Orinda City Council
February 15, 2022

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, February 15, 2022
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 02.15.22
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 02.15.22
 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. -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts 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. January 29, 2022

2. February 1, 2022
F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 3 02.15.22
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of February 16, 2022 to March 17, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.

F.3. Approve Contract Change Order No. 2 with Ray’s Electric for Construction of the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Project #4128 and Approve a Budget Change of $50,000.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve Change Order No. 2 with Ray’s Electric and increase the contract value by $54,817 to a new total contract amount of $714,741.50 and 2) Approve budget change of $50,000 by appropriating this amount from Fund #335 to the Project #4128.

F.4. Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar, Battery Storage and Roof Replacement Project, City Project Nos. 4141 & 4164
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council reject all the bids received for the Orinda Community Center Solar, Battery Storage and Roof Replacement Project (#4141 & #4164) and authorize staff to proceed with re-bidding the project.

F.5. Local Commission Appointment List (Maddy Act)
Recommendation:

Review and Receive the Annual Local Commission Appointment List commonly referred to as the Maddy Act
G. PUBLIC HEARING
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Staff Update regarding the Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Sites Inventory
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, and provide feedback on the staff-recommended Regional Housing Needs Allocation Sites Inventory for inclusion in the Draft Housing Element, which is anticipated to be available in mid-March. In addition, staff recommends the Council consider a schedule that would include rezoning of all Housing Opportunity Sites concurrent with adoption of the Housing Element (which must be adopted prior to January 31, 2023). The Draft Housing Element will be subject to extensive public review, including Planning Commission and additional City Council meetings.

I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
City Council
Agenda Page 4 02.15.22
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, March 01, 2022 at 7:00 PM.

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 City Council
Agenda Page 5 02.15.22
925.253.4221 or [email protected] with the following information: name, mailing address, phone number and type of assistance requested.

Shawn Casteel
Agricultural Biologist, PCA, Landscape
Specialist, (Acting) Senior
Environmental Planner
District 4 Caltrans 2022
Vegetation Management Plan
D.1
Packet Pg. 6
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS D.1
Packet Pg. 7
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS A Few
District 4
Partners
• Oakland Fire Department - FY21/22 FRMP
• Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council – EPs for CalFire funded work. • Oakland Hills Fire Safe Council • Moraga Orinda Fire District – CC24 - FY21/22 FRMP
• Southern Marin Fire District – MRN 101 - FY21/22 FRMP • Alameda County Fire Department. ALA580 median project. • Santa Rosa Fire Department – SON101 • Los Altos Hills Fire Department – SCL280 EPs • San Rafael Fire Department – MRN 101 - FY22/23 FRMP • CalFIRE SCU • CalFIRE LNU • San Mateo RCD, invasive plants and info sharing. • San Mateo County Ag Commissioners – Regulatory weeds • Marin County Wildfire Prevention Authority - MRN1 encroachment permit project
• Alameda, Contra Costa RCDs - RPP
• ALA CC JPA formation proposal • Central Marin Fire Protection District D.1
Packet Pg. 8
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Caltrans Expanded Approach to Vegetation Management

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS AND

INFORMED DECISIONS
NEW. ROUTE

PRIORITIZATION

METHODOLOGY AND

ANNUAL WORKSHOP FOR

FIRE DEPARTMENT INPUT

REGIONAL WATERSHED

LEVEL APPROACH TO

VEGETATION

MANAGEMENT

EVACUATION ROUTE

PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS: CEQA,
NEPA

EQUITY AND SCENIC

HIGHWAY PROTECTIONS
NEW. FUEL REDUCTION

SERVICE CONTRACTS FOR

WORK OUTSIDE OF

TRADITIONAL EDGE

TREATMENTS
D.1
Packet Pg. 9
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Some
challenges
affecting
vegetation
work .

Landscape
freeway
Scenic
highway.

Flag and
avoid.

Biology and any
cultural. Flag and
avoid.

Large
geographical
area to
service.

Funding and resource
constraints.

D.1
Packet Pg. 10
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS The District 4 Farm is big. Really big.

DISTRICT 4

APPROXIMATELY
40,306 ACRES IN
OUR ROW. 2015
D.1
Packet Pg. 11
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS ORINDA
*Caltrans right of way is an approximation.
*DOT
ROW
D.1
Packet Pg. 12
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS District 4
Injunctions
D.1
Packet Pg. 13
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Scenic
Highways and
Landscaped
Freeway
Classification
D.1
Packet Pg. 14
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS D.1
Packet Pg. 15
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Billboards
Clear cutting
Ornamentals
D.1
Packet Pg. 16
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS 22/23 Vegcon
Add/Edits
22/23 FRMP
FD Workshop
add/edits 22/23
plans
FRMP
Contract
development
Order IVM
Tools
Training and
Regulatory.

Permits, OINs
Carry forward
21/22 plans

PLANNING

TIMELINE
We are here
D.1
Packet Pg. 17
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Expanded
Plans for
functional
Vegetation
New. Fuel reduction
management plans
(FRMP) to enhance
our existing work. •Brush and select tree
removal
Integrated Vegetation
Management plan •Vegcon plan •Traditional mowing and
spraying
•Concrete cloth and other
structural considerations
New. Plan for strike
teams to enhance our
existing effort.

Annual tree inspection
plan and tree
removals.

D.1
Packet Pg. 18
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS District 4 Plan
Workflow
Tree
inspection
plan
• Annual Tree Inspections. (ATI) Due mid-June.
• Annual Vegetation control plan. (Vegcon) Due April 1, 2022.
• New. Annual fuel reduction management plan. o Due following workshop on March 2, 2022. o Not all projects implemented - Rolling list. • New. Teams for vegetation management. (FRM) o Working our process for hiring o Obtaining equipment.

D.1
Packet Pg. 19
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS D.1
Packet Pg. 20
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Orinda and
Contra Costa
FHSZ in the
SRA
D.1
Packet Pg. 21
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Contra Costa
FHSZs in the
LRA.
*Note that Orinda is blank
but worked out with
MOFD.

D.1
Packet Pg. 22
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Orinda Project
Area
(yellow line, approx. 4
miles).

D.1
Packet Pg. 23
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Orinda Vegetation Control and Fuel Reduction Management Plan.

D.1
Packet Pg. 24
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Seasonal
Implementat
ion Cycle
WINTER

TRAINING

REGULATORY

SPRAYING
SPRING
MOWING

SPRAYING
SUMMER
MOWING

SPRAYING
FALL

TRAINING

REPAIRS

REGULATORY
Seasonal
Region
field work
timeline –
Vegcon
Plan
D.1
Packet Pg. 25
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS Where we
are in the
process
• Workshop on March 2, 2022 • Bids submitted for fuel reduction management plan contract on Dec
16, 2021
• Spraying out strips now. Swath
widths widened to match fire
hazard severity zone classes.
• Mowing will begin in Spring. • Two vegetation management crews being hired.
• Annual Tree Inspections ongoing.

D.1
Packet Pg. 26
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS

THANK YOU
D.1
Packet Pg. 27
Communication: -Presentation by Caltrans Highway 24 Fuel Reduction Efforts (ITEMS AGENDA TITLE: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. January 29, 2022

2. February 1, 2022
ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2022
B. City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022
Respectfully Submitted by:

Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

F.1
Packet Pg. 28
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 2 01.29.22
JANUARY 29, 2021

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
9:00 A.M. – SPECIAL SESSION – VIA TELECONFERENCE

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:

Mayor Fay called the meeting to order at approximately 9:00 a.m.

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Amy Worth
Vice Mayor Miller, Mayor Fay
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Nick Kosla

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION was made by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Gee, and carried unanimously to move up the discussion on number of members that should be appointed to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission. The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote to adopt the agenda as amended.

After Council discussion on how many appointments should be made to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (SSTOC), which can consist of between 7 and 10 members, Vice Mayor Miller made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Worth, to make two appointments at this meetings, keeping the current number of nine commissioners on the SSTOC. The motion carried unanimously by all present.

3. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS & APPOINTMENTS

3.1. Interview Applicants and Make Appointments for Vacancies on the City of Orinda Planning Commission, Parks & Recreation, Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission, Historical Landmarks Committee, Art in Public Places Committee, and County Connection Citizens Advisory Committee
After interviewing applicants for the various Commissions, Committee, and Boards, Councilmembers made the following appointments:
 Brandyn Iverson, Planning Commission
 Willy Mautner, Planning Commission
 Robert Hubner, Planning Commission
 Arran Schultz, Parks & Recreation Commission
 Marianne Moser, Parks & Recreation Commission
 Brad Barber, Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission  Yasaman Lee, Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission  Laurie Smith, Historical Landmarks Committee
 Jeff Heyman, Historical Landmarks Committee
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 2 01.29.22
 Shelley Hubner, Art in Public Places Committee
 Amina Bret-Monet, County Connection Citizens Advisory Committee MOTION was made by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Gee, and by roll call vote carried unanimously by all present to appoint the individuals as listed above.

D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:15 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Orinda City Council to be held on Tuesday, February 1, 2022. .
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 12 02.01.22
February 1, 2022

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Note: Written communications received from the public prior to the start of this meeting can be viewed at: http://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2085. They are also kept in the City Clerk’s Office as part of the public record and available upon request.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING– BY TELECONFERENCE
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:

Mayor Fay called the Regular Meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Nick Kosla, Amy Worth Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Councilmember Kosla.

C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
City Manager Biggs stated there were no changes to the agenda; however, there are supplemental materials regarding the Dalewood Drive item, proposed minute changes, and correspondences from the late distribution packet.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers or emails.

MOTION by Councilmember Gee and seconded by Councilmember Kosla to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Recycle Smart Presentation – AB 1383
Judith Silver, Senior Program Manager, Recycle Smart, gave a presentation regarding AB 1383. She described passage of Recycle Smart’s ordinance in December 2020, Statewide targets of 75% relating to disposal of organic waste and food from 2014 by 2025, obligations on and responsibilities of facilities and generators, inspection and enforcement efforts beginning in 2024, various tiers by facility, issuance of waivers, education about proper separation, collection of analysis to be submitted to the State, and annual route auditing.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 12 02.01.22
Councilmembers posed various questions regarding the program involving food recovery and disbursement, funding, grants, enforcement on the commercial sector, education and tools, contracts in place with food recovery organizations, waste to energy, pickup at schools, outreach, co-location of carts for organics and trash, and continuation of compost for residents.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.

Charles Porges spoke of his work in composting his yard waste and questioned if it was more efficient to provide it to Recycle Smart, and asked if he would get any discount from garbage rates for compositing his own green waste.

Ms. Silver replied residents can get a discount on their green waste. She encouraged Mr.

Porges to continue to self-compost and to contact her about receiving a discount.

Matt Fogarty said he also works in the food recovery space and voiced appreciation of Ms. Silver’s work.

Mayor Fay and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Silver for her presentation.

D.2. Police Chief Sullivan - Receive Police Department Update and Discuss and Provide Direction, if any
Police Chief Ryan Sullivan gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Orinda Police Department. He described the number of officers and staff, new hires and promotions, said the City Council Public Safety Committee will meet March/April and will prepare an annual report to be presented in May which will cover 2021 statistics, use of force information, and planned initiatives for 2022/23.

Chief Sullivan then spoke about community issues and things to make Orinda a safer community, efforts to date to be more transparent, enhanced technology and resources, recent residential burglaries under investigation, license plate readers, access to Flock cameras, the Neighborhood Watch program, resident education, crime prevention, home and vehicle security, body worn cameras, the Racial and Identity Profiling Act, pairing of mental health services with policing, and the County’s implementation of A3 Community Crisis Initiative.

Mayor Fay and Councilmembers posed questions about protocols during an on-going investigation, the Neighborhood Watch program, recent burglaries, technology resources, and use of cameras, and Chief Sullivan provided responses.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.

Adam Reiner thanked Chief Sullivan for the presentation, said he wrote the letter regarding the burglaries in his neighborhood and is encouraged to hear strategies being created to address crime.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 12 02.01.22
Matt Fogarty cited the request to obtain racial statistical information which have not been provided, asked whether police are keeping their body worn cameras on all the time and whether there are records kept of videos. He did not support more cameras on the street given crime is low in Orinda.

Meredith L. said she wrote a letter regarding crime in her neighborhood, thinks crime is increasing and asked for smart promotion of the Neighborhood Watch Program.

Chief Sullivan briefly responded to speaker comments and questions.

Mayor Fay, Councilmembers and City Manager Biggs thanked Chief Sullivan for his presentation and provided concluding remarks.

E. PUBLIC FORUM
Matt Fogarty likened crime as on-going pollution, destruction of the environment, and harm to children, spoke of warming, science statistics, changing landscapes, and asked for electrification of new buildings and garden tools, asked the City to join MCE, asked for more biking and walking, smaller homes, and asked the City to address these crimes.

Phil Fogarty also voiced concerns about pollution and harm to the environment, said he studied Environmental Economics at UC Berkeley, asked the City to do more about climate change and to prioritize impactful initiatives.

Charles Porges echoed comments of speakers, cited the need for better home insulation, and spoke about the need for the City to join MCE or another Community Choice Aggregate (CCA) for municipal green energy.

Mayor Fay briefly responded to speaker comments and said he plans to put forth a future climate initiative.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fay asked if there were requests for removal of items or public comments. City Clerk Smith clarified with Mayor Fay there is a request to pull Item F.2. Vice Mayor Miller requested commenting on Item F.1.2.

F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. January 11, 2022
F.3. Authorize Contract Amendment No. 2 to Professional Planning Services Contract to Interwest Consulting Group for on-call contract planning services.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 12 02.01.22
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute Contract Amendment No. 2 with Interwest Consulting Group providing a term of up to two years and at a maximum cost of $150,000 and subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

F.4. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:

Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of February 2nd, 2022 to March 3, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.

MOTION by Councilmember Worth and seconded by Councilmember Gee to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.3 and F43. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

Items Removed from the Consent Calendar:

F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

2. January 18, 2022
Vice Mayor Miller stated the Council received comments today that amended her comments made, but confirmed she had no changes to the proposed minutes of January 18, 2022. She referred to the second redline and said her intent was not to address all questions and comments the speaker had made, and said this was not to infer these were not important points.

MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller and seconded by Councilmember Gee to approve Consent Calendar Item F.1.2. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

F.2. 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.

City Manager Biggs introduced the item and said staff elaborated in the staff report the comments of the City Council and community.

City Attorney Osa Wolff stated she was available to answer any questions and noted the Council received three comments on this item from: 1) Charles Porges; 2) Cathy Finch; and 3) Steve Cohn, which were all posted on the City’s website.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 12 02.01.22
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.

Charles Porges said one item he did not bring up in his letter is whether rules apply to subcommittees and commissions that have Councilmembers on them and those which are run by Councilmembers, and whether or not the precedent set by the Council would be followed by the subcommittees or commissions.

Councilmember Gee suggested adding more language to provide the Mayor with more discretion. She would also support a one-minute follow-up, if granted by the Mayor. She referred to Section 4.6 under Written Communication and recommended revising the phrase for the number of copies provided by the public from 15 to 7 copies, and questioned whether or not the Council rotation process should be codified differently or not.

Councilmember Worth noted the Mayor can re-open the public comment period as needed and thought there is a fair amount of flexibility in these procedures. Regarding the succession of the Council leadership, it has been the same since incorporation and has worked well.

Vice Mayor Miller agreed that the rotation works well, said she is cautious to make changes to how public comments are handled, and questioned if the public is going to be being given additional time to wrap up their comments.

City Attorney Wolff explained that at the last meeting she heard the Council wanted to codify an allowance for additional time at the Mayor’s discretion when someone gets to their 3 minutes and wants to “wrap up”. She wrote, “If a speaker continues to speak after their allotted time has expired the Mayor, with concurrence of the Council, may allow them a short time, e.g., 30 seconds to wrap up their comments.” There was also feedback that the Council wanted to clarify they could ask questions of the speaker and they could elect to answer, and she added text about that, as well.

Council discussion ensued regarding speakers having 30 seconds additional to wrap up comments, discretion by the Mayor, further clarification on Council rotation practices, reduction from 15 to 7 copies of late correspondence, confirmation that the Mayor does not have to open the public comment period for everyone, opportunities for additional engagement with the public, risks for violation of the Brown Act, “Councilmembers unavailable” which relates to Section 8636 of the Government Code, rules followed by committees and commissions which the Council agree are borrowed from those of the Council, and Councilmembers made suggestions for revisions, as follows:
 Councilmember Worth asked that the sentence regarding public comment be revised to state, “If a speaker continues to speak after their allotted time has expired the Mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, may allow them for a short time to wrap up their comments.”
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 12 02.01.22
 Councilmember Gee asked to add another sentence that says, “at the Mayor’s discretion, public comment can be re-opened” but she was not sure it goes in that section.
 Councilmember Gee said if the Council elects to add a sentence that states, “The Mayor has the discretion to re-open public comment” she does not feel this belongs with the hearings where there is a formal process. Councilmembers and Ms. Wolff agreed.
 Ms. Wolff said there are a number of motions described in Section 5.4 and she displayed a sentence which states, “After public comment, the Mayor shall close the public comment portion.” Add, “During Council deliberations the Mayor, with concurrence of the Council, may re-open public comment and everybody would get one more minute.” Councilmembers concurred.
 Ms. Wolff then referred to 4.7 and confirmed Councilmembers supported the revised phrase: “During Council deliberations the Mayor, with consent of the Council, may re-open public comment.”
 Ms. Wolff summarized the two small changes which is 1) to delete from Section

4.7 the phrase “with the concurrence of the City Council” from the newly added text that had to do with the 30 second wrap up; 2) Add language in Section 5.4 to add at the very end the following sentence: “During Council deliberations the Mayor, with consent of the City Council, may re-open public comment.”.

Mayor Fay recognized Mr. Porges wished to speak and he allowed him a brief comment.

Charles Porges said he thinks the document is significantly improved with changes, thinks the Council needs to take the perspective of the public and that this document informs the public as to what can and cannot be done. During the last time he spoke, it was very unclear as to whether the Council could or could not deliberate and this should be clarified.

MOTION by Councilmember Worth and seconded by Councilmember Kosla to adopt Resolution No. 05-22 amending the City Council Policy & Procedures Manual, as redlined in the staff report with two edits: 1) to delete from Section 4.7 the phrase “with the concurrence of the City Council” from the sentence that starts with “If a speaker continues to speak”; and 2) Add a new sentence at the end of Section 5.4:
“During Council deliberations the Mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, may re-open public comment.” Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

G. PUBLIC HEARING – None.

H. POLICY MATTERS
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 12 02.01.22
H.1. Consider the Appeal of MOFD’s Staff Rejection of Dalewood Drive Speed Cushions without a 20 Foot Offset
Recommendation:

Consider Traffic Safety Advisory Committee’s (TSAC) recommendation to appeal said rejection to the Moraga Orinda Fire District Board of Appeals, discuss other options and provide direction for next steps City Manager Biggs introduced the item and gave a brief background of the project.

Scott Christie, Acting Public Works Director, gave the staff report and brief overview of TSAC’s recommendation to appeal the rejection of Dalewood Drive speed cushions without a 20-foot offset. The Fire District has exercised their rights in the proposed review of these locations per the Fire Code, indicating they were supportive subject to placing the speed cushions 20 feet apart so that in one direction there would be a 20-foot gap in the opposing traffic direction.

TSAC indicated they wanted to bring the matter to the Council to consider appealing this to the Fire District Board. He then described TSAC’s process for review, history of speed cushion locations in the City, types of traffic studies done by staff, the City’s traffic calming budget, speed cushion design and spacing, and the Fire District’s review and comments.

Fire Chief Dave Winnacker referred to his letter which articulates the process, elements outlined in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan in Steps 2, 5 and 7, specifically the collection of available traffic, accident, speed survey and other data relevant to the request, the elements that show the three “e’s” (education, enforcement and engineering) have been accomplished, and the 6 six specific bullets on page 23, which he described.

He stated the Fire District has asked for this information repeatedly and it has not been provided. Without it he was not sure they could move forward with reviewing the request, given this is a sole evacuation route from an area adjacent to very high fire hazard severity zones in a wildland urban interface designated fire area, and in light of California Fire Code of Regulations, Title 14-127300. This is not to say these speed cushions are not warranted or that they would have an impact, but it is premature for them to take a position on it. Once information is provided, they can review it and provide comments which may include approval.

Councilmember Worth recognized there has been a change of law since this policy was put in place relative to what agencies can weigh in on. She also recognized there has been a huge change of law relative to pedestrian safety, bicycle access of streets and roads that did not exist when the City began this policy.

As far as federal guidelines, the idea for speed cushions as opposed to the speed humps was that they would be positioned which show photos of fire trucks and buses, etc. successfully passing through those speed cushions. They are designed to accommodate fire trucks and paramedic vans. She asked if this is accurate.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 12 02.01.22
Fire Chief Winnacker said it is a matter of the size of impact, but any device that will slow speeders will also slow a speeding fire engine or ambulance. It is less of an impact with a speed cushion versus a traditional speed hump, but it does have an impact.

Councilmember Worth said on Dalewood, there is space where the fire truck could pass and be unimpeded by the cushions. Chief Winnacker said unfortunately it does not work that way in the field. There is the line of the vehicle, the inner wheels of the rear duals, the ambulance which has a much narrower axle, and when driving a 43,500 lb. fire engine or ambulance with a patient or paramedics in the back, it is simply not possible to travers those things at full speed.

Vice Mayor Miller asked if it would be a problem for any speed cushions on any arterial collector street or she asked if they are always a problem. Chief Winnacker said no; anything that interferes with the flow of traffic requires careful study, particularly in an outlying area with a single way in and out such as Dalewood area and the Downs.

From MOFD’s perspective, the required elements they believe they need to review in order to say the process was followed appropriately and that they applied due diligence before they approve something that inevitably will be associated with a delay in response.

In this case, required elements were not followed per the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in the process, which he described.

Vice Mayor Miler said Mr. Christie indicated that the study has been performed in the manner it is performed in Orinda. She asked if Chief Winnacker disagrees with that study.

Chief Winnacker said he does not know enough to disagree since their repeated requests for that information has not been answered.

Councilmember Kosla asked if there is a rule of thumb for how fast a fire engine would be driving down the 25-mph street. Chief Winnacker said generally engines do not exceed the posted speed limit by more than 10 mph. in a neighborhood such as this one with limited sight lines, very narrow streets and maneuverability of an engine that is not very reactive.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.

Travis Blaschek-miller, Chair, Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, voiced support of the appeal, cited safety impacts, the desire to slow traffic down in their neighborhood, and the arduous process to obtain approval for speed cushions, and the Fire District throwing a “wrench in the process”.

