise on the agenda, except that if a speaker will not be present during an agenda item later in the calendar for that meeting, the speaker may address that agenda item during Public Forum but not later.
When an item is not listed on the agenda, State law prohibits Council discussion or action. Councilmembers may only “briefly respond” to statements made and questions posed. For example, State law allows Councilmembers to ask questions for clarification and provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. Additionally, consistent with the “Matters Initiated” rule, the Council may also direct staff to report back and/or place a matter on a future agenda for discussion.
4.3 Speech Content & Civility
Statements by a member of the public shall be related to the agenda item at hand, except during Public Forum. Derogatory and discriminatory remarks relating to gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, creed, religion, national origin, disability, and personal physical characteristics or conditions, slander, obscenities, and knowing falsehoods are irrelevant per se. If such remarks or other irrelevant statements substantially disrupt or disturb the peace and order of a City Council meeting they will be deemed cause for removal of the speaker from the meeting, as provided in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of these Rules. The City Council shall not prohibit lawful public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, staff, and services of the City or the acts or omissions of the City Council. Members of the Council, staff, and the public are encouraged to communicate in a manner that is civil, not hostile or threatening. Whenever possible, members of the H.1.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 8 Council, staff, and the public who identify problems are encouraged to also suggest one or more possible solutions they would support.
4.4 Disruptive Conduct
Conduct, including applauding and booing, which substantially disrupts or disturbs the peace and order of a City Council meeting is prohibited. If a meeting is disrupted, the Council may elect to recess per Section 5.4.7 (b). Disrupting a meeting and may, in certain situations, beis cause for removal from the meeting. at the request of the Mayor.
On instructions by the Mayor, a police officer may be called for the purpose of removing any person who, in the Mayor's judgment, has violated the rules of conduct or otherwise disrupted the meeting. If a meeting is willfully interrupted by one or more persons so as to frustrate the orderly conduct of the meeting and the orderly conduct cannot be restored by removing the group or the person, the Council may, by majority vote, order the meeting cleared of members of the public and then continue in session with members of the press remaining present, unless they also participated in the disturbance. In addition, or in the alternative, the City Council may, by majority vote, declare a recess until order is restored.
4.5 [Reserved] Warning and Arrest
If arrest by a police officer is necessary to restore order, the presiding officer shall give a warning and describe the offending conduct in substantially the following manner:
“Your conduct (describe the offending conduct specifically) is disrupting this meeting and the public’s business. Your conduct is a violation of Penal Code section 403. You must stop immediately. If you do not stop, I will direct the police officer to place you under arrest.”
4.6 Written Communications
Correspondence, including communications relating to a specific matter on a Council agenda, will be handled as described in Section 11.1. If correspondence is received too late to be included in the agenda packet, the City Clerk will, to the extent feasible, endeavor to distribute the late correspondence at the Council meeting. Anyone submitting voluminous late correspondence and/or submitting late correspondence to the City Clerk less than four (4) hours before a Council meeting should bring at least fifteen (15) copies to the meeting. After receiving late correspondence, the Council may elect to continue the item to a future meeting if it determines the late correspondence is too voluminous to consider fully. Alternatively, the Council may elect to consider the matter if it has had adequate time to consider all of the information presented. Such a determination may, but need not, be made by formal motion during the meeting.
4.7 Time Limits
Public comment shall generally be limited to 3 minutes per individual speaker per agenda item, except that the Mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, may set a different H.1.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 9 time limit based upon the number of persons wishing to speak, the complexity of the item, the length of the agenda, the hour, and other factors. When a speaker has completed their comments, Councilmembers may ask clarifying questions notwithstanding this time limit.
5. Conducting Meetings
5.1 Presiding Officer
The Mayor or Vice Mayor shall preside and call the meeting to order at the hour appointed. In the absence of both, the meeting shall be called to order by the City Clerk and those Council members present shall proceed to elect a temporary Presiding Officer.
Before proceeding with the business of the Council, the City Clerk shall perform a formal roll call. The Presiding Officer may move, second, and debate from the Chair, and shall not be deprived of any rights and privileges of a Council member.