He then provided an overview of the rules relating to speed cushions and asked the Council to consider the appeal, bring this forward to MOFD, and come up with a solution that works for everyone.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 12 02.01.22
Dana Wentworth said she has been working on traffic calming in Sleepy Hollow for over two years now and the Dalewood group’s work has been about 3 years now. He cited the amount of collective bargaining going into these initiatives, recognize the need to get fire engines in and out, but said half the year there is no fire danger and pedestrians and students are unsafe. He noted 80% of the calls are medical and a fire engine is not the first on scene. If the Council decides not to install speed cushions, she suggested dissolving the TSAC Committee and said the 14 other neighborhood groups wanting to initiate traffic calming measures would come directly to the Council.

Brandon Haydu, TSAC, asked that the Council appeal MOFD’s staff rejection for speed cushions. Without a 20-foot offset, traffic calming devices only pass through TSAC if they have extensive local support. The devices are well thought-out and take a substantial amount of time for residents but if off-set, it makes it easy for people to bypass them without slowing down. He knows speed is a major factor in recent pedestrian deaths and asked the Council to appeal MOFD’s staff rejection.

Christopher Anderson thanked Chief Winnacker for his time yesterday meeting with members of their board, noted there is not only one way in and out but residents can also travel through the private road up Sundown Terrace and down Happy Valley Road. He thinks Chief Winnacker is very much open to working with TSAC and what he would like is a study in order to approve it. They just entered their 35th month working on this project and there have been several accidents and bodily injuries due to speeding vehicles.

Fire Chief Winnacker stated from a fire apparatus access and from an evacuation standpoint, the cut-through to Sundown Terrace does not qualify as a road. So, from a State review perspective, there is a sole evacuation route from this neighborhood.

Charles Porges questioned if the group has followed the City’s procedure and had done the appropriate study. It seems Chief Winnacker is suggesting the study done does not provide him with sufficient data for him to be able to justify the speed cushions. If this data is available, he suggested giving it to Chief Winnacker so he can approve it. He also asked if the Fire Department has the legal authority to approve or disapprove a speed cushion.

City Manager Biggs responded and confirmed that State law does require any improvements in the roadway be approved by the fire agency.

Vice Mayor Miller said she is hearing the study referenced in the code has been completed but the Fire Chief has not been provided with the information that he has requested. Mr. Biggs explained having reviewed this, in hindsight there has been more interest from the Fire Department than perhaps in previous cases, and he explained the way this evolved.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 12 02.01.22
Mr. Christie stated in the past, staff had not prepared a formal document they shared with other agencies. According to the criteria, their policy states the Orinda Police Department and MOFD have been advised of the specific proposal and were offered the opportunity to comment.

With that, they had done what was done in the past which was to advise MOFD they are proposing a speed cushion in this location and they typically received a quick response.

Changes over time occurred but the same process is used.

Councilmember Kosla asked if there is any recourse if the Council appeals and loses through a lawsuit, for example.

City Attorney Wolff said the MOFD Board sits at the top in the appeal process. She offered that it is important to keep clear that the City reviews for compliance with its own policy and MOFD is doing something separate. They are reviewing for compliance with the 2019 Building and Fire Codes. The Fire Chief feels that having some of the documents produced by the City in its process might be helpful to him in his process. But these are two separate sets of criteria and process.

It seems like their initial review back in November produced a comment that the speed cushions would need to be offset, and now the Council is being offered the opportunity to re-submit with more information that might produce a different result.

Councilmember Gee asked who is the authority at MOFD; the Chief or MOFD Board.

Ms. Wolff said her understanding is MOFD staff makes the initial determination and then if the City is dissatisfied and feel the Fire and Building Codes have been misinterpreted or applied incorrectly this is the City’s opportunity to appeal to the MOFD Board which sits as the Board of Appeals.

Fire Chief Winnacker confirmed and said he is authorized to make interpretations of the Fire Code and the MOFD Board, sitting as the Board of Appeals, is available should an applicant disagree with one of those determinations.

Council discussion ensued regarding the history of TSAC, speeding throughout the City, pedestrian safety impacts, the need for more information in order for MOFD to evaluate the request, working out a compromise of the level of information documented, the requested documentation in the Chief’s letter, and clarification that it is within the sole discretion of the city to determine what level of traffic study is warranted.

Mr. Biggs said this program the City is following is self-imposed so there is no legal requirement to do any of it other than its adoption by the Council. It could be amended or waived by the Council. He suggested staff make their best effort to provide a document.

The program the City has does not get into evaluating fire engine response times and they do not believe it requires a traditional traffic study.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 12 02.01.22
Secondly, the Council could also authorize the appeal in the event that what they give the Chief does not allow for him to still approve the project. Ultimately, they could look to revise the process more comprehensively, but this is not something staff could address anytime soon.

Mayor Fay and Councilmembers then described Fire District and City mandates, agreement that a traffic study is not required, recommended staff in the future revise pages 3 and 22 of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan having to do with speed cushions and clarify language in the overall TSAC process in the future, and confirmed that the Chief has the ability to waive the 10-day appeal period if needed.

EXTEND MEETING
MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller and seconded by Councilmember Worth to extend the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

MOTION by Councilmember Worth and seconded by Vice Mayor Miller to direct staff to provide MOFD with a substantive written report and the process undertaken of the analysis staff did relative to the installation of speed cushions in Dalewood Drive.

Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

H.2. Temporary Road Closure of a Portion of Camino Sobrante Located North of Lake Cascade near El Ribero Intersection for Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) North Orinda Sewer Renovations, Phase 8 Project.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council approve the Traffic Control and Detour Alternatives proposed by CCCSD; and Adopt Resolution 06-22 (Traffic Order #211) Authorizing the Temporary Full Road Closure of a portion of Camino Sobrante, north of Lake Cascade near El Ribero intersection during the following times:

1. Road Closure 1 is scheduled to occur March 2, 2022 to March 25, 2022, Mondays -Fridays from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm.

2. Road Closure 2 is scheduled to occur March 28, 2022 to April 8, 2022, Mondays - Fridays from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm.
for the purposes of CCCSD to perform the project improvements which include replacement of sewer lines.

Acting Public Works Director Scott Christie introduced the item which relates to temporary road closures for Central Sanitary sewer project.

Acting City Engineer Sivakumar Natarajan gave the staff report and overview of the project, and introduced Central Sanitary personnel Jason Fitch and Chris Carpenter who briefly described the project scope, closure and detour options.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 12 02.01.22
Councilmembers clarified schedules, hours, and thanked Central Sanitary District staff and City staff for their coordination in scheduling, confirmed there will be no interruption with access to the Country Club, recognized public outreach, and for especially for making the schedule work for school buses.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.

MOTION by Councilmember Kosla and seconded by Councilmember Worth to approve the Traffic Control and Detour Alternatives proposed by CCCSD; and Adopt Resolution 06-22 (Traffic Order #211) Authorizing the Temporary Full Road Closure of a portion of Camino Sobrante, north of Lake Cascade near El Ribero intersection during the following times: 1) Road Closure 1 is scheduled to occur March 2, 2022 to March 25, 2022, Mondays -Fridays from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm.; 2) Road Closure 2 is scheduled to occur March 28, 2022 to April 8, 2022, Mondays - Fridays from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm. for the purposes of CCCSD to perform the project improvements which include replacement of sewer lines. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Councilmember Kosla reported on his attendance at the Downtown Subcommittee meeting which was a scoping meeting for the EIR, and details are available on-line.

J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – City Manager Biggs noted that the comment period for the Notice of Preparation for the EIR for the Plan Orinda efforts has been extended to February 24, 2022 due to non-receipt by the County Clerk. He also reported that at the next Council meeting, a draft Housing Element will be available and staff will review the housing sites proposed for the recommended element.

Work is underway at the Library Plaza which will repair trip hazards. The City is about to start the Slope Stabilization Project at City Hall, with construction activity seen in the next two weeks.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – None.

L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:24 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 (2682 : City Council Minutes) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: February 15, 2022
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of February 16, 2022 to March 17, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.

BACKGROUND:

On October 5th, 2021 the Orinda City Council adopted Resolution No. 42-21 (see link below) approving the continued use of teleconferencing for the meetings of all City legislative bodies pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361. The resolution was ratified on October 19th, and at subsequent meetings through 2021 and beginning of 2022.

DISCUSSION:

At the time of adoption, the City Council anticipated that the resolution would appear on its consent calendar for review and ratification or update at regular Council meetings.

The State law authorizes the continuation for as long as the Governor’s proclaimed state of emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic remains in effect. On November 10, 2021 Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order which extends the emergency proclamation to March 31, 2022. State law also provides that the City Council determine that they desire to continue remote public meetings and make the necessary findings at least every thirty days. Those findings were contained in Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21, which staff recommends the Council vote to ratify based on current conditions.

Approval of this item will allow all public bodies established by the City of Orinda and covered by Resolution No. 42-21 to continue to conduct teleconferencing meetings.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Weblink to: Staff Report, Adopted Resolution at October 5, 2021 Council Meeting Respectfully Submitted by:

Sheri Smith
City Clerk
F.2
Packet Pg. 43
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

F.2
Packet Pg. 44
City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: February 15, 2022
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Contract Change Order No. 2 with Ray’s Electric for Construction of the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Project #4128 and Approve a Budget Change of $50,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve Change Order No. 2 with Ray’s Electric and increase the contract value by $54,817 to a new total contract amount of $714,741.50 and 2) Approve budget change of $50,000 by appropriating this amount from Fund #335 to the Project #4128.

BACKGROUND:

At the City Council meeting on September 7, 2021, the City Council awarded the contract (Attachment A) for the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Corridor Improvements Project 4128 to Gruendl Inc., DBA Ray’s Electric for $639,924.50 with $64,000 in contingency (10%) for a total potential contract value of $703,924.50.

The work to be performed generally consists of pavement widening, slurry seal treatment, concrete island modification, and installation of class 2 bicycle lanes, including green paint, loop detectors and striping. Additionally, slurry seal treatment was included as a bid additive alternate due to complications with the award of the 2021 Paving Project (was re-bid).

Construction began on December 6, 2021 and required a change order (CCO No. 1, 1/24/2021) in the amount of $20,000 to re-route an existing street light conduit that was in conflict with the concrete work on Camino Pablo underneath Highway-24. The remaining available contract contingency is $44,000.

DISCUSSION:

The Slurry Seal portion of the work covers 45,400 square yards on Camino Pablo and observations of the current road conditions indicate that base failures should be repaired to create a secure level base devoid of cracks and depressions for the slurry to be placed upon. The base failure repair work will include grinding 6-inches of existing roadway material, repaving with new hot mix asphalt, and additional traffic control. If the base repairs are not completed, the slurry seal will be compromised and will not meet the normal service life of at least five years.

Since the contract with Ray’s does not have a base repair bid item in the work, Staff requested a proposal for the work from the contractor, and Ray’s submitted the attached request for change order #2 (Attachment B) for an amount of $54,817. Staff has F.3
Packet Pg. 45
reviewed the request and determined that it is in line with estimated value of the work.

Since the proposed change order #2 value exceeds the available contingency, City Council approval is required. It is also recommended that a net contract contingency of $50,000 (7% of the proposed new contract value, including change orders 1 and 2) be allowed for, by appropriating $50,000 from Road Maintenance Fees (Fund #335).

Fund #335 has available fund balance to accommodate this budget change.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon City Council authorization, CCO No. 2 will be sent to the City Clerk for processing and approval by the City Manager. Upon approval, the contractor is prepared to do the base repair work, subject to favorable weather, circa April 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The above actions increase the project budget by $50,000, and will require the above noted budget change to Fund #335. Project 4128 is funded from a combination of CCTA (Measure J) grant funds, Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant funds and Road Maintenance Fee funds.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract
B. CCO No. 2
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Acting Public Works Director
Prepared By: Kevin McCourt, Assistant Engineer
Approved by:

F.3
Packet Pg. 46
DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

CITY OF ORINDA

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
for
Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Corridor Improvements (Project #4128) THIS CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION is made and entered into the date of the last signature affixed hereto by and between the City of Orinda, a municipal corporation (herein called the City) and Gruendl Inc. OBA Ray's Electric, a Corporation located at 411 Pendleton Way Suite B Oakland, CA 94621 (herein called Contractor).

RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared in the manner prescribed by law, certain plans, specifications and other contract documents for the public work of construction titled Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Corridor Improvements (Project #4128) herein described and shown, and has approved and adopted the Contract Documents, as that term is defined below, including the specifications and plans, and has caused to be published in the manner and for the time required by law a Notice Inviting Bids for the work described in the Contract Docun nts (the Wurk.), and
B. WHEREAS, Contractor in response to the City's Notice has submitted to the City a sealed bid proposal (attached as Exhibit H) accompanied by a bid guaranty in an amount not less than ten percent (10%) of the amount bid for the construction of all of the proposed Work in accordance with the terms of the Contract Documents, and C. WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined, and declared the bids submitted and as a result has determined and declared Contractor to be the lowest responsible bidder and has duly awarded to Contractor a contract for all of the Work and for the sum or sums named in the bid proposal and in this Contract.

Accordingly, the City and Contractor agree as follows:

1. CONTRACT SUM: The City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept, in full payment for the above Work, the sum of six hundred thirty nine thousand, nine hundred twenty four dollars arid fifty cents ($639,924.50) to be paid in accordance with the Contract Documents.

2. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW: The City is a public agency. All provisions of law applicable to public contracts are a part of this Contract to the same extent as though set fo1th herein and will be con'lplied with by Contractor. This Contract is subject to State contract nondiscrimination and compliance requirements pursuant to Government Code section 12990.

3. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: The following Contract Documents relating to this Contract for Construction are hereby made a part of and incorporated by reference into th is Contract:

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A I. Notice to Bidders and Special Provisions
A. Engineering Plans/Drawings and Specifications prepared for this Project.

B. State of California Dept. ofTransportation, 2018 Standard Specifications C. State of California Dept. of Transportation, Revised Standard Specifications attached to the Special Provisions
D. Special Provisions
E. State of California Dept. ofTransportation, 2018 Standard Plans F. State of California Dept. of Transportation, Revised Standard Plans listed in the Standard Plan List and attached to the Special Provisions G. Any Supplemental Contract Information
II. Proposal & Sample Contract
A. List of Subcontractors
B. Non-Collusion Declaration
C. Public Contract Code Section I 0162 Questionnaire
D. Public Contract Section I 0232 Statement
E. Public Contract Code Section I 02851.1 Statement
F. Bidder's Bond
III. Construction Contract
A. Compliance with Insurance Requirements declaration (Exhibit A) B. Perforn:iance Bond (Exhibit B)
C. Labor and Material Bond (Exhibit C)
D. Warranty and Guaranty (Exhibit D)
E. Affidavit Concerning Conflicts of r nterest and Noncompetitive Practices (Exhibit E)
F. Certificates oflnsurance, Endorsements, and other evidence of insurance provided pursuant to this Contract and accepted by the City (Exhibit F) G. Contractor Safety Program: Self-Certification Worksheet (Exhibit G) Any work called for in one Contract Document not mentioned in another is to be performed and executed the same as if mentioned in all Contract Documents.

4. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Contract shall not be effective and no payments to Contractor will be made until:
a. The City has received satisfactory evidence that Contractor has met all of the insurance requirements of this Contract;
b. All required signatures, including those of the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk have been obtained; and
c. All bonds required by this Contract have been obtained and filed with the City.

5. INDEMNIFICATION: The City of Orinda and all officers, employees, and agents thereof connected with the Work, shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner: for any loss or damage that may happen to the Work or any part thereof; for any loss or damage to any of the materials or other things used or employed in performing the Work; for injury to or death

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A of any person; or for damage to property from any cause except losses due to sole or active negligence of the City's officers or employees.

To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents, from all liability, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims or judgments, including attorneys' fees and other defense costs, resulting from injury to or death sustained by any person (including Contractor's employees and subcontractors), or damage to property of any kind, or any other injury or damage whatsoever, which injury, death or damage arises out of or is in any way connected with the performance of the Work, regardless of Contractor's fault or negligence, including any of the same resulting from City's alleged or actual negligent act or omission, or its agents, contractors or employees; except that said indemnity shall not be applicable to injury, death or damage to property arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of City, its constituent entities, its and their officers, agents, or servants who are directly responsible to City. In instances where the City's active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Contractor wi II be for that entire portion of percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of the City.

Contractor shall be obligated to immediately defend, with counsel approved by the City, any suit or action brought against the City, its elected and aprointed nffi cials, employees and agents, founded upon any claim of injury to or death sustained by any person (including Contractor's employees and subcontractors), or damage to property of any kind, or any other injury or damage whatsoever, which injury, death or damage arises out of or is in any way connected with the performance of the Work, whether or not liability is established. If it is finally adjudicated that liability was caused by the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of an indemnified party, Contractor may submit a claim to the City for reimbursement of reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs. This indemnification and duty to defend shall extend to claims asserted after termination of this Contract for whatever reason.

In addition to any remedy authorized by law, as much of the money due Contractor under and by vi1tue of this Contract as shall be considered necessary by the City, may be retained by the City until disposition has been made of such suits or claims for damage.

The City and Contractor shall timely notify each other of the receipt of any third-party claim relating to the contract. The City shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs incurred in providing such notification.

6. INSURANCE TYPES AND LIMITS: Contractor shall promptly obtain, at its own expense, all the insurance described in this section, and submit coverage verification for review and approval by the City. This insurance shall be in addition to any other form of insurance or bonds required under the terms of this Contract.

To the extent that Contractor's insurance documentation is not in compliance with the requirements of this Contract and the City Attorney is required to intervene to explain and obtain the proper documentation from Contractor's insurer, the cost of the City Attorney's

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A services will be deducted from the contract price to which Contractor would otherwise be entitled under the terms of this Contract.

Contractor shall include all costs for all insurance in its bid.

Nothing contained in these insurance requirements is to be construed as limiting the extent of Contractor's responsibility for payment of damages resulting from its operations under this Contract. Contractor's failure to provide or maintain the insurance required by this Contract shall not affect Contractor's obligations under this Contract.

Contractor, at Contractor's own expense, shall procure, pay for, and maintain throughout the duration of this Contract the following insurance coverage against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

Companies writing the insurance under this article shall be authorized to do business in the State of California. Insurance is to be placed with insurers possessing an A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII.
a. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Contractor shall maintain workers' compensation insurance and employer's liability insurance for Contractor's employees in accordance with Sections 3700 et seq. of the California Labor Code. In addition, Contractor shall require each subcontractor involved with the Work to be performed under this Contract to similarly maintain workers' compensation insurance and employer's liability insurance for all of subcontractor's employees in accordance with Sections 3700 et seq. of the California Labor Code. The workers' compensation policy shall include employers' liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000 for each accident, bodily injury by disease, and $1,000,000 for each employee bodily injury by disease. The workers' compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all Work performed by Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.
b. General Liability Coverage. Contractor shall maintain commercial general liability insurance and umbrella or excess liability insurance covering all operations by or on behalf of Contractor providing insurance for bodily injury liability and prope11y damage liability for the following limits per occurrence and including coverage for:
(I) premises, operations and mobile equipment; (2) products and completed operations; (3) broad form property damage (including completed operations); (4) explosion, collapse, and underground hazards; (5) personal and adve1tising injury; and (6) contractual liability.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4892-AD1A-37EEE631517A Liability Limits
Total bid For each Aggregate for General Umbrella or
occurrencea products/ aggregateb excess
completed liabilityc
operation
s $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $5,000,000 > $1,000,000
s $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 > $2,000,000
s $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 > $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $15,000,000 a Combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage. b This limit must apply separately to your work under this Contract. • The umbrella or excess policy must contain a clause stating that it takes effect (drops down) in the event the primary limits are impaired or exhausted.

If Contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitl ed to coverag~ for the: higher limits maintained by Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. c. Automobile Liability Coverage. Contractor shall maintain automobile liability insurance in amounts not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage for all activities arising out of or in connection with the Work to be performed under this Contract. All automobiles and trucks owned, non-owned or hired shall be covered.

7. ADDITIONAL INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:
a. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
i. Additional Insureds. The City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, volunteers, and those individuals identified in section 7-l .06O(2) of the special provisions shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Contractor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobi !es owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by or on behalf of Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to Contractor's insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 I 0, CG 11 85, or both CG 20 I 0 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used), or as a separate owner's policy. Forms

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A covering additional insureds only for liability caused in whole or part by Contractor's acts or omissions are NOT acceptable.
ii. Contractor's Policy Primary. For any claims related to the Work, Contractor's policy shall be considered primary insurance as to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers, shall be excess of Contractor's insurance only and shall not contribute with it. b. Period of Effect. All insurance required by this Contract shall remain in full force and effect at all times during the prosecution of the Work and until the final completion and acceptance thereof. In addition, the general liability coverage shall be maintained for a minimum of five (5) years after final completion and acceptance of the Work. In the event Contractor fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by this Contract, the City at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage as required and the cost will be paid by Contractor. The Notice to Proceed does not relieve Contractor of the duty to obtain such insurance as required herein.
c. Notice. Contractor shall not cancel, assign, or change any policy of insurance required by this Contract or engage in any act or omission that will cause its insurer to cancel any insurance policy required by this Contract except after providing 10 day prior written notice to the City. If an insurance policy required by this Contract is unilaterally cancelled or changed by the insurer, the Contractor shall immediately provide written notice to the City and obtain substitute insurance meeting the requirements of this Contract. Each insurance policy required by this Contract shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City. Nothing in this subsection relieves Contractor of its obligation to maintain all insurance required by this Contract at all times during the prosecution of the Work.
d. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers; or (2) Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of loses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. e. No insurance policy required herein shall be written as claims-made coverage. Insurance must be written on an occurrence basis.
f. Failure of the City to enforce in a timely manner any of the provisions of this Contract, including the Contract's insurance provisions, shall not act as a waiver to enforcement of any of these provisions at a later date. The City reserves the right to require complete, ce1tified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements, required by these provisions, at any time.
g. Subcontractors. Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A h. Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation that any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by vi1tue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation. i. City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

8. EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE: Contractor shall provide (I) certificates of insurance and (2) original written endorsements as evidence of the insurance coverage required by this Contract. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that Insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. Certificates and endorsements shall be filed with the City and are considered an integral part of this Contract, which shall not become effective until satisfactory evidence of insurance has been received and approved by the City. However, failure of Contractor to provide satisfactory evidence of insurance or failure of the City to approve satisfactory evidence of insurance shall not operate as a waiver of these insurance requirements. As noted above, the endorsements of insurance coverage shall specifically:
a. Endorse the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, and those individuals identified in section 7-l .06O(2) of the special provisions, as additional insureds for general liability coverage and automobile liability coverage; b. Provide that Contractor's insurance is primary as to the City's coverage, which shall be non-contributory for general liability coverage and automobile liability coverage; c. Provide that the City is named as a loss payee for the builder's risk (course of construction) coverage; and
d. Provide that Contractor waives rights of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors for the workers' compensation coverage.
e. Provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

9. WORKERS COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION : By signing this Agreement, Contractor ce1iifies the following "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract."
l 0. PROHIBITED INTEREST: Contractor represents that to the best of its knowledge no officer or employee of the City has any financial interest in this transaction or in the business of Contractor; has used his or her position considering or approving the Contract for private gain or advantage; or has received any money or other consideration for approval of this Contract. Contractor further represents that to the best of its knowledge no officer or employee of the City is engaged in any employment, activity, or enterprise for compensation which is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to his or her duties in approving this Contract. If any such interest, employment, activity, or enterprise comes to the

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A knowledge of Contractor at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information shall be made in writing to the City, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article IV Division 4 Section 1090 or section 1126 of the Government Code of the State of California. No officer, or employee of the City or of any of its member jurisdictions during his/her tenure of office, or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, financial or otherwise, in this Contract or the proceeds therefrom. 11 . NOTICES: Any notices to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected either by personal delivery, fax or mail. Mail shall be sent registered or certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the pa1ties at the addresses set forth below, but each paity may change its address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. Notices delivered personally shall be effective immediately.

Notices sent by mail shall be effective one (1) day after mailing. Notices sent by facsimile shall be effective upon transmission to the number set forth below.

CITY OF ORINDA
Director of Public Works
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, California 94563
(925) 253-423 1

11. BONDS:

CONTRACTOR
Gruendl Inc. OBA Ray's Electric
411 Pendleton Way, Suite B
Oakland, CA 94621
510-577-7700
Atti~: G:-eg Grnendl
a. Performance Bond: A performance bond as shown in Exhibit B shall be provided in the amount of 100% of the contract price.
b. Labor and Materials: A labor and materials bond as shown in Exhibit C shall be provided in the amount of I 00% of the contract price.
c. Proof of Admitted Surety Insurer Status. A certificate of admitted surety ins mer status shall be attached to each bond. Proof of that status shall be in either of the following forms: (a) a printout of information from the website of the Department oflnsurance confirming the surety is an admitted surety insurer or (b) the Contra Costa County Clerk's certificate under Code of Civil Procedure section 995.640(a).

12. CONTRACTOR'S BOOKS AND RECORDS: Contractor and its subcontractors shall establish and maintain records pertaining to this Contract. Contractor's and subcontractors' accounting systems shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles and all records shall provide a breakdown of total costs charged under this contract, including properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices and vouchers.

Contractor shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Contractor under this Contract.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A Contractor shall maintain all documents and records that demonstrate performance under this Contract for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this Contract.

Any records, data or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Contract shall be made available for inspection, copying or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City or a designated representative for the purpose of auditing and verifying statements, performance, invoices, or bills submitted by Contractor pursuant to this Contract and shall provide such assistance as may be reasonably required in the course of such inspection. Copies of such documents shall be provided to the City for inspection at City's facility when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the records shal I be available at Contractor's address indicated for receipt of notices in the Contract.

Where the City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Contractor's business, the City may, by written request, require that custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be maintained at the City's facility. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any pa11y authorized by Contractor, Contractor's representatives, or Contractor's successor-in-interest.

Pursuant to California Government Code section 8546.7, the parties to this Contract may be subject to the examination and audit of representative of the Auditor General of the State of California for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Contract. Any such examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of this Contract including, but not limited to, the cost of administering the Contract.

Contractor and all subcontractors shall furnish the records specified in California Labor Code section 1776 directly to the Labor Commissioner in accordance with law. Contractor shall post all job site notices that are required by regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations. The work performed pursuant to this Contract is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

13. WARRANTY AND GUARANTY: Contractor shall provide the City with a completed warranty and guaranty as shown in Exhibit D.

14. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND NONCOMPETITIVE PRACTICES AFFIDAVIT:

Contractor shall provide the City with a completed affidavit concerning conflicts of interest and noncompetitive practices as shown in Exhibit E.

15. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE: Contractor agrees to do all things necessary to faithfully perform and complete the Work.

Ill

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

16. WARRANTIES:
a. Warranty of Title: Contractor warrants to the City and its successors and assigns that the title to the materials, supplies or equipment covered by this Contract, when delivered to the City or its successors or assigns, shall be free from all liens and encumbrances. b. Warranty of Fitness: Contractor warrants that all materials, supplies and products furnished meet the requirements and conditions of the Contract Documents and are fit for the purpose intended.
c. Warranty of Merchantability: Contractor warrants that the goods are merchantable in accordance with California Commercial Code section 2314. In accepting this and other warranties and the materials or supplies to be manufactured or assembled pursuant to the Contract Documents, the City does not waive any warranty, either express or implied, in Califomia Commercial Code sections 23 l 2 through 2315, inclusive, or any liability of the manufacture as determined by any decision ofa court of the State of California or the United States.
d. Registration: Contractor represents and warrants that it and all subcontractors working under this Contract are registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to section 1725.5 of the California Labor Code.

17. WAIVER: No waiver of any breach of the terms, conditions or covenants of this Contract shall be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or any other covenants, conditions or terms of this Contract.

I 8. TIME OF THE ESSENCE: Time is of the essence in this Contract.

19. CONTROLLING LAW: This Contract and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: It is expressly agreed between the City and Contractor that this Contract, including the Contract Documents listed in paragraph 3 and incorporated herein, expresses the complete and integrated agreement between the pa1ties and supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, agreements and understandings between them regarding the subject matter hereof. There are no other terms and provisions, impJied or otherwise, written or oral, respecting the subject of this Contract.

21. AMENDMENT: This Contract may be amended only by a written agreement signed by the pmties.

22. SPECIAL NOTICE:

CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED BYLAW TO BE LICENSED AND REGULATED

BY THE CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD WHICH HAS JURISDICTION

TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST CONTRACTORS IF A COMPLAINT REGARDING A PATENT ACT OR OMISSlON IS FILED WITHIN FOUR (4) YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. A COMPLAINT REGARDING A

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

LATENT ACT OR OMISSION PERTAINING TO STRUCTURAL DEFECTS MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.

ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING A CONTRACTOR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR, CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD, P.O. BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95826.

This Contract is executed by the City upon approval by the Council at its regular meeting of September 7, 2021.

CITY OF ORINDA
By: [}:t""'.'" I 9/24/2021
et'i:!39A09~ ...

David Biggs
City Manager
::NTRA~~
7 Print Name: Greg Gruendl
Title: President
Authorized representative of Contractor
Signature must be notarized. Attach acknowledgement
9/24/2021
Date: ______ ___ _ __ _ Date: 9/17/2021
~ OocuSigned by:

Attest:_L: ~ ~~a-2,a-11""' ~F=~-F-tf4=e.-.. --- --- Snen M. Smith J f Contractor is a corporation, afiix corporate
seal here
City Clerk
OocuSigned by:

Approved as to Form: lfL. 111.1 ct
v;o., VVO\{f 9/24/2021
Osa L. Wolff
City Attorney
Exhibits
A. Compliance with Insurance Requirements declaration
B. Performance Bond
C. Labor and Material Bond
D. Warranty and Guaranty
E. Affidavit Concerning Conflicts of Interest and Noncompetitive Practices F. Insurance Documents To Be Provided by Contractor
i. Workers' Compensation Certificate of Insurance
ii. Workers' Compensation fnsurance Endorsements
iii. Automobile Liability Certificate oflnsurance
iv. Automobile Liability Insurance Endorsements
v. General Liability Certificate of Insurance
vi. General Liability Insurance Endorsements
G. Contractor Safety Program - Self Certification Worksheet H. Proposal submitted by Contractor

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

EXHIBIT A

COMPLIANCE WITH INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
To comply with this Contract, I, the undersigned, declare that I have provided certificates of insurance and 01·iginal signed written endorsements (or other policy language) as evidence of the insurance coverage required by th is Contract, which include the following.

A. Additional Insureds.

With respect to my general liability and automobile insurance coverage, I have attached to this Contract endorsements that add the City of Orinda, its officials, employees, agents, volunteers, and those individuals identified in section 7-l .06D of the special provisions as additional insureds. Acceptable additional insured endorsements for general liability insurance coverage include CG 10 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01.

B. Primary Insurance.

With respect to my general liability and automobile insurance coverage, I have attached to this Contract endorsements that demonstrate my insurance is primary as to the City's insurance for any claim arising out of the subject of this Contract. The endorsements expressly state that the City's insurance is excess insurance only and shall not be required to contribute to a loss that is covered by my insurance.

D. Waiver of Subrogation.

With respect to my workers compensation insurance coverage, I have attached to this Contract an endorsement with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all Work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subccntract:):5.

E. Notice of CanceJlation.

With respect to all insurance policies, I have attached to this Contract endorsements providing that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.

Alternatively, I have attached pages from my insurance contracts that provide satisfactory evidence that my policies cover these requirements without the need for an endorsement.

I, the undersigned, further declare that I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract.

Date: 9/17/2021
[Signature must be notarized. Attach acknowledgement form.] President

SIGNATORY'S TITLE/OFFICIAL CAPACITY
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A A notary public or ol~er officer completing 'lhls oertificate verifies only 1he Identity of tha individual who signed the document to which this certff!cate ts attached, and not the trothfulness, aocuraoy, or validity of that document.

State of OaUfornla
County of ~~l)t[ll\tnf\
On C,t, · \'\ I I\P1, \ before ma, Prl~"" p\t~l'i , NO\l\QJ.r{ ~\i\Jt,\c., Date ·
.. personally appeared ~ ~ ~uh'-'
Here Insert Nam~ and TitJe of the Officer
Name(s) of Signer(s)
who proved to. me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the per~oll{el" whoee narne(s}1s/artf' sut;iscrlbeci to thg within instrumeni and aof~nowledged to me that hs/i!Refthey exeGutsd the same In · hlal~ ir-authorlzed capaolt:y{~ . and that by hls/hiiA'ttteir sTgnatur~ on the ll'!strumentthe perso~ or the entity upon behalf of Which the personi:araotecl, executed the Instrument. ., 0 , , ARMAN AKRAM K)IAN . i
,' -~~.,,':;~(~ Notary Public • Cahforma f
;!. f~~r~~j Alam<;da ~~unty '.'.: , ... i,;;!1ft'://!-' Cornrn1~s1on /, ll.34719 i ~-- MY Comm . (x\>1res Mar 18, 2022 ......

Place NotalJf Seal Above
I oert:tfy under PENALlY OF PERJURV underthe laws
of ihe State of Callfornla that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESSmyh
--------------oPnOMA~---=-=a--==--====-----
Thaugh this sec;tion Is optTonal, completing this Information can deter alteration of the document or fra.udulent reattachment of this form to an anintended document.

Olescription di Attaohedl IOom.m1ent \ j "'~ r I, · \ \ Title or Type of Document:-ij,jij£ 4•{\,~V\" W Dooument Date: i ."3'.' ~ 1, \ " Number of Pages: ___ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: __________ ..:,__ CatJaciiy(tes) Claimsidl by Signer(s}
Signer's Name:-:------------
• Corporate Officer - Trtle(s): _____ _
D Partner - • Limited • General •
• Individual. • Attorney In Fact
• Trustee • Guardian or Conservator D Other! ____________ _ Signer Is Representlng: _______ _
Signer's Name:=---=-=-=--=-------- • Corporate Officer - Title(s): _____ _ 0 Partner - IJ Limited D General
D JndMdual D Attorney in Fact
• Trustee D Guardian or Gonservator
D Other:

SJgner Is ;:: Re_p_res- an--:ii::-- .n-g-: --------
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelo~e ID: 296FEB5D-237A~B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A CN~l CODIE § 1199
A notary public or otlier officer completlng ihls oertifioate verifies only the Identity of tha individual who Blgned the dooumentto which this certfficate ts attached, and not the truthfulness, aocuraoy1 or validity of that document.

State of Callfornla )
County or __ ___.{1~--=t)t_(ll\; _t_})__, ~'----- ) . .

On ,t,· ~, \Q'\t\ beforeme1 ~~i"\.}\-rl Pr\~d'J' v~~rJ 1 NO\fW·"I ~\i~ft\c., Date Here Insert Nam~ and Tftle of the Officer
personally appeared -..Jo~~~P\~_(g. =--W_t~~.---:\t--____________ _ __ i--...__ _ :::========================N,=am=e=(S=~=o=f S=ign==e=~=s)==================---"'.~__,.,,, who proved to . me on the basis of satlsfaotory evidence to be ths per~o~ whoee name($} is/apr subscribed to thg within Instrument and aolmowledged to me that he/!!hei'they executed ths same i n · hle/~ir-authorized capacity~}, and that by: hls/hlir.ttbeir signatu~ on the ll"!strumentthe person~ 1 or the entity upon behalf of Whion the personOif aoted, executed the instrument I oertify under PENAL lY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the state of CalJfornla that the foregoing paragraph is 1rue and correct.

WITNESS my hand
Place Nota1JF Seal Above --------------oPnoMl-l!.-----=--=-=====--- Thaugh this section Is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an r:mintended document.

Desoription cf A-ttmohecll lil1D1cum13Ji .,J1 \ 1 ~
Title or Type of Document: _ \)Y('t ~ • ·• Dooument Date: <\.\\nf\Oll\ ., ' Number of Pages: ____ Signer(s) other Than Named Above: __________ :....._ Capadiy(les) Claimatdl by Si.gner(s} Signer's Name: __________ _ • Corporate Officer - Titie(s}: _____ _
• Partner - D Limited O General ·
• lndh1lduat. • Attorney in Faot
D Trustee • Guardian or Conservator
• Other~--=---~--------- Slgner Is Representtng: _______ _ Signer's Name:=---:-::--:--:--:---------
• Corporaw Officer - Title{s)~ ____ _
D Partner - t:J Limited • General
• lndMdual D Attorney in Fact
• Trustee • Guardian or Conservator
D Other: =----.---------- Signer Is Representing: _______ _ @2014
~------
Natlonal N~ry Assoclatian ' • www.Nat{ana1Notary.org ~ 1a600u~ :

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A Bond No: EACX4006803
Premium: _$.;...;9....:... ,8;_9_9.-'-00.;.__ _____ _
Contract No: _4_1_28 ______ _

EXHIBITB

PERFORMANCE BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Orinda, State of California, and Gruendl, Inc. dba Ray's Electric ORIGI
(Principal), have entered into a Contract in which Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements described as the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Corridor Improvements (Project #4128) in the City of Orinda , and;
WHEREAS, the Principal is required under the terms of the Contract for furnish a bond for faithful performance of the Contract.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Principal and Endurance Assurance Corporation as corporate surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Orinda, (City), in the sum of six hundred thirty nine thousand, nine hundred twenty four and 50/100 dollars($ 639,924.50 ),lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally.

The condition of this obligation is such that if the above Principal, his/her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the Contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on this or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, it shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

As part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefore, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.

The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the Work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shalJ in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition of the terms of the Contract or to the Work or to the specifications.

The surety is an "admitted surety insurer" as described in California Code of Civil Procedure §995.120. A certificate of admitted surety insurer status is attached to this bond. Proof of that status shall be in either of the following forms: (a) a printout of information from the website of the Department of Insurance confirming the surety is an admitted surety insurer or (b) the Contra Costa County Clerk's certificate under CCP§995.640(a).

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on September 20 , 20.£L.

Date: September 20, 2021
Date: :"f (;;,.L 2 /
1 2-/
Endur nee Assurance Corporation
By:( - ct~,----. ({_ y Thuyduong Le, Attorney-in-Fact
[Signature must be notarized. Attach acknowledgement form.] Gruendl, Inc db ay's El ric
v
By:~~,;L-----.1'-'-L.....C:.-'--'t:j!!!!!!,_~ _______ _ [Signature must be notarized. Attach acknowledgement form.] t itle (Designated Official Capacity)
Note: Power of Attorney must be attached for signatory for surety. In addition, a certificate of admitted surety insurer status shall be attached.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR:

Gruendl, Inc. dba Ray's Electric, 411 Pendleton Way, Suite 8, Oakland, CA 94621 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY:

Endurance Assurance Corporation, 12890 Lebanon Road, Mt. Juliet, TN 37122 ORIG\
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237 A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517 A A notary pllbflc or oilier officer completlng this aertificate verifies only 1he ldenttt.y Of tha inclivldual who signed the document to which this oartrf!Gate ts attaGhed, and not the truthfulness, aocuraoy1 or validity of that document.

State of OaUfornla )
Oaunty af ____ N"---"' ~...C.. Pt_M_tn_~...,____ } . .

On ~~ · 1,\ ,.'\O\,\ before me, f\~l\l\.~tA t\-l~N\ 'p~~N r NOl;iW· 11[ ~\f\J!,,\,G
Date Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared - -\S~-1-.l~~Gt:L.- "~~,_..;;..-,J_l\, _____ · ________ _ Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to. me on the basis of satlsfaotory evidence to be ths person.(&r-whoee na~ ls/~ subscribed to thg within instrument and acknowledged to me that hQ/~ executed the same In · hls/~ a.uthorized capacity~ , and ½hat _by hls/h~ slgnature-'9)"'0n the l~strunientthe pers®{<, or the entity upon behalf of Which the perso~ acted, exeouted the instrument.

I certify under PENALlY OF PERJURY under the laws
of 1he State of CaUfornia that the foregoing paragraph
Is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand
Place Notary Sea/ Above ---------------OPulONAi----~ --==-ea====--- Thciugh this section is optional, aampletlng thls information r.:an deter alteration of the docLtment or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an anintended document.

C\1escrip2icn of Ai\i:ac:ihedl IOocumeRf: \ \
Title or Type of Document: \10 tJt> D• oument Date: q ');{ 'l / ·· Number of Pages: ___ Signer{s} Other Than Named Above: __________ .:,__ Cc1paciiy(les) IClaimad b1f Signer{s) Signer'~ Name: __________ _ D Corporate Officer - Trtle(s): _____ _
D Partner - D Limited • General ·
D lndlvfduat. D Attorney ln Fact
D Trustee • GLtarciian or Oonsen.rator
• Other~--------------- Sfgner Is Representing: _______ _ Signer's Name:=---~--:---------
• Corporate Offioer - Title{s): ____ _
D Partner - Q Limited • General
• lndivjdual • Attorney in Fact
• Trustee • Guardian or Conservator
D Other:

Slgner fs R=-ep_r_es_e_nti=-·n_g_: --------
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.

State of California
County of ______ A_l_am_e_da _____ __,)
On 5epkMk::€1" 201 'U::>2.-\ before me, _____ B_r_itt_a_ny~Ka_v_a_n_, N_o_t_ary~P_u_b_lic ____ _ (insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared Thuyduong Le
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the perscn(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEBSD-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A - SOMPO INTERNATIONAL

POWER OF ATTORNEY
372
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that Endurance Assurance Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Endurance American Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation, Lexon Insurance Company, a Texas corporation, and/or Bond Safeguard Insurance Company, a South Dakota corporation, each, a "Company' and collectively, 'Sompo International,' do hereby constitute and appoint: Susan M. Exline. M. Moody. Betty L. Tolentino. K. Zerounian. Kevin Re. Janet C. Rojo. Virginia L.

Black, Francis E. Cook. Julia Ortega. Brittany Kevan. Gillian Bhaskaran. Maumen o•connell. Thuyduong Le. Misty R. Hemje as true and lawful Attorney(s)-ln-Fact to make, execute, seal, and deliver for, and on its behalf as surety or co-surety; bonds and undertakings given for any and all purposes, also to execute and deliver on ils behalf as aforesaid renewals, extensions, agreements, waivers, consents or stipulations relating to such bonds or undertakings provided, however, that no single bond or undertaking so made, executed and delivered shall obligate the Company for any portion of the penal sum thereof in excess of the sum of ONE HUNDRED MILLION Dollars ($100,000,000.00).

Such bonds and undertakings for said purposes, when duly executed by said attorney{s)-in-fact, shall be binding upon the Company as fully and to the same extent as if signed by the President of the Company under its corporate seal attested by its Corporate Secretary.

This appointment is made under and by authority of certain resolutions adopted by the sole shareholder of each Company by unanimous written consent effeclive the 151h day of June, 2019, a copy of which appears below under the heading entltled "Certificate".

This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution adopted by the sole shareholder of each Company by unanimous written consent effeclive the 151h day of June, 2019 and said resolution has not since been revoked, amended or repealed:

RESOLVED, that the signature of an individual named above and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such power of attorney or any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such power of attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Company has caused this instrument to be signed by the following officers, and its corporate seal to be affixed this 151h day of June, 2019 .
• :,ZIJ"911 °°Q;;p Richard Appel_;,,$V~,&.~nior Counsel .,,._ .... ~':,s~;~nc$ ,,,,,, ~•~ Qi , 0iPO~~j, 0o'\
ff/0 '$''•,-\
g ro : SEAL ·"6 i §:5: !ru~ , -,;, \ 2002 : ""'!i
\_~\_DELAWARE. ,•~O /
,,...,, ' .. ---- ~- •" ~ .. ~~
,,,,,,,.,,,,,n1 1• 11'''''""''
Endurance Am. erlcan .P
Z
uran~PemP¥Y I
J '!Ff u By <- 1'. {'jff
Richard Appel~,S>/Pn&,.§enior Counsel ~ ...... +4'\can Ins,:•,,,,,. ...... IZ,' , - •--., <.Fr, ,., / ~.•o\'-POR-1j,<i>-2\ ;..._-.,c., '$'\C>'i.
: a,: SEAL ,ro i ; u, :oo
~~\ 1996 / 0 1
••",\DELAWARE :.J f \;¢ ·-. ,-'Qi ~ •~ <,~ . .. _ •• , 1,.v ,,• ,,, '"''"" .................. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
On this 15th day of June, 2019, before me, personally came the above signatories known to me, who being duly sworn, did depose and say that he/ll;le.-~~~P,1:Jf!icer of each of the Companies: and that he executed said instrument on behalf of each Company by authority of his offic under thr::JJ.ws of each CompaJ•''~ .. ---~~~-·-.. ; ',\ By Amy Tayloe, NJ~/ ~ =ml~ },,.~,~5(9h,/
CERTIFICATE ,;:;'bli1 My Co ',,~ -~ --'• ,, , , ,,, 11 1\\, .. , I, the undersigned Officer of each Company, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. That the original power of attorney of which the foregoing is a copy was duly executed on behalf of each Company and has not since been revoked, amended or modified; that the undersigned has compared the foregoing copy thereof with the original power of attorney, and that the same is a true and correct copy of the original power of attorney and of the whole thereof,

2. The following are resolutions which were adopted by the sole shareholder of each Company by unanimous written consent effective June 15, 2019 and said resolutions have not since been revoked, amended or modified:
"RESOLVED, that each of the individuals named below is authorized to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on behalf of the Company any and all bonds, undertakings or obligations in surety or co-surety with others: RICHARD M. APPEL, BRIAN J. BEGGS, CHRISTOPHER DONELAN, SHARON L. SIMS, CHRISTOPHER L. SPARRO, MARIANNE L. WILBERT
; and be it further
RESOLVED, that each of the individuals named above is authorized to appoint attorneys-in-fact for the purpose of making, executing, sealing and delivering bonds, undertakings or obligations in surety or co-surety for and on behalf of the Company."