5.2 Actions Limited to Posted Agenda
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda. The City Council shall not take action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda except when there is an emergency, there is a need for immediate action, or the item was posted for a prior meeting less then 5 days before and was continued, as prescribed more fully in Gov.
Code §54954.2.
5.3 Continuance of an Item
An agenda item may be continued by the City Council by a majority vote. (See section
5.4.6.c.)
5.4 Discussion
When an agenda item is addressed, the Mayor shall first ask for any staff comments or additions to the written staff report. Next, the Mayor shall ask for questions from the Council of staff. After that, the Council shall receive public comment. After public comments, the Mayor shall close the public comment portion and open the item for discussion by the Council, which shall be subject to the following rules.
5.4.1. Getting the Floor. Every Council member desiring to speak shall address the Mayor and, when recognized by the Mayor, shall limit discussion to the questions under debate.
5.4.2. Interruptions. A Council member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking except to be called to order, or as otherwise provided. If a Council member, while speaking, is called to order, the Council member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined; if determined to be in order, the Council member shall be permitted to proceed.
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 10 5.4.3. Privilege of Closing Debate. The Council member making a motion for adoption of an ordinance or resolution shall have the privilege of closing the debate on that motion, subject to other motions which may be before the Council.
5.4.4. Motion to Be Stated. The Mayor shall state all motions submitted for a vote and announce the result. A roll call vote shall be taken upon the request of any Council member. No action shall be taken by secret ballot.
5.4.5. Appeals. Any ruling of the Mayor may be appealed at the request of a Council member. The Mayor shall call for a roll call vote to determine if the ruling is upheld.
5.4.6. Precedence of Motions. When a motion is before the Council, no other motion shall be entertained except:
a. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend, which modifies the original motion, is in order but is debatable only as it relates to the amendment.
Amendments are voted on first; the main motion vote is last. A motion may be amended more than once with each amendment being voted on separately. There shall only be one amending motion on the floor at any one time.
b. Substitute Motions. A substitute motion is in order for the purpose of taking out the main motion altogether and replacing it with a new and different motion. A substitute motion must be voted on before an amendment of the main motion, since if the substitute motion is adopted the main motion dies and so does any amendment of the main motion.
c. Motion to Postpone. A motion to postpone to a definite time is subject to debate and amendment as it relates to propriety of the postponement and time set. A motion to postpone a quasi-judicial hearing must set a definite date for the hearing. If a motion to postpone indefinitely is adopted, the agenda item shall be carried forward on the City Clerk’s Future Agenda Items list for up to one year, then dropped if not reinstated to the agenda.
d. Motion to Table. A motion to table is not debatable and not subject to amendment. The purpose of a motion to table is to suspend the item for an indefinite time.
5.4.7. Motions Not Subject to Debate. All motions are debatable except for the following, which shall be put to an immediate vote:
a. Motion to adjourn, which requires a simple majority. b. Motion to recess, which requires a simple majority.
c. Motion to table, which requires a simple majority.
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 11 d. Motion to limit debate (“I move the question” or “I move to limit debate of this item to __ minutes”), which requires a 2/3 vote.
5.4.8. Reconsideration. A request for reconsideration may be made during a meeting in which a decision has been made or at the next regularly-scheduled Council meeting. A request for reconsideration may be made only by a Council member who voted in the majority on the original decision. Reconsideration of a matter involves three decisions, which must occur in the following order:
a. First, the Council must decide whether or not to consider the request on a future agenda. (No discussion is permitted at this point on the validity of the request or the merits of the underlying action to be reconsidered.) b. Second, if a majority of the Council votes to place the issue on a future agenda, there are two agenda items:
i. Whether to allow reconsideration or not and
ii. If reconsideration is permitted, whether the original decision should be changed or affirmed.
c. A decision not to reconsider a matter under (b)(i) will be deemed to automatically include removal of the agenda item for reconsideration of the merits under (b)(ii).
d. Unless a subject is reconsidered and a majority of the City Council votes to change the original decision, the original action stands and is final.