3. The undersigned further certifies that the above resolutions are true and correct copies of the resolutions as so recorded and of the whole lhereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal this 20th day of ~ =--== _. 20.n_.

NOTICE: u. s. TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL (OFACI No coverage is provided by this Notice nor can it be construed to replace any provisions of any surety bond or other surety coverage provided. This Notice provides information concerning possible impact on your surety coverage due to directives issued by OFAC. Please read this Notice carefully.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers end enforces sanctions policy, based on Presidenlial declarations of "national emergency". OFAC has identified end listed numerous foreign agents, front organization·s, terrorists, terrorist organizations, and narcotics traffickers as "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons·. This list can be located on the United States Treasury's website - https://www.treasury.goylresource-centertsancljons/SON-List.

In accordance with OFAC regulations, if it is determined that you or any other person or entity claiming the benefits of any coverage hes violated U.S. sanctions law or is a Specially Designated National and Blocked Person, as identified by OFAC, any coverage will be considered a blocked or frozen contract and all provisions of any coverage provided are Immediately subject to OFAC. When a surety bond or other form of surety coverage is considered to be such a blocked or frozen contract, no payments nor premium refunds may be made without authorization from OFAC. Other limitations on the premiums and payments may also apply.

Any reproductions are void.

Surety Clalms Submission: Le11onC!almAdmini,tcption@1omoo-tntl corn Telephone: 616-553-9600 Malling Address: Sompo International; 12890 Lebanon Road; Mount Juliet, TN 37122-2870 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEBSD-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A l:1/LUIL·1, ·1u:·10 AM Company Profile
Company Profile
Company Search
Company Search
Results
Company
Information
Old Company
Names
Agent for Service
Reference
Information
NAIC Group List
Lines of Business
Workers'
Compensation
Complaint and
Request for
Action/ Appeals
Contact Information
Financial Statements
PDF's
Annual Statements
Quarterly
Statements
Company Complaint
Company
Performance &
Comparison Data
Company
Enforcement Action
Composite
Complaints Studies
Additional Info
Find A Company
Representative In
Your Area
View Financial
Disclaimer

COMPANY PROFILE
Company Information

ENDURANCE ASSURANCE CORPORATION
4 MANHATTANVILLE ROAD, 3RD FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10577
Old Company Names

ENDURANCE REINSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA

ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA DBA

ENDURANCE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY
Agent For Service
Vivian Imperial
818 WEST SEVENTH STREET
SUITE 930
LOS ANGELES CA 90017
Reference Information
~ ! NAIC #:

I California Company ID #:

I Date Authorized in California:
1111551
][ sos2-3
-·-- JI 01/30/2008
Effective Date
01/30/2008
08/23/2016
12/30/2009
I
I
- I
I License Status: II UNLIMITED-NORMAL I
] Company Type: - - ][ Property & Casualty
- _J
State of Domicile: II DELAWARE I
back to top
NAIC Group List
NAIC Group #: 3219 Sompo Grp
Lines Of Business
The company is authorized to transact business within these lines of insurance.

For an explanation of any of these terms, please refer to the glossary.

AIRCRAFT

AUTOMOBILE

BOILER AND MACHINERY

BURGLARY

COMMON CARRIER LIABILITY
CREDIT

DISABILITY
FIRE

LEGAL INSURANCE
https://interactive.web.insurance.ca.gov/companyprofile/companyprofile?event::::companyProfile&doFunction::::getCompanyProfile&eid=107243 1/2 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEBSD-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A 9/20121, 10:15 AM Company Profile
back to top
© 2008 California Department of Insurance

LIABILITY
MARINE

MISCELLANEOUS

PLATE GLASS

SPRINKLER
SURETY

TEAM AND VEHICLE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION
httos://interaclive.web.insurance.ca.aov/comoanvorofile/companvorofile?event::::companvProfile&doFunction:::i:ietCompanvProfile&eid::::107243 212 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

EXHIBITC

LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND I
Bond No: EACX4006803
Premium: included in Performance Bond
Contract No: _4_1_2_8 ______ _
WHEREAS, the City of Orinda, State of California, and Gruendl, Inc. dba Ray's Electric (Principal), have entered into a Contract in which Principal agrees to insta11 and complete certain designated public improvements described as the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Corridor Improvements (Project #4128) in the City of Orinda, and;
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Contract, Principal is required to file a good and sufficient payment with the City of Orinda to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Principal and Endurance Assurance Corporation as corporate surety are held firmly bound unto the City of Orinda and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and other persons employed in the performance of the Contract and referred to in the above-mentioned Civil Code in the sum of six hundred thirty nine thousand, nine hundred twenty four and 50/100 dollars($ 639,924.50 ). for materials furnished or labor on the project of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, that the surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount set forth above, and also in case smt is brought upon this bond, wiH pay, in addition to the amount set forth above, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment rendered.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that:

1. If the Principal, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns fail to pay for any materials, provisions, or other supplies or teams used in, on, for, or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor on the project of any kind, as required by California Civil Code section 3247 et seq., and

2. If the Principal fails to pay (1) any of the persons named in Civil Code section 3181, (2) amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the contract or (3) for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of contractor and subcontractors pursuant to section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to the work and labor, and

3. If those entitled to be paid (the persons, companies, or corporations furnishing the materials, provisions or other supplies, teams, appliances or power to be used in, on, for, or about the performance of the work contracted to be executed or performed, or any person contributing to said work to be done or any person who performs work or labor on the project, or supplies both work and materials for the project) have complied with California Civil Code section 3247 et seq., then the Surety will pay the same in or to any amount not exceeding one hundred percent (100%) of the Contract amount and also, in case suit is brought on this bond, the Surety will pay such reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of litigation as shall be fixed by the court, awarded and taxed as provided in California Civil Code section 3247 et seq.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons and entities identified in Section 318 J so as to give a right of action to those persons or their assigns in any suit brought on the bond.

Should the conditions of this bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void, otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

The surety stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract shall in any manner affect its obligations on this bond, and it waives notice of any such change, extension, alternation or addition.

The surety is an "admitted surety insurer" as described in California Code of Civil Procedure §995 .120. A certificate of admitted surety insurer status is attached to this bond. Proof of that status shall be in either of the fo11owing forms: (a) a printout of information from the website of the Department of Insurance confirming the surety is an admitted surety insurer or (b) the Contra Costa County Clerk's certificate under CCP §995.640(a).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on September 20 , 20.1.!_.

Date: September 20, 2021
Date: _____. q /:.....__ ·7--1--'-/ 2rJ- _ / _
Endu ance Assurance Corporation
By:...!..:-,,,L.Ll,e".!=¥~~=+--==+---;(Q_~---
Thuyduong Le, Attorney-in-Fact
{Signature must be notarized. Attach acknowledgement fonn .] / ~/~/
• ·itle (Designated Official Capacity)
Note: Power of Attorney must be attached for signatory for surety. In addition, a certificate of admitted surety insurer status shall be attached.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR:

Gruendl, Inc. dba Ray's Electric, 411 Pendleton Way, Suite B, Oakland, CA 94621 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY:

Endurance Assurance Corporation, 12890 Lebanon Road, Mt. Juliet, TN 37122 OR\G\
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A @.£!.RIR!INill& .£11J, .. ~l!JJlmWJ©~lil! AMeO@R~@@li\ra!§!Nl'ii' cnv~L CODE § 1189 ~~~~~~~~w-~
A notary publlc or ot~er officer completing 1h1s certificate verifies only 1he ldenttt.y of the individual who signed the document to which this oartffiaate 15 attached, and not the truthfulness, aoouraoyi or valldlty of that document.

State of Oallfornla )
County or ___ N.__... ~;...,:. i)t_[Vll_tn_f\__,___ _ } . .

On ____..~~~-=--•- 1,_\ +-• _,W,., _ \ _ before me, ~~ \\I\. ~rl Prl~4'1' Y\I\~N r ND°\PiQ-j ~lJ VJL,\c.., Date Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared - -..w:(~w<JX'---"-'~z...._----5'1~W.__f.._,J_ 1)_;_\, ___ -_ -_ -_ -_· ===========::::::::::::~~ who proved to. me on i:he basis of satlsfaotory evidence to be ths persor\(a}"whoee name{g) i~ subscribed to thg wlthrn instrument and aolmowledged to me that ha/ai=.le,'1:tle'y exemrted the same ln · his/~ authorized capaoH:yM, and i:hat by hls/tuwttmir slgna.tur~on tile l~strumentthe persoll(.er, or the entity upon behalf of which the personOO, acted, executed the instrument.

Place Nota1Y Seal Above
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph Is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand a el o I ·a1 S!!3al.
--------------OPirlOMA~---=---=====---
Thaugh this section ls optional, completing this Information can deter alteration otthe daaument or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an anintended document.

Olescri~ion of Ai\taiGhedl Docl!lmerp; \ \
Title or Type of Document: . 1'0 tJl) Dooument Date: q '\I. -a./ " Number of Pages: ----- Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: __________ .:___ Oe1pacny(ies) Claimeldl by Signer{s} Slgner'6 Name: __________ _ D Corporate Officer - Title(s): _____ _
• Partner - D Limited • General ·
• Individual. D Attorney In Faot
• Trustee • Gi.tardian or Conservator D other: ______________ _ Signer Is Representtng: _______ _
Signer's Name::-:----------- • Corporate Officer - Title(s): _____ _ • Partner - Q Limited • General
D Individual • Attorney in Fact
• Trustee • Guardian or Conservator
D Other.

SJgner Is =R-ep-res- e-nt=-in_g_: --------
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validitv of that document. _________ __,
State of California
County of ______ A_la_m_e_d_a ____ ___,)
On re:p\efh.ter- 20 I '2_()2, I before me, _____ B_ri_tta_n"'"'"y_K_a_va_n_,_N_o_ta--' ry_P_u_b_lic _ ___ _ (insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared Thuyduong Le
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the per~nn(s), or the entity L1pon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A - J SOMPO INTERNATIONAL

POWER OF ATTORNEY
372
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that Endurance Assurance Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Endurance American Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation, Lexon Insurance Company, a Texas corporation, and/or Bond Safeguard Insurance Company, a South Dakota corporation, each, a 'Company· and collectively, "Sompo International,• do hereby constitute and appoint: Susan M. Exline, M. Moody, Betty L. Tolentino, K. Zerounian, Kevin Re, Janet C. Rojo, Virginia L.

Black, Francis E. Cook, Julia Ortega, Brittany Kevan, Gillian Bhaskaran, Maureen O'Connell, Thuyduong Le, Misty R. Hemje as true and lawful Attomey(s)-ln-Fact to make, execute, seal, and deliver for, and on its behalf as surety or co-surety; bonds and undertakings given for any and all purposes, also to execute and deliver on its behalf as aforesaid renewals, extensions, agreements, waivers, consents or stipulations relating to such bonds or undertakings provided, however, that no single, bond or undertaking so made, executed and delivered shall obligate the Company for any portion of the penal sum thereof in excess of the sum of ONE HUNDRED MILLION Dollars ($100,000,000.00).

Such bonds and undertakings for said purposes, when duly executed by said attomey(s)-in-fact, shall be binding upon the Company as fully and to the same extent as if signed by the President of the Company under its corporate seal attested by its Corporate Secretary.

This appointment is made under and by authority of certain resolutions adopted by the sole shareholder of each Company by unanimous written consent effective the 15th day of June, 2019, a copy of which appears below under the heading entitled 'Certificate·.

This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution adopted by the sole shareholder of each Company by unanimous written consent effective the 15th day of June, 2019 and said resolution has not since been revoked, amended or repealed:

RESOLVED, that the signature of an individual named above and the seal of the Company may be affixed to any such power of attorney or any certificate relating thereto by facsimile, and any such power of attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signature or seal shall be valid and binding upon the Company in the future with respect to any bond or undertaking to which it is attached.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Company has caused this instrument to be signed by the following officers, and its corporate seal to be aff1Xed this 15th day of June, 2019 .
. :i:lj·1~71;p
Richard Appel;_,,$Wl,&.~,~nior Counsel
,., , .. ,, ':1~~1;~~C@ ,,,,,.~,
§~11., ~\;~l'OR,1j..~ \
f~:v <-'\:o'. t ~;' SE.AL ·:g i
t~\ 2002 ,:g; \ ~ ••. DELAWARE/..)Oj
"'~:" '·-._ -• ~., -:r~
,,,,,,,,u,,,,111H'~''"'',,_,., ..
7J ~;ir~;i;;r,;:f {) ay:_/f-,ic~,J I 'tf1"' {;
Richard Appel~.~P•&,~nior Counsel
,,,<f-, e,an IJJs '',,, ~ ... e,<."' . .... -•• ~ l./,1--, ,,.,, I ~.·i)~"o~;.:-~-, \ ~-.:r: c.; ~•.(')~ :w: SEAL ,(I)-; = o, :o: l ~:. 199s ,: 0 l l '::;;,\ DELAWARE :J' l .... ,, .... ;°,:,;-....... ·(->Qj,-/ ;,,,,/;;/ I,:.'"""' ,,,,.,.,,,, • .,,0 ••' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT On this 15th day of June, 2019, before me, personally came the above signatories known to me, who being duly sworn, did depose and say that he/lQ8 !4~ IH 1ijcer of each of the Companies; and that he executed said instrument on behalf of each Company by authority of his under tht::/)_ws of each Compa7,••~_.····~ ~• ... ~--\ By: Amy Taylor, No;illlicJ ~ mmissftvi k,,.pi'f:?5,sh.3/ CERTIFICATE '~bli, My Co ',, , Qq~·~/
1111 1 1 6fl l 1 \ ' ' "
I, the undersigned Officer of each Company, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. That the original power of attorney of which the foregoing is a copy was duly executed on behalf of each Company and has not since been revoked, amended or modified:
that the undersigned has compared the foregoing copy thereof with the original power of attorney, and that the same is a true and correct copy of the original power of attorney and of the whole thereof;

2. The following are resolutions which were adopted by the sole shareholder of each Company by unanimous written consent effective June 15, 2019 and said resolutions have not since been revoked, amended or modified:
"RESOLVED, that each of the individuals named below is authorized to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on behalf of the Company any and all bonds, undertakings or obligations in surety or co-surety wilh others: RICHARD M. APPEL, BRIAN J. BEGGS, CHRISTOPHER DONELAN, SHARON L. SIMS, CHRISTOPHER L. SPARRO, MARIANNE L. WILBERT
; and be it further
RESOLVED, that each of the individuals named above is authorized to appoint attorneys-in-fact for the purpose of making, executing, sealing and delivering bonds, undertakings or obligations in surety or co-surety for and on behalf of the Company."

3. The undersigned further certifies that the above resolutions are true and correct copies of the resolutions as so recorded and of the whole thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal this 20th day of- ==='-11 NOTICE; U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL {OFACl No coverage is provided by this Notice nor can it be construed to replace any provisions of any surety bond or other surety coverage provided. This Notice provides information concerning possible impact on your surety coverage due to direclives issued by OFAC. Please read this Notice carefully.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) administers and enforces sanctions policy, based on Presidential declarations of "national emergency·. OFAC hes identified and listed numerous foreign agents, front organizations, terrorists, terrorist organizations, and narcotics traffickers as "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons' . This list can be located on the United States Treasury's website - http;;,://www.treas ry.g v/,esource-s;enter/&anctions/SON-List.

In accordance with OFAC regulations, if it is determined that you or any other person or entity claiming the benefits of any coverage has violated U.S. sanctions law or is a Specially Designated National and Blocked Person, as identified by OFAC, any coverage will be considered a blocked or frozen contract and all provisions of any coverage provided are immediately subject to OFAC. VI/hen a surety bond or other form of surety coverage is considered to be such a blocked or frozen contract, no payments nor premium refunds may be made without authorization from OFAC. Other limitations on the premiums and payments may also apply.

Any reproductions are void.

Surety Claims Submission: LexonCfaimMminlstraUon@sompo•lntl.com Telephone: 616·663-9600 Malling Address: Sompo International; 12890 Lebanon Road; Mount Juliet, TN 37122-2870 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A '::11£.U/~IJ IV.10/-\IVI Company Profile Company Profile
Company Search
Company Search
Results
Company
Information
Old Company
Names
Agent for Service
Reference
Information
NAIC Group List
Lines of Business
Workers'
Compensation
Complaint and
Request for
Action/Appeals
Contact Information
Financial Statements
PDF's
Annual Statements
Quarterly
Statements
Company Complaint
Company
Performance &
Comparison Data
Company
Enforcement Action
Composite
Complaints Studies
Additional Info
Find A Company
Representative In
Your Area
View Financial
Disclaimer

COMPANY PROFILE
Company Information

ENDURANCE ASSURANCE CORPORATION
4 MANHATTANVILLE ROAD, 3RD FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10577
Old Company Names

ENDURANCE REINSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA

ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA OBA

ENDURANCE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY
Agent For Service
Vivian Imperial
818 WEST SEVENTH STREET
SUITE 930
LOS ANGELES CA 90017
Reference Information
- - IN,ll.Tr it·
I California Company ID # :

I Date Authorized in California:

J l:_:ss1
]! sos2-3
JI 01/30/2008
Effective Date
01/30/2008
08/23/2016
12/30/2009
]
_J
J
I License Status:_ --- If UNLIMITED-NORMAL I
!company Type: I Property & Casualty
[ State of Domicile: _J DELAWARE
-
back to top
NAIC Group List
NAIC Group#: 219 Sompo Grp
Lines Of Business
The company is authorized to transact business within these lines of insurance.

For an explanation of any of these terms, please refer to the glossary.

AIRCRAFT

AUTOMOBILE

BOILER AND MACHINERY

BURGLARY

COMMON CARRIER LIABILITY
CREDIT

DISABILITY
FIRE

LEGAL INSURANCE
https://interactive.web.insurance.ca.gov/companyprofile/companyprofile?event=companyProfile&doFunction=getCompanyProfile&eid=107243 1/2 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A l:J/ZU/L.I, ·1U:lb AM Company Profile
back to top
© 2008 California Department of Insurance

LIABILITY
MARINE

MISCELLANEOUS

PLATE GLASS

SPRINKLER
SURETY

TEAM AND VEHICLE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION
https://interactive.web.insurance.ca.gov/companyprofile/companyprofile?event=companyProfile&doFunction=getCompanyProfile&eid=107243 2/2 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A To the CITY OF ORINDA,

EXHIBIT D

WARRANTY AND GUARANTY
Contractor hereby warrants and guarantees for one (I) year from and after the date of completion of the services provided for in this Contract that said materials and labor necessary for the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Corridor Improvements (Project #4128) in the City of Orinda, shall operate as provided for in the Contract Documents. During the term of this warranty, Contractor shall provide all materials, pa11s and labor, at its own expense, which are necessary to repair and/or correct any and all defects, installation or operational failures in the equipment from any cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be required to bear the expense of correction of any failure in the equipment that is caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. The warranties of each part or component supplied are in addition to the warranties required of Contractor in other Contract Documents.

Should any of the work prove defective, due to faulty workmanship, materials furnished or methods of installation, or should the work or any part thereof fai I to operate properly as originally intended and in accordance with the plans and specifications, due to any of the above causes, or if any work performed under this Contract fails to fulfill any of the requirements of the Contract Documents, all within one year after date on which the Work is accepted by the City, or after relief from maintenance, whichever is latest, the undersigned agrees to without delay and without any cost to the City to repair, replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the Work so that said Work will function successfully as originally contemplated. Should Contractor fa il to act promptly o, i11 accordance with this requirement, or should the situation require that repairs or replacements be made before Contractor can be notified, the City may, at its option, make the necessary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work and Contractor shall pay to the City the actual cost of such repairs. Contractor shall also pay to the City any attorneys' fees incurred to enforce this guaranty.

Ray's Electric - Greg Gruendl
Date:_ 911_ _71_20_2_1 __ _
[Signature must be notarized. Attach acknowledgement form.] President

SIGNATORY'S TITLE/OFFICIAL CAPACITY
L
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo _ DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A ©£1.F@~ &lbb0
~~~~~~~~
fi!l@lraW'@~li it©O@Wllb~191@Ml$!Nl'ii' CUV~l CODIE§ iiS9 A notary public or otner officer completlng 'lhls oeriifioate verifies only the Identity of the individual who slgned the document to whioh this certfficate ts attached, and not the truthfulness, aoouraoy, or validity of that document.

State of 0allfornla )
County or l\~Pt~t;})~ } . .

On ,~· ~ \ ~ b~foreme, l-\~l\l\.~iJ Prl~4'1" \A~~l'I I N°''1QJ.r( ~VlJL\c., Date Here Insert Name and Tftle of the Qfflcer
personally appeared - -l.4...e...i~~· :,________J~._.a· ~~~~-=-~.;;__ _______ ____ _ Name(s) of Slgner(s)
who proved to. me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the par.sol'l(ef whoee nam~ ls/.ar-e-- su't;lscrlbed to thg within instrument and aolmowledged to me 'that hs/~ey exeauted the same ln · hle/Ren'tl ,eti -authorized cat:laolty~ and that by hle/~ r slgnatur$)'nn the lf!strumentthe perso.!)lsr,- or the entlty upon behalf of which the person~ cted1 executed the instrument. • 0 e e e C? .-.e en e •.01 ,i __,, ARMAN AKRAM KHAN J ~~~'; Notary Pul.Jlic - Californiu ;, ~ ~~~[..~ Alameda Co~nty ,~
· ','~!:) Comrni;~io11 H 1B~7'19 , •
~ • .,.,,!!!.;- My Comm. [ ~µires Mar 18, 70'LZ t • • !S'" ., Place NotatY Seal Above
I oerttfy under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of -the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my han
--------------opnoMAi---=-=-="""""'==,=---
Thaugh 'this section Is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an t:min'tendj d doaume~t. t:llescvi~ion cf Ailtachecll fOo~umem: 11. t'11 \ y\
Tltle or Type of Document: .W ~t:}:1t,.rl1 J,. fu\J ~i!'Daoument Date: g, \1\"'I ., Number of Pages: ___ Signer(s} Other Than Named Above: __________ .:....._ Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer{s}
Signer's Name:-:----------- • Corporate Officer - Tttle(s): _____ _ D Partner - D Limited O General ·
• lndMctual. • Attorney in Fact
• Trustee • G1,1ardian or Conservator
D Othar; ___ ~--------- Slgner Is Representlng: _______ _ Signer's Name:=---:::--:--:--:---------
• Corporate Officer - Title(s): _____ _
D Partner - • Limited o General
0 JndMdual • Attorney in Fact
• Trustee D Guardian or Conservator
D Other:

Slgner 1s ~R-ep-res __ e_m.. :;;-,n-g-: --------
..

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

EXHIBJTE

AFFIDA VJT CONCERNING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND

NONCOMPETITIVE PRACTICES
A. Conflict of Interest. That Contractor, by entering into this Contract with the City to perform or provide work, services or materials to the City, has thereby covenanted, and by this affidavit does again covenant and assure that it has no direct or indirect pecuniary or proprietary interest, and that it shall not acquire any such interest, that conflicts in any manner or degree with the services required to be performed under this Contract and that it shall not employ any person or agent having any such interest.

In the event that Contractor or its agents, employees or representative hereafter acquires such a conflict of interest, it shall immediately disclose such interest to the City and take action immediately to eliminate the conflict or to withdraw from this Contract, as the City may require.

B. Contingent Fees and Gratuities. That Contractor, by entering into this Contract with the City to perform or provide services or material for the City, has thereby covenanted, and by this affidavit does again covenant and assure:

1. That no person or selling agency except bona fide employees or designated agents or representative of Contractor has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract with an agreement or understanding that a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee would be paid;

2. That no gratuities, in the form of ente11ainment gifts or other, were offen~cl or given by Contractor or any of its agents, employees or representatives, to any official or employee of the City or other governmental agency with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect to the awarding or amending, or the making of any determination with respect to the performance of this Contract; and

3. That no contracts of communication or lobbying effo11s were made by Contractor, its agents or officer with any member of the City Council, any board or commission, or the staff of the City of Orinda with regard to th is process.

Ray's Electric - Greg Gruendl
Date: 9/17/2021
[Signature must be notarized. ttach acknowledgement form.] President

SIGNATORY'S TITLE/OFFICIAL CAPACITY
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A CUVOL CODIS § iiSO
A notary pLlbllo or otner officer completing ihis oartifioate veriflei:; only the identity of tha inclivtdual who :signed -the document to which this certtflcate ts attached, and not the truthfulness, aocuraoy1 or VE!lldlty of that dooument.

State of Oallfornla )
County or lA,"9Pt£V\t;l)f'\ ) . .

On st~ ' '" I r\,O "ti\ before ma, ~~ l\l\. ~rl Pr~"" y~~rJ l NO\l\9:'j ~\J ~L\t, Date Here Insert Namf) and Tltle of the Officer
personally appeared -----\':f,.1.~~~--1:~'.1!.iJ:r~ ,J:__:D~\l~ --===================---- Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to . me on i:he basis of satisfactory evldenc.e to be ths peY$On{faY'whoee nami,{Sf \s/:ru:esubscribed to thg within instrument and aolmowledgad to me that ho/91,ieA!hey executed the same ln his/~r-authorized capao~. and that by hls/berri:11eir slgnatur~on the 111strumentthe persoll(s},"" or the entity upon behalf of Which the perso~ acted~ executed the Instrument.

P/aoe Nota,y Sea/ Above
I oerttty under PENAL 1Y OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph Is true and correct
WITNESS my h
--------------OP7riOJ\fAB..----""""'--======---
Thaugh this aeGtion Is optfonal, aamplet1n9 this Information aan deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an anintendsd doc:ument.

Oescrri~i01111 of A~ached IOocumem:

Title or Type of Document -,....---------- Daoument Date:

Number of Pages: _____ Signer(s) rnher Than Named Above: ------- "
Cc1pacny(les) Claimalfll by Signer{s} Signer's Name: __________ _ • Corporate Officer - Tftle(s): _____ _
• Partner - D Limited • General ·
• lndlvldual. • Attorney in Faot
• Trustee • Guardian or Conservator
• Othe~ -::-----::---------- Slgner Is Representlng: ________ _ Signer's Name:=------:--------
• Corporate Officer -11tle{s): _____ _
D Partner - Q Limited • General
D lndivjdual D Attorney in Fact
• Trustee D Guardian or Oonseruator
0 Other:
••
Signer Is ;::Rep- -res_ e_nti::-.n-g-: --------
@2014 National Notary Assoalation • www.Natlana1Notary~ ~ F.3.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A EXHIBIT Ji,

INSURANCE DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR
Insurance documents to be provided by Contractor pursuant to this Contract and accepted by the City.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A

EXHIBIT G
CONTRACTOR SAFETY PROGRAM: SELF-CERTIPICATION WORKSHEET The following worksheet must be completed during the preconstruction meeting or as requested by the City of Orinda. Incomplete or missing responses will be deemed NON-RESPONSIVE.

Part A: Safety Programs
Part A is used to:
• Verify whether a prospective contractor has safety documents and programs relevant to the work they may be performing.
• Inform the prospective contractor of the safety programs that will be mandatory to the project. • Confirm that the contractor's employees have been trained in project-related safety programs and that there is documentation of the training.
• Give prospective contractors an opportunity to provide more information about their safety programs that may be important and relevant to the project. • Inform contractors of the types of safety information that may be requested at a later time.

Part B: Safety Equipment
Part B is used to:
• Verify whether a prospective contractor has safety equipment relevant to the work they may be perfonning.

Part C: Specialized Training and Certification
Part C is used to:
• Verify whether a prospective contractor's employees hold specialized safety certifications relevant to the work they may be performing.
• Inform contractors of the types of specialized safety ce1tifications their employees may be required to possess before being issued a Notice to Proceed.

Part D: Jobsite Safety Practices
Part D is used to:
• Address how safety aspects of the project will be managed and provide a basis for discussing the contractor's safety program practices.

Part E: Certification and Signature
Pait E is used to have the bidder ce1tify the following:
• The submitted information is accurate and complete.
• Allow the bidder the opportunity to certify that all bidder safety programs, safety equipment and employee safety training described herein meets or exceeds all local, State and Federal requirements.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A Bidder Safety Program Self-Certification Worksheet
PART A - Safety Programs
Please indicate below whether your firm has the following written safety programs. If any of the programs listed do not apply to your operations or this project, please make note of this in the "Comments" column.

Those programs that have been checked are, without exception, mandatory and must be made available for review, upon request, before commencing work on this project. Other safety programs may be requested if it is later determined that they are applicable to the project and must be made available for review upon request.

C' Do you Have
0 have a project ... written employees ~
-0 program/ Sub will been =
~ oolicy? 1>rovide trained?
~ Program Yes No Yes No
X Injury and Illness X Prevention
Hazard X Communication
Confined Space X Operations
Respiratory X Protection
Emergency X Res ponse
X Site-Specific
Project Safety X
Plan
Lockout/Tagout X Pro!?.ram
X New Employee X Orientation
Excavation Safety X Program
Code of Safe X Prol!,ram
Electrical Safety X Program
Drugs/ Alcohol X
Traffic Control
Safety 01 X
Fall Prevention
Plan Iii X
Forklift Program X X
Hotwork Program X
Blood borne
Pathogens Control X
Program
(I) Reflecting M.U.T.C.D and California Supplement requirements (2) If conventional fall protection measures cannot be used.

Comments
Is the trnining
documented?
Yes No
X
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A PART B - Safety Equipment - Identify what safety equipment will be available and used for this project.

T 1e
[ ] Gas detectors
[ Ventilation e uipment
[ xl Approved harnesses and
lanyards
[ Mechanical hoists
[X] Fire extinguishers
[ J First aid kits
[x] Res irators
[X] Hard hats
[x] Steeled toed footwear
[X] Hand protection
J
]
Descri tion/Comments
Aerial Lift Truck
PPE
PPE
PPE
Available for em lo ee use for heav
PPE
PART C - Specialized Training and Certification - Identify the areas of specialized training or l!ertification that will have been compieted by employees who wili be assigned to this Project. Be prepared to provide documentation as requested.
[X] CPR/first aid [ ] Confined space operations and [ ] Scaffolding rescue
[ ] Fork lift operation [ ] Respirators [ ] Air-Supplying [xJ Flagging [ ] Air-Purifying
[ xi Cranes/hoists operation [x] Trenching and shoring [ ] competent person
[xl Heavy equipment [ ] Welding [ ]
operation
[ ] Powder-actuated tools [ ] Asbestos abatement [ ]
use
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237 A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517 A PART D - Jobsite Safety Practices
I. Name of person who will have responsibility forjobsite safety?

2. Does the person who is responsible for jobsite safety have authority to take immediate action to correct unsafe conditions of work practices?
Jorge Hinojosa

3. Who will be responsible for conducting and documenting accident investigations? Does your company perform near-111 iss investigations?
Jorge Hinojosa

4. How often are jobsite safety audits or inspections performed, and by whom? Daily by the on site foreman

5. How often are jobsite tailgate or toolbox safety meetings held? Daily on site

6. Briefly describe how you will ensure that workers comply with City safety requirements and Cal/OSHA requirements?
Posting of safety requirements. Daily tailgate safety meetings

7. Has CAL OSHA cited and assessed penalties against your firm for any "serious," "willful" or "repeat" violations of its safety or health regulations in the past five years? If "YES", please describe.

No

8. Have there been any on-the-job fatalities in the last five years? If yes, please explain.

No

9. Has the EPA or any Air Quality Management District or any Regional Water Quality Control Board cited and assessed penalties against either your firm or the owner of a project on which your firm was the contractor, in the past five years? If "YES", please describe.

No
PART E - Certification and Signature
I ce1tify that the above information is complete and accurate. I further certify that, to the best of my knowledge, all safety programs and safety training meets or exceeds all applicable local, State and Federal regulatory requirements. I understand that any false statements may result in my firm not being considered for this project or in my firm being terminated from this project.

Greg Gruendl
Name (Print) -----..------------- Title ------------- President Date 9/17/2021 -------------
573296.1
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A ACORD® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DATE (MMIODIYYYY) ~ 09/17/2021
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

PRODUCER • CONTACT Luis Quinteros Stanley M. Davis & Company Insurance Brokers ..r;~ PHONE 510 895-4800 ~ - _ ,No): (510)895-3995 250 Juana Avenue, Suite 201 (!!.le; t,lg f~I):_ E-MAIL [email protected] San Leandro, CA 94577 ADDRESS· - License #: 0060878 INSURER(S} AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC#
- - - -- - - INSURER A: Allied World Surolus Ll_rtes Insurance ComoarJY._______ ,24319 _ INSURED Gruendl Inc. ~B: Allied World Assurance Comgany 19489
OBA Ray's Electric Inc. INSURERC; Larutmark American Insurance ComP-filTY ___ ~3138_ 411 Pendleton Way, Suite B 1NsuRERo, cypra~ lnsuraQCELC.Q.IDpJuJ_y __ 10855_ Oakland, CA 94621 INSURERE: Travelers fr.QP.!!ill' Ca_sualty Co rumy_Qf_Aro.<l(lc_i!_ 25674 INSURERF;
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 00004319-15089647 REVISION NUMBER: 149

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

INSR

LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE

A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
~ :=:J CLAIMS-MADE w OCCUR
.X Bl & PD
X Deductible $25.000
_GENl '~~::~E[i]E ;TT AP•S :::=
OTHER:
8 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

X ANYAUTO

OWNED - SCHEDULED
C
_ AUTOS ONLY ~ , ~giogWNEO ~ ~Jr~s ONLY i ~ AUTos ONLY
X Physical Dama 10 l
UMBRELLA LIAB ~ X I OCCUR
X EXCESS LIAB ~ CLAIMS-MADE
- OED ! I RETENTION$ -
0 :i~:~~i~E~~~~~~L~; YIN ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory In NH) H yes. describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E Leased Equipment
@

AODLSUBR
i , .. ,r-r.. l ,aAin POLICY NUMBER
Y Y 6004-0811
Y Y 6000-1154
LHA251818
Y GRWC120124
NIA

POLICY EFF POLICY EXP
IMM/DD/YYYY• •MM/DD/YYYYI LIMITS
06/11/2021 06/11/2022 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1000000
100 000
0 ~~~~iJ'&~~~~nce\ S
MED EXP (An, one person) S

PERSONAL & ADV INJURY S

GENERAL AGGREGATE S
PRODUCTS -COMP/OP AGG ~
s
1,000,000
2,J)0Q, 000
2 000 000
06/11/2021 06/11/2022 ~~~~~~~llNGLE LIMIT
--+-
06/1112021 06/11/2022
BODIL y INJURY (Per person) s t--- ---- - - 1--- BOOIL Y INJURY (Per accidenl) S Comp/Coll Ded s 1000
EACH OCCURREN_C_E ___ +-'-5 _ _ 1_0_,~0_0~0_,,_0_0_0
AGGREGATE _ S 10,000,0Q!>, __
$
01/01/2021 01/01/2022 X [ ~ff rnrE I ] ~JH·
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000
1 _E=.L'-'--'--D_IS=EA~S~E_-=EA~E=M~P-'--LO-'--Y~E"'l--'!$~_~1~0=0-'--0, 000 E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT S 1,000 000
QT-660-5J723734-TIL-21 06/11/2021 06/11/2022 Limit $200,000 ACV Ded $1,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/ VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedulo, may be attached II more space is required) ••• READ THE NEXT PAGE .,..

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE City of Orinda THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN Director of Public Works ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 22 Orinda Way AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Orinda, CA 94563 I dta0 <ii~~ (LEQ)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Printed by LEQ on September 17, 2021 at 04:09PM
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A AGENCY CUSTOMER ID: 00004319
LOC#: --------

ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE

AGENCY NAMED INSURED
Stanley M. Davis & Company Insurance Brokers Gruendl Inc.

POLICY NUMBER OBA Ray's Electric Inc.

NIA
CARRIER l NAIC CDDE
Multiple Carriers EFFECTIVE DA TE:

ADDITIONAL REMARKS

THIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORM, FORM NUMBER: 25 FORM TITLE: Certificate of Liability Insurance Re: City of Orinda. Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Corridor Improvements• Project No. 4128.

-
The City of Orinda and Its officers, officials, employees, agents, volunteers, and those Individuals Identified In section 7-1.06D(2) are named as additional insureds per form CG2010 0413; Primary Noncontributory per form CG2001 0413, Waiver of Subrogation per form CG2404 0509, Completed Operations per form CG2037 0413 as respects to the general Llabilty. Additional Insured per form CA2048 0299 & Waiver of subrogation per form CA0444 1013 as respects to automobile liability. Waiver of subrogation per form WC99041 O for Worker's Compensation. Excess Liability insurance follows the general liability, auto liability and workers compensation insurances forms.

ACORD 101 (2008/01) © 2008 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
Printed by LEQ on September 17, 2021 at 04;09PM
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A POLICY NUMBER: 6004-0811 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 2010 04 13
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR

CONTRACTORS - SCHEDULED PERSON OR

ORGANIZATION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

SCHEDULE
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Ornanization{s) Location(sl Of Covered Ooerations
Any owner, lessee, or contractor whom you All Locations of the Named Insured have agreed to include as an additional
insured under a fully executed written
contract or written agreement, provided that
such was executed prior to an "occurrence",
loss, inj ur or damage.

Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

A. Section II - Who Is An Insured is amended to
include as an additional insured the person(s) or
organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only
with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury"
caused, in whole or in part, by:

1. Your acts or omissions; or

2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your
behalf;
in the performance of your ongoing operations for
the additional insured(s) at the location(s)
designated above.

However:

1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted by
law: and

2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the
insurance afforded to such additional insured
will not be broader than that which you are
required by the contract or agreement to
provide for such additional insured.

CG 20 10 0413 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 2 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following additional
exclusions apply:

This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or
"property damage" occurring after:

1. All work, including materials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with such
work, on the project (other than service,
maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or
on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the
location of the covered operations has been
completed; or

2. That portion of "your work" out of which the
injury or damage arises has been put to its
intended use by any person or organization
other than another contractor or subcontractor
engaged in performing operations for a
principal as a part of the same project.

C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section Ill - Limits Of Insurance:

If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or

2. Available under the applicable Limits of
Insurance shown in the Declarations;
whichever is less.

This endorsement shall not
applicable Limits of Insurance
Declarations.
increase the
shown in the

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A POLICY: 6004-0811

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 2001 0413
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY -

OTHER INSURANCE CONDITION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
The following is added to the Other Insurance
Condition and supersedes any provision to the
contrary:

Primary And Noncontributory Insurance
This insurance is primary to and will not seek
contribution from any other insurance available
to an additional insured under your policy
provided that:
(2) You have agreed in writing in a contract or
agreement that this insurance would be
primary and would not seek contribution
from any other · insurance available to the
additional insured.
(1) The additional insured is a Named Insured
under such other insurance; and
CG 20 01 0413 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 1 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A POLICY NUMBER: 6004-0811 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 20 37 0413
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR

CONTRACTORS - COMPLETED OPERATIONS
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

SCHEDULE
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organization(s) Location And Description Of Completed Operations Any owner, lessee, or contractor whom All Locations of the Named Insured you have agreed to include as an
additional insured under a fully
executed written contract or written
agreement, provided that such was
executed prior to an "occurrence", loss,
inj ury or damage,
lnforrnation requ,red to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be showr. in the Declarations.

A. Section II - Who Is An Insured is amended to
include as an additional insured the person(s) or
organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only
with respect to liability for "bodily injury" or
"property damage" caused, in whole or in part, by
"your work" at the location designated and
described in the Schedule of this endorsement
performed for that additional insured and
included in the "products-completed operations
hazard".

However:

1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted
by law; and

2. If coverage provided to the additional insured
is required by a contract or agreement, the
insurance afforded to such additional insured
will not be broader than that which you are
required by the contract or agreement to
provide for such additional insured.

B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section Ill - Limits Of Insurance:

If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:

1. Required by the contract or agreement; or

2. Available under the applicable Limits of
Insurance shown in the Declarations;
whichever is less.

This endorsement shall not increase the applicable
Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations.

CG 20 37 0413 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 1 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A POLICY NUMBER: 6004-0811 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 24 04 05 09

WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY

AGAINST OTHERS TO US
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

SCHEDULE
Name Of Person Or Organization:

Any person or organization against whom you have agreed to waive your right of recovery in a fully executed written contract or written agreement, provided such contract or agreement was executed prior to the date of the "occurrence", loss, ini urv or damaqe.

Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.

The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of
Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us of
Section IV - Conditions:

We waive any right of recovery we may have against
the person or organization shown in the Schedule
above because of payments we make for injury or
damage arising out of your ongoing operations or
"your work" done under a contract with that person
or organization and included in the "productscompleted operations hazard". This waiver applies only to the person or organization shown in the
Schedule above.

CG 24 04 05 09 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2008 Page 1 of 1 • F.3.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A POLICY NUMBER: 6000~ 1154 COMMERCIAL AUTO
CA 20 48 02 99
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

DESIGNATED INSURED
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM

GARAGE COVERAGE FORM

MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM

TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM
With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Co1.erage Form apply unless modi· tied by this endorsement.

This endorsement identifies person(s) or organization(s) who are "insureds" under the Who Is An Insured Provision of the Cowrage Form. This endorsement does not alter coverage provided in the Co1.erage Form.

This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below.

Endorsement Effecti\e: o 6 / 11 / 2 o 21 Countersigned By:

Named Insured: Gruendl Inc., OBA: Ray's
Electric Inc (Authorized Representative)
SCHEDULE I Name of Person(s) or Organization(s):
(If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to the endorsement.)
Each person or organization shown in the Schedule is an "insured" for Liability Coverage, but only to the extent that person or organization qualifies as an "insured" under the Who Is An Insured Provision contained in Section II of the Co\.erage Form.

CA 20 48 02 99 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1998 Page 1 of 1 • F.3.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4B92-AD1A-37EEE631517A ---------------------------
POLICY NUMBER: 6000-1154 COMMERCIAL AUTO
CA 04 4410 13
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY

AGAINST OTHERS TO US (WAIVER OF SUBROGATION)
This endorsement modifies insurance pr0\1ided under the following:

AUTO DEALERS COVERAGE FORM
BUS !NESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM

MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM
With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the pro\oisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modified by the endorsement.

This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below.

Named Insured: Gruendl Inc., DBA: Ray's Electric Inc
Endorsement Effective Date: 06/11/2021

SCHEDULE
Name(s) Of Person(s) Or Organization(s):

Any person or organization against whom you have agreed to waive your right of recovery in a fully executed written contract or written agreement, provided such contract or agreement was executed prior to the date of the "occurrence", loss, injury or damage.

Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above. will be shown in the Declarations.

The Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against
Others To Us condition does not apply to the