However, the subject of the original decision (other than a quasi-judicial hearing such as a land use appeal) may be placed on a future agenda at any time as provided in these rules.
e. Reconsideration of a decision on a land use appeal is governed by Orinda Municipal Code section 17.43.8.
5.4.9. Conflict of Interest and Bias. A conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest can diminish the public’s confidence in the integrity of the governmental process. Therefore, a Council member who has a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act or Government Code §1090 may not participate in the agenda item causing the conflict. The Council member must make a statement substantially as follows:
“I am unable to participate in this matter as a public official because I have a financial interest in the subject which creates a conflict of interest. The financial interest is [describe the conflict with particularity].” The public official must leave the room for the duration of the discussion of the item. If the discussion relates to the public official’s real property or business (owned or controlled solely by the public official/and H.1.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 12 spouse/domestic partner), the public official may speak as a member of the general public and remain in the audience.
In addition, if a Council member’s personal bias compromises the Council member’s ability to act impartially with the interests of the City as a whole in mind, the Council member must leave the room and not participate in the agenda item. Bias may exist because of a Council member’s (1) substantial involvement or familiarity with the subject of an agenda matter or (2) close association with the persons involved, a connection which may or may not be known by the public or the other members of the Council.
Even if the Council member believes s/he is not biased, in the interests of open government, it is advisable at the very least to disclose that association, involvement, or experience prior to participating in the agenda item. See Rule 6.5.
5.4.10. Protests. A Council member shall have the right to enter into public record reasons for dissent or protests against any motion carried by the majority.
5.4.11. Limits on speech and conduct. See sections 4.3 and, 4.4, and 4.5, which apply also to the speech and conduct of City Council members.
5.4.12. Rules of Order. Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, the current edition of “Roberts Rules of Order” shall govern the conduct of the meetings of the City Council.
6. Quasi-Judicial Hearings
When a public hearing is required for an agenda item, the Mayor shall first ask for any staff comments or additions to the written staff report for the hearing. Next, the Mayor shall ask for questions from the Council of staff. Next, Council members shall disclose ex parte communications as described below. After that, the Council shall receive public comment, as outlined below.
6.1 Ex Parte Communications
A Council member shall disclose on the record all communication (e.g., email, other written correspondence, conversations, and site visits) occurring outside the hearing that relate to the subject of the hearing. The Council member shall identify with whom s/he communicated, what was communicated, and for site visits, where on the site the Council member went and what the Council member looked at and observed. Council members may also elect to forward copies of written ex parte communication to the City Clerk, who will include such correspondence in the staff reports for relevant agenda items and/or forward it to the whole City Council, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.
6.2 Testimony
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 13 6.2.1. The purpose of this portion of the public hearing is to provide an opportunity for persons interested in the subject of the hearing to testify in support of or opposition to the matter being heard.
6.2.2. Each person wishing to testify may do so as described in section
4.1. 6.2.3. The order of testimony shall be as follows:
a. The applicant (and the applicant’s design professional, attorney, and other representatives, if any) shall speak first and together shall have a total of 15 minutes to present the project. A portion of this time may be reserved by the applicant for final remarks after public testimony has concluded. b. The appellant, if not the applicant, (and the appellant’s design professional, attorney, and other representatives, if any) shall also have a total of 15 minutes to present the basis for the appeal.
c. Those persons other than the applicant and the appellant (and their representatives) shall have a total of 3 minutes each to present testimony, except that to preserve order and eliminate repetitious testimony from a large group, the Mayor may direct ask a like-minded group to appoint a spokesperson to represent the point of view of the group. At the Mayor’s discretion, speakers favoring the project may be asked to so indicate and may be asked to present their testimony consecutively and likewise those opposed.
d. Regardless of the time limits stated above, the time limit per individual speaker may be set by the Mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, at the beginning of a public hearing, based upon the number of persons wishing to speak, the complexity of the item, the length of the agenda, the hour, and other factors.