person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule,
but only to the extent that subrogation is waived prior to the "accident" or the "loss" under a contract with
that person or organization.

CA 04 4410 13 © Insurance SenAces Office, Inc., 2011 Page 1 of 1 F.3.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo DocuSign Envelope ID: 296FEB5D-237A-4892-AD1A-37EEE631517A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 99 0410 C (Ed. 01-19)

WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT-CALIFORNIA

BLANKET BASIS
We have the right lo recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) The additional premium for this endorsement shall be calculated by applying a factor of 2% to the total manual premium, with a minimum initial charge of $350, then applying all other pricing factors for the policy to this calculated charge to derive the final cost of this endorsement.

This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the Schedule.

Blanket Waiver
Person/Organization
Job Description
All CA Operations
Schedule
Blanket Waiver - Any person or organization for whom the Named Insured has agreed by written contract to furnish this waiver.

Waiver Premium (prior to adjustments)
3664.00
This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective: 01/01/2021
Insured:

Policy No.: GRWC120124 Endorsement No.:

Insurance Company: Cypress Insurance Company
WC 99 0410 C
(Ed. 01-19)
Premium$
Countersigned by ______________ _
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo F.3.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric Contract (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo F.3.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: CCO No. 2 (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Project) F.3.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: CCO No. 2 (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Project) Daily Extra Work Report
Project: Camino Pablo Bicycle Imp. Orinda Project #4128, Ray's Job 21-34M Date Performed:

Report Number: N/A Date of Report: 1/11/2022
Work Performed By: Rays Electric Regular Labor Surcharge (Per Caltrans): 10% Description OT Labor Surcharge (Per Caltrans): 10%
LABOR Sub Work ?:

Labor Name Regular Hours Overtime Hours Subsistence Extended Craft ID Int. Last Name Hrs Rate Hrs Rate Units Rate Amount 4MAN 16 $94.38 $1,510.08
OP 16 $98.58 $1,577.28
OP 16 $98.58 $1,577.28
LAB 16 $80.96 $1,295.36
LAB 16 $80.96 $1,295.36
LAB 16 $80.96 $1,295.36
LAB 16 $80.96 $1,295.36
LAB 16 $80.96 $1,295.36
LAB 16 $80.96 $1,295.36
LAB 16 $80.96 $1,295.36
Cost of Labor $13,732.16
$1,373.22
35% Markup $5,286.88
Subtotal $20,392.26

EQUIPMENT
Equipment Description Regular Time Overtime Extended
Equip ID Class Make Attach Hrs Rate Hrs Factor Amount
Utility Truck Ford 3AXL 16 $40.16 $642.56
Skid Steer Bobcat 16 $59.70 $955.20
Utility Truck Ford 3AXL 16 $40.16 $642.56
Pickup Ford 16 $27.42 $438.72
Bobtail Dump Ford 3AXL 16 $54.69 $875.04
Pickup Ford 16 $27.42 $438.72
Roller 16 $43.50 $696.00
Dump Truck Peterbuilt 3AXL 16 $71.55 $1,144.80
Emulsion Sprayer 16 $27.90 $446.40
$6,280.00
$942.00
$7,222.00

MATERIALS/SPECIALIST COST
Vendor Name Description Units Unit Cost Amount

12.0 $150.00 $1,800.00
Gallagher & Burk 124.0 $94.36 $11,700.64
Gallagher & Burk 1.0 $350.00 $350.00
PRS 2.00 $3,950.00 $7,900.00
Dirt Haulers Trucking 2.00 $952.00 $1,904.00
Materials/Specialist Costs $23,654.64
Contractor: Ray's Electric $3,548.20
$27,202.84
Subtotal $54,817.09
Owner Rep: Markup on Sub Work
Total Due This Report $54,817.09
Proposal - PCO No. 2 - Added AC Base Repair on Camino
Pablo. Approx. 3000 SF @ 6 Inches. Reference Park
Engineering email dated 1/4/22
Code
Sub Total
Sub Total
15% M.U.

Equipment Cost
10% Labor Surcharge
15% M.U.

Grindings Dump Fee
SS1
1/2" Asphalt Concrete
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: CCO No. 2 (2680 : Approve CCO No. 2 and Budget Change with Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Project) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.4
Date: February 15, 2022
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar, Battery Storage and Roof Replacement Project, City Project Nos. 4141 & 4164 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council reject all the bids received for the Orinda Community Center Solar, Battery Storage and Roof Replacement Project (#4141 & #4164) and authorize staff to proceed with re-bidding the project.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2019, residents of Orinda were subjected to two planned power shutoffs from PG&E. During both Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS), the City opened its own Community Resource Center in Room 8 of Community Center at 28 Orinda Way, next door to the Library. The City’s Community Center can be powered by an onsite generator during emergencies. The Resource Center was well received and provided an opportunity for residents to charge cell phones, laptops, and portable medical equipment while also getting updates on the status of the outage. The Resource Center was open between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily during the power shutoffs. It was an important congregation point for the community while normal life and communication was limited. Staff anticipate in the future the Community Center would be used as a resource center during such events.

In early November 2019, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) announced a Resiliency grant program for local agencies to improve resiliency during future PSPS events. City Staff submitted a grant application to the State Office of Emergency Services requesting $375,000 for a solar panel system with battery backup system for the Community Center. In February 2020, the City was selected to receive funding through the Cal OES program in the reduced amount of $217,551.

The current Adopted Capital Improvement Plan FY 2020-2024, includes a total project budget of $317,551 for the Community Center Project (#4164). A separate Community Center roofing project (#4141) with an adopted total budget of $300,000 is being combined with the Solar Project. Having a roof in good condition and capable of supporting the weight and placement of panels is essential and related to the solar project.

DISCUSSION:

In accordance with the adopted UPCCA (Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting) and municipal code section 2.55, the project was advertised for bids on January 4, 2022. Four bids were received and opened on February 1, 2022, with the following results. The Engineer’s Estimate for the work was approximately $550,000. The F.4
Packet Pg. 98
combined construction budget (#4141 and #4164) in the current adopted CIP is $567,001.

Bidder Total Bid, $
Roofing and Solar Construction, Inc. 598,000.00
NBC Construction & Engineering, Inc. 714,638.00
Saboo, Inc. 735,000.00
Sunlight & Power, Inc 821,828.00
Following Bid opening, Staff received notification of a Bid protest on February 3, 2022 (Attachment A), filed by NBC Construction & Engineering, Inc. (NBC) against the apparent low bidder Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc. (RSC). NBC’s letter stated that RSC did not meet the contractor license requirements as required by the contract documents and requested that the City declare the RSC’s bid as non-responsive.

Staff also received a response to the Bid Protest from RSC (Attachment B), which stated that RSC poses an alternate combination of contractor license, which although not specifically stated in the contract documents, they believe would make them eligible to perform the work.

The City Attorney’s office has reviewed the contract documents and the bid protest letters. In light of the bid protests and the wide range of bid amounts (all above the Engineer’s Estimate), Staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids and rebid the project. This will allow the City to revise the contract documents to broaden the licensing requirements, which could result in more contractors participating. There is also a risk that RSC’s bid could go up if they choose to bid again, but on the other hand, bids from other contractors, including NBC, might go lower.

Other options are not recommended due to added cost and to ensure compliance with state law.

NEXT STEPS:

City Staff will work with the design consultant to revise the contract documents and issue the project for immediate Re-Bid.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A small amount of staff and consultant time will be required to make minor revisions and re-bid the project.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Bid Protest Letter NBC Construction Inc
B. Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc Respectfully Submitted by:

F.4
Packet Pg. 99
Scott Christie
Acting Public Works Director
Prepared By: Sivakumar Natarajan, Acting City Engineer
Approved by:

F.4
Packet Pg. 100
NBC Construction & Engineering Inc.

DIR # 1000543317 CMD0720100037 CA license # 857964
850 S Van Ness Ave San Francisco, CA 94110 Ph# 925 324 2727 Fax # 800 622 9144 Date: 2/3/2022
To: City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Attention: Director of Public Works
Reference: Bid Protest
Project: Orinda Community Center Solar, Battery Storage, and Roof Replacement Project Project Number 4141, 4164
Bid Date: February 1, 2022
To Whom It May Concern:

NBC Construction is protesting bid of Roofing & Solar Construction Inc. for the Orinda Community Center Solar, Battery Storage, and Roof Replacement Project (Project Number 4141, 4164) for the following reasons.
• We understand that the general contractor who poses B license are authorized to install solar energy system in connection to structures let it be known there are two structures on this project. It is our understanding general contractor who do not possess C-46 as well as C-10 Electrical license must list subcontractor who possess required license (C-10 &/or C46) to perform the electrical work. • According to the Addendum No. 1, dated January 20, 2022, on page no. 2 o “The Contractor shall possess a valid Class A, or combination of Class B and C46, or combination of Class B and C10, or combination of Class C39 and C10 License at the time the Contract is awarded.”
It appears the apparent low bidder Roofing & Solar Construction Inc. does not have correct combination of the required licenses per provided addendum.

F.4.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Bid Protest Letter NBC Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and Re-roofing Project) NBC Construction & Engineering Inc.

DIR # 1000543317 CMD0720100037 CA license # 857964
850 S Van Ness Ave San Francisco, CA 94110 Ph# 925 324 2727 Fax # 800 622 9144 In addition, as per specification of the project electrical license contactor or electrical license subcontractor is required. • On the page VIII (page 8 of 64) of the specification, “under general work description: The work to be done generally consists of electrical work and architectural reroofing. The electrical work consists of the installation and interconnection of rooftop PV and backup battery storage. Additional electrical work includes rerouting existing electrical circuits for backup power. The architectural work consists of reroofing and flashing the building roof.
• On the page IX (page 9 of 64) of the specification,
o “The Contractor shall possess a valid Class A or combination of Class B and C46 License at the time the Contract is awarded.”
• On the page SP-37 (page 49 of 64) of the specification, o “(7C) Acceptable manufacturers: Iron ridge/PV Quick Mount. The electrical contractor is responsible for verification with the manufacturer that the system meets their design criteria and shall provide all coordination and layout modifications to that end.”
• On the page SP-37 (page 49 of 64) of the specification, o “88-1.02 PHOTOVOLTAICS in 88-1.02 A Installation, (6) At least one (1) licensed electrician with experience in installing grid-tied PV systems shall be present during all phases of the installation.”
• On the page SP-44 (page 56 of 64) of the specification, o 88-1.03 DIESEL GENERATORS in 88-1.03A Start-Up and Testing (1) Existing generator shall remain where currently located. Once PV and battery storage system have been installed and normal power is available, electrical contractor shall test diesel generator to ensure backup power is available.
• On the page SP-45 (page 57 of 64) of the specification, o 88-1.03 DIESEL GENERATORS in 88-1.03A Start-Up and Testing (2) All costs associated with the referenced testing, including fuel consumption, load bank rental, temporary cables from the generator to the load bank, etc. shall be included in the Electrical Contractor's bid price.

F.4.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Bid Protest Letter NBC Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and Re-roofing Project) NBC Construction & Engineering Inc.

DIR # 1000543317 CMD0720100037 CA license # 857964
850 S Van Ness Ave San Francisco, CA 94110 Ph# 925 324 2727 Fax # 800 622 9144 o (3) Contractor shall modify generator ATS outage time delay setting so that the ATS does not switch from primary power to diesel power instantaneously. ATS settings shall be set so that during initial grid outage, battery storage picks up load.

Coordinate ATS time delay settings with electrical engineer.

With these reasons it is clear, and we believe that the apparent low bidder, Roofing & Solar Construction Inc. do not meet the license requirements to complete the electrical work per specification nor he/she listed electrical sub contactor for the project.

Therefore, apparent low bidder Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc.’s bid proposal should be deemed non-responsive and the NBC Construction & Engineering Inc. who has valid license as well as listed electrical subcontractor (Marundee Electric) should be awarded the contract.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further. We look forward to determination of the protest.

Respectfully,
NBC Construction & Engineering Inc.

Mike Schalchi
President
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Bid Protest Letter NBC Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and Re-roofing Project) NBC Construction & Engineering Inc.

DIR # 1000543317 CMD0720100037 CA license # 857964
850 S Van Ness Ave San Francisco, CA 94110 Ph# 925 324 2727 Fax # 800 622 9144 Date: 2/7/2022
To: City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Attention: Director of Public Works
Reference: Bid Protest Clarification
Project: Orinda Community Center Solar, Battery Storage, and Roof Replacement Project Project Number 4141, 4164
Bid Date: February 1, 2022
To Whom It May Concern:

NBC Construction is responding the response of Roofing & Solar Construction Inc. for the Orinda Community Center Solar, Battery Storage, and Roof Replacement Project (Project Number 4141, 4164) for the following reasons.
• According to the Addendum No. 1, dated January 20, 2022, on page no. 2 o “The Contractor shall possess a valid Class A, or combination of Class B and C46, or combination of Class B and C10, or combination of Class C39 and C10 License at the time the Contract is awarded.”
• According to Addendum No.1, the prime contractor who is bidding on this specific project should hold either a Class A license or a Combination of B and C10, OR C39 and C10, OR B and C46. Since this is a requirement set forth by the owner in the bid documents and was the last noted requirement pertaining to licensure, this should be the standard by which we are deeming all contractors responsive or nonresponsive. To reiterate this point, this requirement is the last notice of change in required licenses to all bidders, which was acknowledged by all bidders upon bid submission. Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc.

F.4.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Bid Protest Letter NBC Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and Re-roofing Project) NBC Construction & Engineering Inc.

DIR # 1000543317 CMD0720100037 CA license # 857964
850 S Van Ness Ave San Francisco, CA 94110 Ph# 925 324 2727 Fax # 800 622 9144 agreed to this requirement when they acknowledged the Addendum #1, and by doing this, they were agreeing to adhere to the set forth license requirements.

In the response provided by Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc., they state that the addendum #1 “mistakenly” indicated a class A, or B with specific combinations, or C39 and C10. However, since the owner made no changes to this requirement prior to bid submission, this claim of a mistake would be made purely by assumption that the City of Orinda has made a mistake in stating the license requirements. Because of this, Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc. does not meet the requirements set by the City of Orinda. • On the page SP-37 (page 49 of 64) of the specification, o “88-1.02 PHOTOVOLTAICS in 88-1.02 A Installation, (6) At least one (1) licensed electrician with experience in installing grid-tied PV systems shall be present during all phases of the installation.”
• In order for this to be fulfilled, there MUST be a licensed C-10 contractor on site at all times. Since Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc. does not possess a C-10 license and has not noted a subcontractor holding a C-10 license, this requirement is not being met. Since the City of Orinda has specifically called for a licensed electrician to be on site, a B license contractor performing C-10 work would not be sufficient to meet this requirement. • In response to Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc., an employee of Roof & Solar would not fulfill this requirement since they were not listed as a subcontractor and Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc. does not hold a C-10 license. Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc. states that they have a licensed electrician on-staff who will be supervising, however as stated before, even if that employee holds a C-10, it cannot be counted towards fulfilling this need as it is being used under Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc. and not under a subcontractor. Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc. did not list any subcontractors on their bid submission, and the law states that any work amounting to half of 1% of the total work value of the project needs to be noted on the subcontractor submission at the time of bid.

F.4.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Bid Protest Letter NBC Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and Re-roofing Project) NBC Construction & Engineering Inc.

DIR # 1000543317 CMD0720100037 CA license # 857964
850 S Van Ness Ave San Francisco, CA 94110 Ph# 925 324 2727 Fax # 800 622 9144 Since they have not listed a C-10 subcontractor, they do not fulfill the requirement of having a license electrician on site at all times set forth by the City of Orinda.

We strongly believe that Roofing & Solar Construction, Inc., does not fulfill multiple requirements, and as such should be deemed nonresponsive and NBC Con should be awarded the contract as the lowest responsive bidder.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further.

We look forward to determination of the protest.

Respectfully,
NBC Construction & Engineering Inc.

Mike Schalchi
President
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Bid Protest Letter NBC Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and Re-roofing Project) F.4.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and F.4.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and F.4.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and F.4.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and F.4.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and F.4.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and F.4.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and F.4.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Response to Bid Protest Roofing and Solar Construction Inc (2678 : Reject all bids and Re-Bid the Community Center Solar and City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.5
Date: February 15, 2022
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Local Commission Appointment List (Maddy Act) RECOMMENDATION:

Review and Receive the Annual Local Commission Appointment List commonly referred to as the Maddy Act
BACKGROUND:

Government Code Section 54972 requires the legislative body to annually, on or before December 31, prepare and post a list of “…all regular and ongoing boards, commissions, and committees which are appointed by the legislative body of the local agency…with the name of the incumbent appointee, the date of appointment, the date the term expires and the necessary qualifications for the position.” The list is attached for your review and information.

DISCUSSION:

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 the City Council held interviews with applicants and made appointments to the Boards and Commissions with upcoming term expirations or vacancies.

NEXT STEPS:

The attached list will be posted on the City’s bulletin boards located at City Hall, Community Center, and Library and also be placed on the City’s website.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Local Appointment List (Maddy Act) 2.15.22 Update
Respectfully Submitted by:

Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

F.5
Packet Pg. 115
F.5
Packet Pg. 116
Prior to the City Commission and Committee term expiration dates noted herein or when a vacancy occurs, the City of Orinda encourages residents to apply for positions on the various City Commissions and Committees. For further information, contact the Orinda City Clerk’s Office at [email protected]
Local Appointment List Page 6 2/15/22

CITY OF ORINDA

BOARDS,COMMISSION,

COMMITTEES LOCAL

APPOINTMENTS LIST
(MADDY ACT)
In compliance with the requirements of the Maddy Act, Government Code 54970, the following appointment list is posted on an annual basis by December 31. It shows all current members of City Commissions and Committees, City Appointments to Local Boards and includes the dates of their terms of office as of the time of this posting.

CITY COMMISSION AND COMMITTEES

ART IN PUBLIC PLACES COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: 3:30 p.m. 3rd Monday of
month Qualifications: Resident of the City
At Large Initial Term
Committee Members Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Shelley Hubner 02/09/19 1/29/22 02/28/25
Ted Urban 2/27/21 02/28/24
Richard Thompson 03/15/14 01/28/17, 02/22/20 02/28/23

FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: 6:30 p.m. 4th Wednesday of month
Qualifications: Resident of the City
Initial Term
Committee Members Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Jeffrey Lyon 01/31/17 02/22/20 02/28/23
Abe Mintz 02/22/20 02/28/23
Alex McCafferty 02/27/21 02/28/24
James Keefe 02/27/21 02/28/24
Jon Conner 02/27/21 02/28/24

HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: 3:00 p.m. 3rd Tuesday Quarterly (Sept./Dec./March/June) Qualifications: Resident of the City
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Local Appointment List (Maddy Act) 2.15.22 Update (2604 : Local Commission Appointment List (Maddy Act)) Prior to the City Commission and Committee term expiration dates noted herein or when a vacancy occurs, the City of Orinda encourages residents to apply for positions on the various City Commissions and Committees. For further information, contact the Orinda City Clerk’s Office at [email protected]
Local Appointment List Page 6 2/15/22
Initial Term
Committee Members Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Laurie Smith 02/23/13 02/09/19, 01/29/22 02/28/25
Jeff Heyman 6/15/21 01/29/22 02/28/25
Bobbie Landers 06/07/05 03/15/14, 01/31/17 02/28/23
02/22/20
Bill Waterman 03/15/14 02/22/20 02/28/23
01/31/17
Tania DeGroot 03/21/15 02/27/21 02/28/24

LIBRARY FACILITY COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: As Needed
Qualifications: Resident of the City, Member of the Friends of the Orinda Library FOL Appoint Initial Term
Committee Members Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Julie Rossiter 06/05/14 NA
Suzie Epstein 06/05/14 NA

LIBRARY PARCEL TAX INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: As Needed
Qualifications: Finance Advisory Committee, 3 Members of the Friends of the Orinda Library
FOL Appoint Initial Term
Committee Members Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Nancy Ross-Madnick 11/01/18 NA
Fran Strykowski 11/01/18 NA
Linda Landau 11/01/18 NA

PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meetings: 7:00 p.m. 2nd Wednesday of month
Qualifications: Resident of the City
Initial Term
Commissioners Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Arran Schulz 02/20/16 02/09/19, 01/29/22 02/28/25
Marianne Moser 09/15/20 01/29/22 02/28/25
Alex Drexel 02/09/19 02/22/20 02/28/23
Bergen Woodbury 02/22/20 02/28/23
Tara Presnell 05/18/17 02/27/21 02/28/24
Steven Danziger 01/27/18 02/27/21 02/28/24
Tom Schneider 01/27/18 02/27/21 02/28/24
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Local Appointment List (Maddy Act) 2.15.22 Update (2604 : Local Commission Appointment List (Maddy Act)) Prior to the City Commission and Committee term expiration dates noted herein or when a vacancy occurs, the City of Orinda encourages residents to apply for positions on the various City Commissions and Committees. For further information, contact the Orinda City Clerk’s Office at [email protected]
Local Appointment List Page 6 2/15/22

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meetings: 7:00 p.m. 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of month Qualifications: Resident of the City
Initial Term
Commissioners Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Brandyn Iverson 02/20/16 02/09/19, 01/29/22 02/28/25
Willy Mautner 01/22/15 2/20/16, 2/9/19, 1/29/22 02/28/25 Robert Hubner 02/09/19 01/29/22 02/28/25
Ann Parnigoni 02/22/20 02/28/23
John Smith 01/31/17 02/22/20 02/28/23
Marian Jelinek 01/27/18 02/27/21 02/28/24
Lina Lee 01/27/18 02/27/21 02/28/24

SUPPLEMENTAL SALES TAX OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: 6:30 p.m. 2nd Wednesdays of the month Qualifications: Resident of the City
At Large Initial Term
Committee Members Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Jud Hammon 02/27/21 02/28/24
Chris Decareau 02/27/21 02/28/23
Melanie Light 02/27/21 02/28/24
Paula Reinman 02/27/21 02/28/23
Brad Barber 02/27/21 01/29/22 02/28/25
Yasaman Lee 02/27/21 01/29/22 02/28/25
Latika Malkani 02/27/21 02/28/24
Alex Weinstein 02/27/21 02/28/24
Rachelle Latimer 02/27/21 02/28/23

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: 7:00 p.m. 3rd Monday of the
month Qualifications: Resident of the City
Initial Term
Committee Members Appointment Reappointment Expiration
Travis Blaschek-Miller 02/09/19 02/22/20 02/28/23
Steven Schnier 02/28/08 03/01/11 02/28/23
03/15/14
01/31/17, 02/22/20
Brandon Haydu 10/19/21 02/28/24
Emily Warren 03/23/21 02/28/24
Stuart House 02/09/19 02/27/21 02/28/24
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Local Appointment List (Maddy Act) 2.15.22 Update (2604 : Local Commission Appointment List (Maddy Act)) Prior to the City Commission and Committee term expiration dates noted herein or when a vacancy occurs, the City of Orinda encourages residents to apply for positions on the various City Commissions and Committees. For further information, contact the Orinda City Clerk’s Office at [email protected]
Local Appointment List Page 6 2/15/22

CITY APPOINTMENTS TO LOCAL BOARDS

CONTRA COSTA MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT TRUSTEE Regular Meetings:

Qualifications:
2nd Monday of month
Contra Costa County taxpayer; at least 18 years of age.

Representative:

Term Expiration:

Kevin Marker, [email protected]
02/28/25
Initial Appointment: 01/27/18, 2/27/21

COUNTY LIBRARY COMMISSION
Regular Meetings: 7:00 p.m. 4th Thursday every other month Representative: Mr. Shrikant Garde
Term Expirations: 02/28/23
Initial Appointment: 07/06/21
Reappointments:

Alternate: VACANT
Term Expirations: 02/28/23
Initial Appointment:

COUNTY CONNECTION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: 2nd Tuesday of month
Representative: Amina Bret-Monet
Term Expiration: 01/29/24
Initial Appointment: 01/29/22

CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CITIZEN ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
Regular Meetings: 6:30 p.m. 4th Wednesday of month
Representative: HENRY “JUD” HAMMON
Term Expiration: 02/28/24
Initial Appointment:

Reappointments:

F.5.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Local Appointment List (Maddy Act) 2.15.22 Update (2604 : Local Commission Appointment List (Maddy Act)) Prior to the City Commission and Committee term expiration dates noted herein or when a vacancy occurs, the City of Orinda encourages residents to apply for positions on the various City Commissions and Committees. For further information, contact the Orinda City Clerk’s Office at [email protected]
Local Appointment List Page 6 2/15/22

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING
Regular Meetings: 9:30 a.m. 3rd Wednesday of month
Representative: CANDACE EVANS
Term Expiration: 09/30/23
Initial Appointment: 02/27/21
Reappointment:

City representative recommended by City; Appointment made by Board of Supervisors F.5.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Local Appointment List (Maddy Act) 2.15.22 Update (2604 : Local Commission Appointment List (Maddy Act)) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: February 15, 2022
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Staff Update regarding the Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Sites Inventory
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, and provide feedback on the staff-recommended Regional Housing Needs Allocation Sites Inventory for inclusion in the Draft Housing Element, which is anticipated to be available in mid-March. In addition, staff recommends the Council consider a schedule that would include rezoning of all Housing Opportunity Sites concurrent with adoption of the Housing Element (which must be adopted prior to January 31, 2023). The Draft Housing Element will be subject to extensive public review, including Planning Commission and additional City Council meetings.

BACKGROUND:

On November 16, 2021, the City Council held a Housing Element study session regarding Housing Element law, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements, and RHNA sites inventory. At the meeting, staff presented the full list of potential sites to be included in the sites inventory.

DISCUSSION:

Orinda has been assigned 1,359 RHNA units for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. No Net Loss Law requires that an adequate number of sites remain available throughout the duration of the Housing Element. To date, Staff has been recommending a 25% buffer to ensure there are adequate sites throughout the planning period (2023-2031).

State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) guidance recommends a buffer of 15-30%, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA.

Based on this recommendation, and as we have had the opportunity to develop and more fully evaluate potential housing opportunities sites, staff is now proposing a 25% buffer for only the lower income RHNA as opposed to prior recommendations of a 25% buffer for all income categories. (Note that this results in reduction from 1,699 to a total of 1,506 units, which is 193 less than the amount described previously by staff because the buffer was based on the total RHNA as opposed to only the lower income RHNA.) A City’s RHNA is met based on housing capacity, which is determined primarily from allowable zoning densities, as well as other factors established by HCD. Total RHNA is a combination of existing capacity (housing allowed by existing zoning) and new capacity (housing allowed by changes to the existing zoning). Sites proposed for rezoning in order to meet RHNA are sometimes referred to as “opportunity sites.” Under no circumstance does rezoning require a property owner to build housing, although if housing is proposed, the local agency is required to facilitate that process.

H.1
Packet Pg. 122
Table 1. 6th Cycle RHNA with a 25% Buffer
Income Level Assigned RHNA 25% Buffer Total RHNA with
25% buffer
Very Low 372 147 734
Low 215
Moderate 215 - 215
Above Moderate 557 - 557
TOTAL 1,359 147 1,506
I. Existing Capacity to Meet RHNA
Current Capacity
The City has existing residentially-zoned sites that can be counted in the sites inventory without any rezoning.
 Santa Maria Church site - 64 units (very low + low income)  Vacant residentially-zoned sites - 583 units (moderate + above moderate) Pending/Approved Projects
Pending and approved projects can be included as long as the Certificate of Occupancy is not issued prior to June 30, 2022.
 [Pending Project] Vista Verde Senior Housing Project - 52 units (a mix of income categories)
 [Approved Project] Wilder CountryHouse Memory Care Project - 38 units (above moderate)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
For RHNA purposes based on HCD guidance, the potential number of ADUs to be constructed during the planning period is based on ADU building permit history. The number of ADUs is calculated by taking an average of the number of building permits issued since 2018 and multiplying by 8 years to cover the 2023 - 2031 planning period.

Staff initially estimated 54 ADUs based on permit data from 2018 to mid-2021. In mid2021, only 7 ADU permits had been issued for the year. Permit data from 2021 shows a total of 12 ADU permits were issued last year. With this increase in ADU permits, 10 additional ADUs can be counted, resulting in a total of 64 units.  Accessory Dwelling Units - 64 units (a mix of income categories based on ABAGs affordability analysis)
A summary of the existing capacity is provided in Table 2 below. As shown in Table 2, Orinda cannot meet its assigned RHNA including a 25% buffer for lower income, solely with existing capacity. There is a shortfall of 707 units that need to be found elsewhere in the city with rezoning.

H.1
Packet Pg. 123
Table 2. Summary of Existing Capacity to Meet RHNA (based on existing zoning) Income
Level
Assigned
RHNA (with
25% buffer)
Current
Capacity
Pending/
Approved
Projects
ADUs Total Shortfall
Very Low 734 64 38 38 140 (594)
Low
Moderate 215 118 13 19 150 (65)
Above
Moderate
557 465 39 6 511 (46)
TOTAL 1,506 647 90 64 801 (707)
II. Potential Sites to Meet RHNA
At the November 16th City Council meeting, staff presented potential sites that could be rezoned in order to meet the RHNA. All potential sites were presented to the Council to allow maximum flexibility when selecting the final sites prior to adoption of the Housing Element. These sites, referred to as Housing Opportunity Sites, include:
 Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) - The DPP proposes to increase residential densities in the Downtown Commercial (DC) and Downtown Office (DO) zoning districts.
 Church sites - Four existing church sites with large surface parking lots.  BART Parking Lots - The eastern and western BART parking lots.  CalTrans site - A portion of the CalTrans right-of-way adjacent to the Highway-24 Wilder Road off-ramp.
 EBMUD site - A vacant parcel on Bear Creek Road, owned by EBMUD, that could be developed concurrently with an adjacent vacant site owned by Orinda Union School District (OUSD).
 OUSD vacant site - A vacant site, owned by OUSD, located north of the Sleepy Hollow school. This site could be developed with access from Bear Creek Road through the EBMUD site.
 Miramonte High School site - An undeveloped portion of the southern side of the Miramonte High School property owned by Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD).

A breakdown of the potential capacity at each Housing Opportunity Site is provided in Table 3 below. The DPP sites are discussed later in this report. Most of the sites are assumed not to develop to full capacity based on existing use, topography, and/or other site constraints. The “percent of site” listed in Table 3 indicates staff’s estimate of the amount of the site that could be developed with housing.

H.1
Packet Pg. 124
Table 3. Summary of Potential Housing Opportunity Sites to Meet RHNA Location Percent of
Site
Acreage Proposed
Density
(du/ac)
Proposed
Capacity
(units)
Total
Capacity
(units)
Church Sites
St. Stephen’s Church 25% 5.48 20 27 126
Holy Shepherd Church 33% 3.22 20 21
St. Mark’s Church 50% 4.48 20 45
St. John’s Church 33% 4.94 20 33
Government-Owned Sites
EBMUD Site 15% 17.00 20 51 1,548
BART - Eastern Lot 75% 5.78 75 325
BART - Western Lot 50% 20.36 75 764
Caltrans Site 100% 10.19 40 408
School District Sites
Miramonte High
School
18% 51.95 20 187 235
OUSD Vacant Site
(north of Sleepy
Hollow school)
100% 2.41 20 48
Housing Element Simulation Tool (Balancing Act)
Staff launched the Housing Element simulation tool through the Balancing Act platform in mid-December 2021 to obtain resident input on the potential Housing Opportunity Sites. The simulation tool can be viewed at https://orinda.abalancingact.com. With the simulation tool, members of the public are able to create their own housing plan by increasing and decreasing the number of housing units from the available categories.

This is one of the many means by which the public is able to participate in and provide input into the development and ultimate approval of a Housing Element.

As of February 10, 2022, a total of 67 submissions have been received. The comments received with the submissions are included as Attachment A. A summary of the submissions results is provided in Table 4. “Minimum Units Selected” indicates the H.1
Packet Pg. 125
percentage of submissions that did not increase the housing units for the corresponding category while “Maximum Units Selected” indicates the percentage of submissions that selected the maximum number of units.

Table 4. Balancing Act Submission Results
Category Minimum
Units
(based on
existing
zoning)
Frequency of
Minimum
Units
Selected by
Respondents
Maximum
Units
(based on
maximum
proposed
zoning)
Frequency of
Maximum
Units
Selected by
Respondents
Average
Units
Selected
DPP Sites
DO District 0 22% 290 34% 161
DC District 105 31% 317 42% 223
BevMo Block 20 26% 130 15% 65
Country Club
Plaza
26 33% 221 12% 98
BART Parking Lots
Eastern Lot 0 25% 330 34% 178
Western Lot 0 16% 765 27% 354
Church Sites
Church Sites 4 39% 124 33% 57
Government-Owned Sites
CalTrans Site 0 40% 408 27% 153
EBMUD Site 1 48% 49 39% 23
School District Sites
Miramonte High
School
0 64% 260 16% 59
OUSD Site 1 55% 49 28% 18
Figure 1 below shows the average submission and click increases/decreases. The orange bar indicates the average number of times the category was increased or decreased for all submissions. The blue bar indicates the average number of times the category was increased or decreased, but a complete housing plan was not submitted.

Downtown and the BART parking lots were the most popular categories. These two H.1
Packet Pg. 126
categories allow for the highest number of units to be increased based on the acreage and proposed density.

Figure 1. Balancing Act - Average Increase/Decrease Per Category III. Staff-Recommended Sites to Meet RHNA
Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) Sites
The staff-recommended sites inventory includes the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP). In the Housing Simulation tool, the DPP Project Area is divided in four categories with the following densities for purposes of the Housing Element:
 Downtown Office (DO) zoning district - 25 du/ac
 Downtown Commercial (DC) zoning district - 30 du/ac
 BevMo block - 65 du/ac
 Country Club Plaza block - 85 du/ac
As last presented to the Council and Planning Commission, the DPP also proposes building heights of from 35’ (in the existing DO District—the same as current zoning), to between 45’ and, in certain areas, up to 55’, including the BevMo block and Country Club Plaza block. Staff has received public feedback at meetings, by email, and through the Housing Simulation Tool with concern regarding the increase in densities and building heights downtown. A majority of the concerns have been related to the H.1
Packet Pg. 127
proposed densities and heights at the BevMo block and Country Club Plaza block. Due to this public feedback, staff is now recommending a maximum density of 30 du/ac and a maximum height of 45’ for all parcels in the DC district, including the BevMo block and Country Club Plaza block. One of the consistent concerns raised has been the potential for additional stories and density pursuant to Density Bonus law, which could allow as much as a 50% density bonus and as many as three additional floors through the concession/waiver provisions. By reducing the densities to 30 du/ac, staff believes that if density bonus were triggered, it would likely result in no more than a 5-story building since the maximum density with a density bonus would be no more than 45 du/ac. This would also provide an incentive for developers to include affordable units within their projects in order to take advantage of density bonus law.

By reducing the density to 30 du/ac, it would result in a total of 746 RHNA units within the DPP (a reduction of 213 units compared to 65 du/ac at the BevMo block and 85 du/ac at the Country Club Plaza block). Assuming a 60% buildout during the planning period would result in 447 units from the DPP that could be included in the sites inventory.

Table 5. Summary of DPP Sites to Meet RHNA
Income
Level
DO District
(25 du/ac)
DC District
(30 du/ac)
BevMo
Block
(30 du/ac)
Country
Club Block
(30 du/ac)
Total 60%
Buildout
Assumption
Very Low 29 316 60 78 483 290
Low
Moderate 163 - - - 163 98
Above
Moderate
100 - - - 100 60
TOTAL 292 316 60 78 746 447
Recommended Sites Inventory
At this time, staff is recommending the following sites be included in the sites inventory for the Draft Housing Element:
 Existing Capacity (801 total units)
o Current Capacity
 Santa Maria Church site – 64 units
 Vacant Residentially-zoned site – 583 units
o Pending/Approved Projects
 Vista Verde Senior Housing Project – 52 units
 Wilder CountryHouse Memory Care Project – 38 units
o ADUs – 64 units
 DPP Sites (447 total units)
H.1
Packet Pg. 128
o DO zoning district – 25 du/ac
o DC zoning district – 30 du/ac
o BevMo Block – 30 du/ac
o Country Club Plaza block – 30 du/ac
 Housing Opportunity Sites (313 total units)
o 4 Church sites – 126 units
o Miramonte High school – 187 units
Government and Nonprofit Organizations
The City was awarded a $75,000 grant through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to work with government and nonprofit organizations to perform feasibility analysis for groups interested in developing housing on their property. The City has a contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to perform this feasibility analysis for the interested groups. A stakeholder meeting was held in September 2021 where EPS provided a presentation regarding real estate development basics, affordable housing, and partnership options.

To date, staff has been coordinating with four groups that have indicated a possible interest in housing:
 Orinda Union School District (OUSD)
 Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD)
 St. Stephen’s Church
 St. John’s Church
These groups have met with staff and are still considering their options in regard to housing. These discussions have been very preliminary, with City staff explaining the RHNA process and EPS explaining, in general terms, the economics of housing production. None of the four groups is near making any final decisions regarding developing potential housing on their properties.

Table 6. Summary of Staff-Recommended Sites Inventory
Income
Level
Assigned
RHNA (with
25% buffer)
Existing
Capacity
DPP Opportunity
Sites
Total Surplus
Very Low 734 140 290 313 743 10
Low
Moderate 215 150 98 - 248 33
Above
Moderate
557 511 60 - 570 13
TOTAL 1,506 801 447 313 1,562 56
Sites Not Included in the Staff-Recommended Sites Inventory H.1
Packet Pg. 129
The following are sites that are not included in the staff-recommended sites inventory.

While these sites are not being recommended by staff, the Council will make the ultimate decision regarding which sites will be included in the final, adopted Housing Element (including, potentially, the sites listed below) when it acts on the final document sometime before January 31, 2023. The EIR will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of all potential sites, either as project sites or as alternatives.

1. Government-Owned Sites
 EBMUD Site: The site is included as a potential site to be developed along with the vacant OUSD site. Because the OUSD site is not being recommended due to constraints with the site, the EBMUD site is also not being recommended by staff.
 BART Parking Lots: Staff recently met with BART to discuss the possibility of housing development on the BART parking lots. Staff is not recommending the parking lots because:
o Timing - The BART Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Work Plan identifies the Orinda station in the mid-term phasing plan with an estimated timeframe of 2025-2030. While this would be within the Housing Element planning period, the challenges with ownership and other constraints would likely not result in housing development during the 6th Cycle.
o Ownership - The BART parking lots are on CalTrans property and coordination with CalTrans could be challenging.
o Density/Height - BART’s Technical Guide to AB 2923 identifies the Orinda station as a Neighborhood/Town Center station.

Neighborhood/Town Center stations have a baseline zoning of 75 du/ac with an allowable building height of 5 stories or more. While AB 2923 does not apply to Orinda because BART does not own the station, BART would be unlikely to accept a density or building height below the baseline zoning.
o Planning for 2 Parking Lots - If a housing project was proposed in the parking lots, planning for the two parking lots would need to be considered together as one. BART would not accept planning for only one of the parking lots.
o Parking - Development would likely result in a loss of parking spaces. BART is currently prioritizing sites where replacement parking is minimized. Orinda’s station is auto dependent, meaning there would be an expectation of a higher amount of replacement parking and presents a challenge for a project to be financially feasible.
o Development Standards - Other than the existing zoning regulations, the City does not have any development standards specifically for the BART parking lots. The City would be in a better H.1
Packet Pg. 130
position to develop a specific plan or objective design standards prior to rezoning the parking lots for residential development.  CalTrans Site: The site is currently part of the CalTrans right-of-way. While the site is relatively flat, there are no utility services to the site. Staff has reached out to CalTrans to gauge their interest in housing on their property, but has not received a response to date.

2. School-District Sites
 OUSD Vacant Site: The site is very steeply sloped with access challenges.

The staff-recommended sites inventory is being presented to obtain feedback on which sites the draft Housing Element will include. While the Housing Element adoption deadline is January 2023, there are many steps in the review process that require direction on the sites at this point in the process. A more detailed schedule of the Housing Element and Plan Orinda timeline is provided below.

Rezoning Timing for Housing Opportunity Sites
Housing Element Law states that if a jurisdiction relies on the rezoning of nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50% of its lower income RHNA and these nonvacant sites are not rezoned prior to the start of the planning period (January 31, 2023), then 50% of the lower income must be on sites zoned solely for residential use. Staff recommends that the rezoning of all Housing Opportunity Sites to occur prior to the start of the planning period to avoid this requirement of the lower income RHNA. If the rezoning occurred after January 31, 2023, it would result in a shortfall of 303 lower income units (Table 7). The following program would be required to be included in the Housing Element if the rezoning occurred after January 31, 2023:

General Program Requirements
A jurisdiction’s adequate sites program must accommodate 100 percent of the shortfall of sites necessary to accommodate the remaining housing need for housing for very low- and low-income households during the planning period and include the following components:
 Permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households. By right means local government review must not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval.
 Permit the development of at least 16 units per site.  Ensure sites within suburban and metropolitan jurisdictions — as defined by Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv) — permit a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre for suburban and metropolitan jurisdictions.  Ensure a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low- and very low-income regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses, or b) if accommodating more than 50 percent of the low- and very low-income regional housing need on sites designated for H.1
Packet Pg. 131
mixed-uses, all sites designated for mixed-uses must allow 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project.

Assuming that the DPP (and associated rezoning) is adopted concurrently with the Housing Element, but the RHNA sites outside of downtown are not adopted until after the Housing Element/ January 31, 2023 deadline, the city would be facing a RHNA shortfall of 303 for lower income units. If both the DPP and the sites outside of downtown were not rezoned prior to 1/31/2023, the shortfall would be even greater.

IV. Plan Orinda Schedule
A summary of all past and upcoming milestones and meetings is listed below. Note that future dates are an estimate and subject to change. Additional meetings beyond the listed meetings will be scheduled as needed. Meeting materials associated with past meetings can be found on the Plan Orinda website at
https://www.planorinda.com/calendar.

Table 7. Plan Orinda - Past Meetings
Date Meeting Body Topic Details
2020
02/26/20 Downtown
Subcommittee
DPP Project branding, RFPs/RFQs,
existing conditions, and
stakeholder engagement.
04/07/20 City Council DPP Project branding, RFPs/RFQs,
and existing conditions.
04/29/20 Downtown
Subcommittee
DPP Existing conditions, property
profiles, community engagement,
and upcoming meetings.
05/26/20 Joint Subcommittee &
Planning Commission
DPP Community Workshop #1 –
Overview of DPP, background of
past planning efforts, state and
local regulations, and existing
conditions.
06/10/20 Downtown
Subcommittee
DPP ConnectOrinda refresher, results
of online survey, and update of
stakeholder interviews.
06/23/20 Joint Subcommittee &
Planning Commission
DPP/CEQA Community Workshop #2 –
Overview of CEQA, results of
online survey and stakeholder
interviews, draft vision statement,
H.1
Packet Pg. 132
draft goals and objectives.
07/28/20 Joint Subcommittee &
Planning Commission
DPP/CEQA Community Workshop #3 –
Overview of objective design
standards and proposed densities
and building heights.
08/18/20 City Council DPP/CEQA Overview of objective design standards, and proposed
densities and heights for the
Program EIR project description.
09/10/20 Downtown
Subcommittee
DPP/CEQA Discuss comments raised at the
8/18 meeting regarding the EIR,
density bonus, mixed-use,
incentives, and project examples.
09/30/20 Downtown
Subcommittee
DPP Interview of 3 economic firms for
on-call economic services.
10/06/20 City Council DPP DPP update and approval of
economic consultant EPS for oncall economic services.
11/19/20 Joint City Council &
Planning Commission
DPP Character Area Workshop –
Discussion of areas of potential
increase in building height,
density, horizontal vs. vertical
mixed-use, and an overview of
economic factors to consider.
2021
03/02/21 City Council DPP Economic Feasibility -
Draft economic feasibility memo,
buildout assumptions, density,
and proposed building height
increases.
03/16/21 City Council DPP/Housing
Element
DPP/Housing Element
Coordination -
Consideration of options for
coordination between the DPP
and Housing Element.
04/13/21 City Council DPP/Housing
Element
DPP/Housing Element
Coordination -
Approval to process the DPP and
Housing Element concurrently.
02/11/21 Joint City Council &
Planning Commission
Housing Element Housing Element overview and its
relationship to the DPP
H.1
Packet Pg. 133
06/10/21 Downtown & Housing
Element Subcommittee
DPP Downtown PG&E transmission
lines
09/27/21 Downtown & Housing
Element Subcommittee
DPP Draft objective design standards
10/18/21 Downtown & Housing
Element Subcommittee
Housing Element Housing Element RHNA sites
inventory
11/03/21 Community Workshop Safety Element Safety Element workshop 11/09/21 Planning Commission Housing Element Housing Element study session 11/16/21 City Council Housing Element Housing Element study session 11/17/21 Joint City Council &
Planning Commission
DPP Draft objective design standards
Table 8. Plan Orinda 2022-2023 Estimated Project Timeline Estimated
Date
Meeting Body Topic Details
2022
01/20/22 Downtown &
Housing Element
Subcommittee
CEQA EIR Scoping Session
02/01 - 05/13 - CEQA Prepare Administrative
Draft EIR
02/01 - 02/18 Safety Element Prepare Vulnerability
Assessment scoring
02/09/22 SSTOC Safety Element Safety Element overview
02/15/22 City Council Housing Element Housing Element RHNA sites inventory
02/21 - 03/04 Safety Element Vulnerability Assessment
scoring - City Review
02/28 - 03/28 - Housing Element Administrative Draft
Housing Element - City
Review
03/07 - 04/01 Safety Element Prepare Vulnerability
H.1
Packet Pg. 134
Assessment
02/01 - 04/01 Safety Element Prepare Administrative
Draft Safety Element
03/29/22 Planning
Commission
Housing Element Public Review Draft
Housing Element
04/04 - 04/29 Safety Element Administrative Draft Safety Element and Vulnerability
Assessment - City Review
04/05 - 05/16 - Housing Element Release Public Review
Draft Housing Element (40
days)
04/19/22 City Council Housing Element Public Review Draft Housing Element
05/02 - 05/20 Safety Element Prepare Public Draft Safety Element and Vulnerability
Assessment
05/16 - 06/03 - CEQA Administrative Draft EIR -
City Review
05/17 - 08/15 - Housing Element Submit Draft Housing
Element to HCD (90 days)
June 2022 Community
Workshop
Safety Element Public Workshop
June/July Planning
Commission
Safety Element Safety Element Study
Session
June/July Planning
Commission
Draft Downtown Precise
Plan/Objective Design
Standards & Land Use
Element Amendment
Public Workshop
June/July City Council Safety Element Safety Element Study Session
06/06 - 06/17 - CEQA Prepare Public Review
Draft EIR
06/24 - 08/08 - CEQA Release Public Review of
Draft EIR - Comment
Period (45 days)
06/24 - 08/08 Safety Element Release Public Review
Draft Safety Element and
Vulnerability Assessment
H.1
Packet Pg. 135
08/09 - 09/16 - CEQA Prepare Response to
Comments (RTC) and
Admin Draft Final EIR
08/15 - Housing Element City received findings
letters from HCD
08/15 - 08/29 - Housing Element Revise Draft Housing