6.2.4. Questions by speakers may be noted and addressed prior to Council deliberation.
6.3 Council Deliberation
6.3.l. After the Mayor has determined that no other member of the audience wishes to speak, the Mayor shall close the public testimony portion of the hearing and the matter shall be taken up by the City Council.
6.3.2. The Council may ask questions of speakers for clarification during the public testimony portion and during deliberations.
6.4 Council Action
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 14 6.4.1. Council may, at this time, continue a matter to a specific future date to obtain additional information. Continuing a public hearing to a specific date does not require additional notice.
6.4.2. The Council may vote on the item, making findings of fact as required by law
6.5 Due Process
A quasi-judicial hearing that involves property rights (a land use matter or a personnel matter) must incorporate the standards of constitutional due process. This type of hearing must be fair and open, subject to employee privacy rights. The elements of due process are adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, an impartial decision-maker, a decision based on substantial evidence, and findings to document the basis of the decision.
6.5.1. Impartiality
a. Rule. A public official must perform the duties of office free from any personal or pecuniary interest. If there is an actual bias or financial interest that could interfere with a Council member’s judgment, the Council member should not participate in the agenda item and should leave the Council chambers for the duration of the agenda item.
b. Open Mind. A Council member must have an open mind
and receive all evidence presented at the hearing. In addition, a Council member shall disclose ex parte communications (see §6.1 above) before making a determination on the merits. If the Council member has a fixed position on a matter prior to the hearing or if the Council member will be influenced by information not in the evidence, the Council member shall not participate in the hearing.
c. Staying Neutral. In order to assure that a Council member has not become so embroiled or otherwise involved in a matter that s/he cannot be impartial, the following rules shall apply:
i. Staff Contacts. A Council member shall refrain
from contact outside the public meeting context with City staff concerning the merits of matters which will or may come to the City Council for a quasi-judicial hearing.
Regardless of the above, a Council member may obtain factual information from staff relating to the hearing.
ii. Commissions and Committees. A Council member
must not express opinions on the merits of an item that is or will be the subject of a quasijudicial hearing within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to a Planning Commissioner prior to or during the hearing. In case such communications have occurred, any such communication from a Council member to a Planning Commissioner prior to a decision of the Commission on the matter shall be disclosed by the Commissioner in the course of the hearing of the subject by the Planning Commission.
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 15 iii. Interested Parties. A Council member shall refrain from becoming involved in discussions, negotiations, and other activities relating to a matter that is likely to be subject to a hearing by the City Council, unless the full scope of the Council member’s involvement and conversations is disclosed during the Council’s consideration of the matter and there is no bias that has resulted from those activities. d. Involvement or Bias. A Council member may be involved in a matter before the City Council due to a number of factors, including but not limited to an ongoing personal acquaintance, the proximity of real property, a business relationship, or community activities. In such a situation, where the Council member is unable to make an impartial decision, the Council member should recuse himself or herself, make a brief explanation of the facts behind recusal, and leave the room.
6.5.2 Absence During a Quasi-Judicial Hearing. A Council member otherwise qualified to vote may not vote on a matter if the Council member was absent from all or part of the hearing, unless the Council member both (1) reviews the minutes and the staff report or listens to the audiotape of the entire portion of the hearing s/he missed, if the minutes are not available, and (2) reviews all physical and written evidence introduced at the hearing before the meeting at which the decision is to be rendered.
7. Voting
7.1. Majority Vote Required
An affirmative vote of at least three Council members of the Council is required by law to adopt an ordinance, a resolution, and an order for the payment of money. An urgency (emergency) ordinance must be adopted by at least a 4/5 vote. Other matters may be adopted by the majority present.
7.2 Roll Call Votes
When required by state law, a roll call vote shall be taken on each motion before the Council. Additionally, Oon demand by any Council member, made before the "Noes" are called for, a roll call vote shall be taken on the a motion before the Council. The Mayor's name shall be called last with other Council members' names called at random by the City Clerk. Council members shall not give explanations for their vote during roll call.
7.3 Silence
During a collective vote (ayes and noes), silence of any Council member denotes an affirmative vote.
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 16 7.4 Tie Vote
A tie vote means that a motion fails. In the context of a public hearing on a land use matter, a tie vote means denial of the project.
7.5 Abstention
Abstaining from a vote (other than due to recusal) constitutes a vote with the majority, except that where there is a tie vote, an abstention constitutes a vote for the motion.
8. Officers
8.1 Mayor
The Council shall elect a Mayor at the first regular meeting of December of each year, or as soon thereafter as possible following the confirmation of the canvass of ballots by the County Clerk; or at the first regular meeting after the office of Mayor becomes vacant for any reason. The term of office of the Mayor is one year. An election to fill a vacancy occurring in mid-term shall be for the remaining portion of the one-year term. The election or removal of Mayor requires three affirmative votes.
The Mayor shall be recognized as the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the purpose of serving civil process and by the Governor for military purposes. In the time of public danger or emergency, the Mayor, with the consent of the Council, shall cause order to be maintained and enforce laws. The Mayor shall sign all Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the Council when the Mayor is presiding.
8.2 Vice Mayor
The Council shall elect a Vice Mayor at the first regular meeting of December of each year, or as soon thereafter as possible following the confirmation of the canvass of ballots by the County Clerk; or at the first regular meeting after the office of Vice Mayor becomes vacant for any reason. The term of office of the Vice Mayor is one year. An election to fill a vacancy occurring in mid-term shall be for the remaining portion of the one-year term. The election or removal of Vice Mayor requires three affirmative votes.
The Vice Mayor shall serve all functions of the Mayor when the Mayor is unable or unavailable to fulfill those functions.
9. Boards, Commissions, and Committees
9.1 Council Appointments
As soon as practicable following the annual December reorganization meeting, the Mayor shall announce nominations of Council members to serve in various roles requiring a Council representative; the nominations are subject to the review and approval of the City Council.
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 17 9.2 City Advisory Bodies, Regional Boards, and Commissions The City Council may create commissions, committees, and other groups to advise the Council. The Council shall appoint the members of those subordinate bodies as well as City representatives to Regional Boards and Commissions.
10. Ordinances
10.1 Document Preparation and Approval
All ordinances must be drafted by or approved by the City Attorney before being placed on the agenda.
10.2 Ordinance Introduction/Adoption
The title of a proposed ordinance will be considered to be read, unless a Council member requests a full reading. Ordinances shall not be adopted within five days of their introduction, or at other than regular Council meetings. However, an urgency ordinance may be passed immediately upon introduction, at either a regular or a special meeting, if a resolution substantiating the urgency has been adopted first.
10.3 Ordinance Preservation
Following adoption of an ordinance, the City Clerk shall assign a number to the ordinance, publish a summary and post the full text according to law. The ordinance shall be filed and preserved in the City Clerk's office.
11. Administrative Matters
11.1 Correspondence
11.1.1 Electronic Correspondence
Council members shall use accounts issued to them by the City for all electronic correspondence (e.g., email) regarding City business. Council members shall not use accounts issued to them by the City for personal correspondence.
Council members may elect to forward copies of emails they receive to the City Clerk, who will include such emails in the staff reports for relevant agenda items and/or forward the emails to the whole City Council, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.
Emails sent to the whole City Council via a general City email address will be reviewed by the City Manager or his/her designee and forwarded to all Council members, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.
11.1.2 Other Correspondence
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 18 Written correspondence received by a Council member at City Hall by postal service, personal delivery, and messenger service shall be opened by staff and handled consistent with the City of Orinda Records Retention Program, which may require the City to retain a copy. Council members may elect to forward copies of written correspondence they receive to the City Clerk, who will include such correspondence in the staff reports for relevant agenda items and/or forward it to the whole City Council, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.
11.1.3 Website Privacy Notice
The City’s website privacy notice should explain that the public is encouraged to communicate with Council members by email and other means, but that the public should be aware that email and other written correspondence, including messages intended to be confidential, may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
Additionally, the privacy notice should explain that such correspondence may be forwarded to other Council members, City staff and/or the public generally.
11.1.4 Compliance with State Law
The City retains electronic and other correspondence in accordance with State law and the City’s adopted Records Retention Program, which is available from the City Clerk.
For public records, the City complies with the State Public Records Act.
11.2 Confidentiality
Matters discussed in closed session and matters contained in City Attorney confidential memoranda are confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone without prior authorization from the City Council acting together (closed session information) or from the City Attorney (confidential communications from the City Attorney).
11.3 Communications with the Public
Council members shall be clear in communications with the public when the opinions and positions they convey are their own individual positions and when they have been authorized by the Council to speak for the Council as a whole.
11.4 Relations with Staff
As required by OMC §2.08.080, Council members of the City Council shall deal with employees of the City through the City Manager, except to obtain information as necessary, in a limited manner.
12. Emergency Procedures
12.1 Emergency Special Meetings
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 19 Emergency special meetings may be called by the Mayor, a majority of the Council members, or the City Manager only in accordance with state law (see Government Code section 54956.5), which defines qualifying emergencies narrowly (e.g., work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health and/or safety, crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, threatened terrorist activity).
12.2 Emergency Special Closed Session
During an emergency meeting, the City Council may meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 54957 (threat to public security) if agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the members of the City Council present, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, by a unanimous vote of the members present.
12.3 Emergency and Urgent Amendments to Regular Agendas Items may be added to a regular meeting agenda on an emergency or urgency basis only in accordance with state law (see Government Code section 54954.2(b)). a. The Council may add an emergency item to its agenda at a regular meeting if, by majority vote, it determines that the matter in question constitutes an emergency situation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.5 (e.g., work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health and/or safety, crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, threatened terrorist activity). b. The Council may add an urgent item to its agenda at a regular meeting if it makes findings that: (1) there is a need to take immediate action, and (2) the need for action came to the attention of the City subsequent to the agenda being posted.
Those findings must be approved by two-thirds of the members of the City Council present, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present.
12.4 Emergency Declarations and Findings
In the event of an emergency, the Council may declare a local state of emergency and/or confirm an emergency declaration made by the City Manager. The Council may also make findings as appropriate to determine that normally-applicable procedures do not apply. Examples include the California Environmental Quality Act (see CEQA Guidelines sections 15269 & 15359) and the Public Contact Code (see Govt. Code sections 1102 & 22050). The Council may also, consistent with state and federal law, impose local curfews and other restrictions to safeguard life and property during an emergency.
12.5 Councilmembers Unavailable During Emergency
a. The City Council has designated the individuals serving in the following capacities to also serve as stand-by Councilmembers according to the ranked order in which they appear:
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure 20 1. Planning Commission, Chair
2. Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission, Chair
3. Finance Advisory Committee, Chair
4. Parks & Recreation Commission, Chair
5. Transportation Safety Advisory Committee, Chair
6. Planning Commission, Vice Chair
7. Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission, Vice Chair
8. Finance Advisory Committee, Vice Chair
9. Parks & Recreation Commission, Vice Chair
10. Transportation Safety Advisory Committee, Vice Chair Stand-by Councilmembers shall have the duties prescribed by State law. See Government Code section 8641.
b. If an insufficient number of the members of the Council are available to conduct necessary business at an emergency meeting, one or more stand-by Council members shall, following the ranked order above, be authorized to serve as Council members, for purposes of that emergency meeting only. The number of stand-by Councilmembers authorized to serve shall be the minimum number needed to conduct business at that emergency meeting of the City Council.
13. Suspension and Amendment of These Rules
13.1 Suspension
Any provision of these rules not required by state law or the Orinda Municipal Code may be temporarily suspended by a majority vote by the Council.
13.2 Amendment
These rules may be amended by resolution of the Council.
13.3 Rules Available for Public Review
A copy of these rules shall be available on the City’s website and at all meetings of the Council for review by the public.
************************************************************************ 1457656.1
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (potential 2022 updates) (2655 : Annual Review of City Council Policy & Procedure