Element
08/30 - 09/06 - Housing Element Release Draft Housing
Element to public (7 days)
09/07 - 11/06 - Housing Element Submit Draft Housing
Element to HCD - 2nd
review (60 days)
09/19 - 10/07 - CEQA Admin Draft Final EIR &
RTC - City Review
10/10 - 10/28 - CEQA Prepare Final EIR
11/06 - Housing Element Receive “Conditional
Compliance” Letter from
HCD
Nov 2022 Planning
Commission
DPP/Housing & Safety
Element/CEQA
Recommendation for
adoption of final DPP,
Housing & Safety Element,
and EIR
Dec 2022/
Jan 2023
City Council DPP/Housing & Safety
Element/CEQA
Adoption of final DPP,
Housing & Safety Element,
and EIR
2023
Jan - Mar - Housing Element Submit Final Adopted
Housing Element to HCD -
Review and Certification
(60 days)
NEXT STEPS:

The sites inventory as determined by the City Council will be used for the draft Housing Element. The draft Housing Element is expected to be available for public review in March.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The full cost of the Housing Element contract with PlaceWorks is funded by fund 612 (long-range planning), fund 391 (general plan surcharge), and fund 262 (local grants).

H.1
Packet Pg. 136
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Sites Inventory Maps
B. Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments
C. Staff Correspondence with BART
D. Public Correspondence
Respectfully Submitted by:

Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
Prepared By: Winnie Mui, Associate Planner
Approved by:

H.1
Packet Pg. 137
Map 1 - Current Site/Current Projects
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Sites Inventory Maps (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Map 2 - Downtown Percise Plan Sites
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Sites Inventory Maps (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Map 3 - Opportunity Sites
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Sites Inventory Maps (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Map 4 - Opportunity Sites - Staff Recommendation
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Sites Inventory Maps (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 123456789
10111213

A B CDE
Submitted At Comments Vacant Residential Sites ‐
Comment
Accessory Dwelling Units ‐
Comment
Santa Maria Church Site ‐
Comment
12/15/2021 22:1312/15/2021 22:19
The State is dreaming or on drugs with the RHNA targets until they greatly subsidize development of under market rate housing. Just ask big housing developers to commit to building such housing in Orinda and watch them laugh.
12/15/2021 22:34 Thank you asking for our input.
12/15/2021 23:2912/15/2021 23:3012/15/2021 23:31
Thank you for allowing residents to participate in the reshaping of an amazing community. With hard work and lots of planning (like any city), Orinda will excel beyond words.
12/15/2021 23:3412/15/2021 23:35
What a sad situation!! We moved to Orinda because it is NOT dense or urban. These options cannot possibly be the only alternatives. Get your thinking caps on and find something that fits in with our community. Go out door to door and carefully survey the ADUs in existence and identify lots where one might be built. 52 is a joke! It is obvious the BART parking lot is the real alternative. It would be one whale of a structure, though, andwould define our town to the world. Very depressing.

Seriously? Go out and do
a serious survey and
capture all of the existingADUs. it will be a heck of a lot more than 54!!
This site is valuableplayground area for
school children and is
landlocked. The only
ingress/egress is a narrowwindy road that passes by
the area that OPD parks
its vehicles and exits onto
steep Altarinda Dr. Lord
help us in an emergency!
It should never have been
zoned residential.
12/15/2021 23:39 Build as tall as possible in the BART parking lots, Theater square and Village. 12/15/2021 23:52 Great tool and great plan. Prefer increased density in the downtown areas and at BART. 12/16/2021 0:35 Twitter
12/16/2021 17:12

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 123456789
10111213

FGH I J K
3 ‐ Downtown Office
Zoning District (Max 25
du/ac) ‐ Comment
4 ‐ Downtown
Commercial Zoning
District (Max 30 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5 ‐ BevMo Block (Max 65
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6 ‐ Country Club Plaza
Block (Max 85 du/ac) ‐
Comment
7 ‐ Eastern Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
8 ‐ Western Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
We've got more than
enough office space in
Orinda. Turn some into
housing, while making it
very inconvenient forpeople who live here to
see their doctor, dentist,
broker, insurance broker,
real estate professional,etc. Another dumb idea.

Don't destroy our
commercial district and
the small shops we
patronize so stranger‐
commuters can movehere. Not very bright.

Destroys the sales tax
base because we all start
shopping in Lafayette andMoraga.

This should remaincommercial space. Weneed the merchants, the sales tax dollars and the
parking.

There are nice little stores
and good restaurantshere with reasonablerents and prices andparking so we can actually patronize them. A few
offices also. It's too far to
be walkable to BART for a
commuter anyway. Leave
it be.

Make the developer
include the much needed
cross‐over between the
Theater and the Village
area, as well as lots and
lots of BART parking, as
well as parking available
for these 330 residents(times 2 or more, nodoubt). This project will satisfy the planners, but
will destroy Orinda as we
know it.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 123456789
10111213
LMNO P
9 ‐ Church Sites (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
10 ‐ CalTrans Site (Max
40 du/ac) ‐ Comment
11 ‐ EBMUD Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
12 ‐ Portion of
Miramonte High School
(Max 20 du/ac) ‐
Comment
13 ‐ Sleepy Hollow School
Vacant Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
Builld the biggest buildingyou can fit up here, as it
will have no impact on
residents of Orinda. It will,
however, be one ugly
entrance to our fair city,
but no one seems to give
a hoot about that!
Put the big ugly buildingup here where most of us
will never see it.

It makes no sense to build
dense housing at the end
of a windy road in Sleepy
Hollow. Again,evacuation is a concern,
but destroying a lovely
neighborhood ought to
matter to our city!!

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 A B CDE
Submitted At Comments Vacant Residential Sites ‐
Comment
Accessory Dwelling Units ‐
Comment
Santa Maria Church Site ‐
Comment
141516171819
12/17/2021 3:2612/17/2021 5:18
SoCal cities recently did their Housing Element (they started their cycle before Bay Area) and many cities have zoned for several times the units required, since state law now requires that cities assume that not every site will actually be developed. Therefore to have a realistic Housing Element that will actually build the 900+ homes required, the city should zone for several thousand new homes. Otherwise the city is unlikely to meet RHNA goals,which means most development could go through streamlined review instead of Planning Commission.
12/17/2021 19:33
This tool feels designed to make us choose downtown housing, which will lead to a lot of submission having a large amount of downtown housing. This is not by choice, but by necessity... 12/21/2021 1:0212/21/2021 1:2512/21/2021 17:55
It seems that there should be more flexibility in housing ‐ for example, we should have less single‐family zoned areas to allow for duplex, triplexes and quadplexes that keep with the look of existing housing stock. For example, many of the houses on Brookwood are multi‐unit, but would not be allowed to be built with current zoning requirements. The Wilder project is another example ‐ having only housing zoned for single family homes of 3000+ SF is a wasted opportunity. Housing there could have been built with the similar exteriors that could be 1800 SF duplexes.

Why not allow for some
multi‐unit housing on
these sites? When
looking at older Orinda
housing stock like in theOak Springs area, many of
those houses are duplex
and even a few triplexes.The designs make themlook like single family homes. With current
zoning, none of thosehomes would be allowed
to be built.

Can this be something
that is increased as a
solution? With close to
20,000 residents, it seemsthat more than 54 ADUscould be built on existing sites.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 FGH I J K
3 ‐ Downtown Office
Zoning District (Max 25
du/ac) ‐ Comment
4 ‐ Downtown
Commercial Zoning
District (Max 30 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5 ‐ BevMo Block (Max 65
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6 ‐ Country Club Plaza
Block (Max 85 du/ac) ‐
Comment
7 ‐ Eastern Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
8 ‐ Western Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
141516171819

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 LMNO P
9 ‐ Church Sites (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
10 ‐ CalTrans Site (Max
40 du/ac) ‐ Comment
11 ‐ EBMUD Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
12 ‐ Portion of
Miramonte High School
(Max 20 du/ac) ‐
Comment
13 ‐ Sleepy Hollow School
Vacant Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
141516171819

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 A B CDE
Submitted At Comments Vacant Residential Sites ‐
Comment
Accessory Dwelling Units ‐
Comment
Santa Maria Church Site ‐
Comment
20212223242526272829303132
12/23/2021 0:4012/23/2021 8:5112/24/2021 1:32 Please do not destroy Orinda. You're close to doing so. Lives will become very uncomfortable, so tread carefully! 12/24/2021 3:29
Concentrating high density next to BART addresses the parking issue. State planners assumed parking is not needed if close to transit. The chances of parking overflowing back into the residential districts is limited. Fire Emergency evacuation routes can be kept clear for exit and access by fire suppression trucks. 12/27/2021 6:2912/29/2021 23:091/3/2022 22:58
Thanks so much for making this tool available. I'm definitely in favor of building more housing. And I especially like transit‐oriented development! 1/4/2022 1:30
Housing units within walking distance to BART provides the lowest impact option and best leverages our existing transit androad infrastructure. Additionally, suggest the Orinda Planning Commission revisit the Downtown Precise Plan to explore if this are ways to add units to the existing plan considering Orinda's allocation via the RHNA process.
1/4/2022 3:081/4/2022 3:181/4/2022 19:14
I found the intent of this tool to be admirable, but too limiting. I agree with recent published comments by Nick Waranoff about its drabacks.
1/4/2022 19:51
No units further than 1/4 mile from Freeway 24! The tool wouldnot let me reduce the number to zero in areas further from the freeway, so this tool is FLAWED if you really want our opinion! 1/5/2022 1:05 downtown BART parking lot building would be great!

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 FGH I J K
3 ‐ Downtown Office
Zoning District (Max 25
du/ac) ‐ Comment
4 ‐ Downtown
Commercial Zoning
District (Max 30 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5 ‐ BevMo Block (Max 65
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6 ‐ Country Club Plaza
Block (Max 85 du/ac) ‐
Comment
7 ‐ Eastern Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
8 ‐ Western Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
20212223242526272829303132

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 LMNO P
9 ‐ Church Sites (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
10 ‐ CalTrans Site (Max
40 du/ac) ‐ Comment
11 ‐ EBMUD Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
12 ‐ Portion of
Miramonte High School
(Max 20 du/ac) ‐
Comment
13 ‐ Sleepy Hollow School
Vacant Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
20212223242526272829303132

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 A B CDE
Submitted At Comments Vacant Residential Sites ‐
Comment
Accessory Dwelling Units ‐
Comment
Santa Maria Church Site ‐
Comment
333435363738394041
1/5/2022 22:45
1/6/2022 22:33
1/7/2022 1:24
This tool ignores the income levels of RHNA. It also has assumptions and biasses. The user is virtually forced to develop downtown. It does not represent what people would want. if they could adjust the densities for each selection.it might be better.

See also my other comments.
1/7/2022 1:48
Traffic is terrible on Moraga Way with all the residents of Moraga using it as well as half of Orinda. I would like to see downtown and Bart areas developed where people can walk to
transportation, stores and restaurants...avoiding more cars on the road if possible.
1/7/2022 3:00 Got from a friend. Have not seen on Nextdoor. Concerned this may not have been adequately distributed
1/7/2022 3:06 Interesting, but a very crude tool; probably has little real value in the long term 1/7/2022 16:09 I would have liked to put some housing in the existing building to the left of Rite Aid converting it to housing with restaurant below. 1/8/2022 17:50
I'd like to be able to increase the ADUs and JADUs and also assume some lot splitting with SB9. All of these developments will add affordable and middle income type units. I'm planning to add a JADU and a ADU and maybe an SB9 split, getting it to 4 units.
1/10/2022 23:33

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 FGH I J K
3 ‐ Downtown Office
Zoning District (Max 25
du/ac) ‐ Comment
4 ‐ Downtown
Commercial Zoning
District (Max 30 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5 ‐ BevMo Block (Max 65
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6 ‐ Country Club Plaza
Block (Max 85 du/ac) ‐
Comment
7 ‐ Eastern Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
8 ‐ Western Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
333435363738394041

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 LMNO P
9 ‐ Church Sites (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
10 ‐ CalTrans Site (Max
40 du/ac) ‐ Comment
11 ‐ EBMUD Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
12 ‐ Portion of
Miramonte High School
(Max 20 du/ac) ‐
Comment
13 ‐ Sleepy Hollow School
Vacant Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
333435363738394041
Use the entire lot or
increase the density toallow more low income
units to be built on church
land
HCD will probably not
allow this. This site is not
listed as unusedgovernment land.

HCD will probably notallow this. This site is not
listed as unused
government land.

Increase the density
allowed on school land to
allow more moderateincome housing for
teachers and staff

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 A B CDE
Submitted At Comments Vacant Residential Sites ‐
Comment
Accessory Dwelling Units ‐
Comment
Santa Maria Church Site ‐
Comment
424344454647484950
1/10/2022 23:40
A thought provoking tool, but the simulation from the typical resident who has paid little attention so far to the DPP may not be particularly useful for Council decision making.
1/14/2022 10:37
Housing Density needs to be focused on areas close to Bart.

Orinda has a responsibility to help provide housing, just like the rest of the Bay Area. Climate change effects all of us. There is adirect nexus between building housing that is dense and well connected to transit, to reducing GHGs.
1/15/2022 0:471/15/2022 1:431/15/2022 1:431/16/2022 0:52 Does every community have to more than double the housing units? 1/16/2022 5:51
1/16/2022 17:551/18/2022 18:50
I attempted to maximize TOD and minimize VMT. I would have liked a little more specificity in upzoning commercial/office spaces downtown. I would have planned for housing near theatre square but not near OCC.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 FGH I J K
3 ‐ Downtown Office
Zoning District (Max 25
du/ac) ‐ Comment
4 ‐ Downtown
Commercial Zoning
District (Max 30 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5 ‐ BevMo Block (Max 65
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6 ‐ Country Club Plaza
Block (Max 85 du/ac) ‐
Comment
7 ‐ Eastern Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
8 ‐ Western Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
424344454647484950
How realistic is turnover
of all these properties
during the 6th cycle?
I favor rezoning of
properties at 17‐23
Orinda Way only.

Leave room in this blockfor a central plaza to
break up what could bean unattractive building
mass if developed to
capacity. The City should
strongly encourage land
assembly and
underground parking forthe the future residents
as well as to mitigate thepresent shortage of
parking in the TheaterDistrict.

This block can best handlebuilding height. Land
assembly is important.

The City should encourage
underground parking.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 LMNO P
9 ‐ Church Sites (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
10 ‐ CalTrans Site (Max
40 du/ac) ‐ Comment
11 ‐ EBMUD Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
12 ‐ Portion of
Miramonte High School
(Max 20 du/ac) ‐
Comment
13 ‐ Sleepy Hollow School
Vacant Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
424344454647484950
I would advocate more
housing on church sites
but have concerns about
its impact on Moraga Way
traffic.

The capacity of 408 units
on this site cannot be
ignored in this analysis.

Excellent site for OUSD
and city employeehousing.
260 units of housing
would be a significant
number on an attractive
site, but the traffic impact
would be problematic.

Excellent site for OUSD
and City employeehousing.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 A B CDE
Submitted At Comments Vacant Residential Sites ‐
Comment
Accessory Dwelling Units ‐
Comment
Santa Maria Church Site ‐
Comment
5152535455565758
1/19/2022 8:48 Love this tool and love the idea of concentrating development into dense, transit friendly areas! 1/19/2022 20:261/20/2022 0:20 Good luck!
1/20/2022 19:04
Focusing development downtown makes the most sense from a fire prevention and evacuation perspective and an economic perspective as more people living downtown will benefit our restaurants and small businesses. Orinda's roads also seem to be close to max capacity so siting housing downtown where it's easy to walk to the park, businesses and some daycares will eliminate some driving by new residents. The downtown core is also much flatter than a lot of Orinda so it's more bike able. Creating a bike path along Moraga way that connects to the Moraga‐Lafayette Bike trail should be a priority as it would enable some families and teenagers to use bikes to get to school vs. driving. The traffic on Moraga way in the mornings and late afternoons is already quite heavy. Also, I saw a post about the simulation tool on Instagram.
1/20/2022 20:251/21/2022 19:27 Any housing plan that includes property adjacent to severe fire hazard risk hazard would not be prudent. 1/24/2022 19:17 Tried to make extra housing have as little impact on traffic and parking in the Orinda business distract as possible, 1/25/2022 23:49 Max housing. Go yall

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 FGH I J K
3 ‐ Downtown Office
Zoning District (Max 25
du/ac) ‐ Comment
4 ‐ Downtown
Commercial Zoning
District (Max 30 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5 ‐ BevMo Block (Max 65
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6 ‐ Country Club Plaza
Block (Max 85 du/ac) ‐
Comment
7 ‐ Eastern Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
8 ‐ Western Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5152535455565758

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 LMNO P
9 ‐ Church Sites (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
10 ‐ CalTrans Site (Max
40 du/ac) ‐ Comment
11 ‐ EBMUD Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
12 ‐ Portion of
Miramonte High School
(Max 20 du/ac) ‐
Comment
13 ‐ Sleepy Hollow School
Vacant Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
5152535455565758
Any new housing units
built adjacent to a high
wildfire severe risk zone
would not be prudent,therefore sites #11 and
#13 should be eliminated
as options in the housing
plan.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 A B CDE
Submitted At Comments Vacant Residential Sites ‐
Comment
Accessory Dwelling Units ‐
Comment
Santa Maria Church Site ‐
Comment
5960616263646566
1/28/2022 21:54 I grew up in Orinda but can't afford to live there because there's not enough housing. 2/1/2022 19:53
Maximum housing within walkable distance to Downtown and Village (and within reasonable height limits) is the best chance to keep traffic and parking under control.
2/2/2022 23:10
It is my strong belief that if we can keep high density building sites close to public transportation and the freeway, it will have the least effect on the already difficult driving conditions along Moraga Way.
2/4/2022 16:19
with existing infrastructure limitations, fire hazard, PG&E easements, the best area for development for housing is downtown. This will also lend itself to revitalize the downtown which is rather sad. Phairs for instance has been sitting vacantsince 1989. Infrastructure also needs to be addressed. We needto do this with a lens looking ahead to climate change. There will be a need to bike paths or alternative transportation (golf cart type commuter pathways) away from cars which already congest major routes around town. So far my work with the city and TSAC on providing common sense safe routes for walking and biking has been met with resistance. You simply cannot add more people without addressing infrastructure. That is the fatal flaw of this State Mandate.
2/7/2022 23:30 keep in mind i dont know what im doing... 2/7/2022 23:52 Seems like we'd need to find school expansion sites to accommodate all these new residents, right???? 2/8/2022 0:032/8/2022 0:13

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 FGH I J K
3 ‐ Downtown Office
Zoning District (Max 25
du/ac) ‐ Comment
4 ‐ Downtown
Commercial Zoning
District (Max 30 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5 ‐ BevMo Block (Max 65
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6 ‐ Country Club Plaza
Block (Max 85 du/ac) ‐
Comment
7 ‐ Eastern Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
8 ‐ Western Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5960616263646566

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 LMNO P
9 ‐ Church Sites (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
10 ‐ CalTrans Site (Max
40 du/ac) ‐ Comment
11 ‐ EBMUD Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
12 ‐ Portion of
Miramonte High School
(Max 20 du/ac) ‐
Comment
13 ‐ Sleepy Hollow School
Vacant Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
5960616263646566

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 A B CDE
Submitted At Comments Vacant Residential Sites ‐
Comment
Accessory Dwelling Units ‐
Comment
Santa Maria Church Site ‐
Comment
6768
2/8/2022 4:58
You are doing the public a disservice by omitting explanatory information about where these properties are located. For example, I have no idea where the Caltrans property is located.

Additionally, what do you mean by the BevMo property area? Where does it start and end? Your tool has left me with the impression that this is a PR exercise to generate support for more housing in Orinda. Adding additional housing (not single family homes) to Orinda is long overdue. Best of luck to you.
2/9/2022 23:52
The BevMo block is ready for redevelopment. Same for 8 of the 9 parcels (exclude 115 Orinda Way and #1 Camino Sobrante) in Country Club block. West parking lot of BART can and should accommodate 360+ ‐ units. Residential along the creek in the Village is a non‐starter.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 FGH I J K
3 ‐ Downtown Office
Zoning District (Max 25
du/ac) ‐ Comment
4 ‐ Downtown
Commercial Zoning
District (Max 30 du/ac) ‐
Comment
5 ‐ BevMo Block (Max 65
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6 ‐ Country Club Plaza
Block (Max 85 du/ac) ‐
Comment
7 ‐ Eastern Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
8 ‐ Western Parking Lot
(Max 75 du/ac) ‐
Comment
6768

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments ‐ February 10, 2022 1 LMNO P
9 ‐ Church Sites (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
10 ‐ CalTrans Site (Max
40 du/ac) ‐ Comment
11 ‐ EBMUD Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
12 ‐ Portion of
Miramonte High School
(Max 20 du/ac) ‐
Comment
13 ‐ Sleepy Hollow School
Vacant Site (Max 20
du/ac) ‐ Comment
6768

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Housing Simulation Tool (Balancing Act) Comments (2684 : Housing Element sites From: Kimberly Koempel
To: Drummond Buckley; Kamala Parks
Cc: Winnie Mui; David Biggs; planorinda email
Subject: RE: Meeting today regarding Orinda BART station Date: Thursday, February 3, 2022 3:32:23 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Hello all,
Sorry for the delay in response to the summary of our discussion. In addition to Kamala’s point about replacement parking I just wanted to provide some additional information on the topics we discussed.

Retail vs. mixed use:

Yes, we discussed that retail may not be a viable ground floor use given its competitive disadvantage to the downtown retail center, but the BART TOD program still encourages a mix of uses and believes in the importance of activation. BART’s TOD guidelines include this information:

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Staff Correspondence with BART (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Replacement Parking
BART’s TOD guidelines refer to BART’s Station Access Policy and associated typologies to guide us on how much replacement parking would be necessary when introducing TOD at a station. Orinda’s access typology is Auto Dependent which means that there is an expectation that there will be a higher amount of replacement parking expected at this station. This is a particularly difficult barrier now, as we discussed, because there are very limited grant sources for public parking and construction costs have skyrocketed making building replacement parking a very expensive proposition. If a high amount of structured replacement parking was required to implement TOD at this station, it would likely make it very difficult for a TOD project “to pencil”. Just as an example, the current estimate for a 1,000-space garage would be around $80M. The parking solution would need to be creative (perhaps utilizing offsite parking or shared parking) and outside funding sources would need to be identified. As Kamala mentioned, BART’s TOD workplan is focused on prioritizing TOD projects that are cost effective at delivering our goals.

Timing/Phasing
The timing of a TOD project at this station is very dependent on finding solutions to the two major barriers we discussed: BART parking and land ownership. The City’s partnership in addressing these issues would be necessary no matter which housing element cycle the City ends up deciding on.

I hope this is helpful and I am happy to share any additional information. Thanks so much for meeting with us on this topic.

Kim
Kimberly Koempel
Acting Transit-Oriented Development Group Manager
BART Real Estate and Property Development Department
2150 Webster Street, 9th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 874-7427
From: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Staff Correspondence with BART (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 11:43 AM
To: Kamala Parks <[email protected]>; Kimberly Koempel <[email protected]> Cc: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; David Biggs <[email protected]>; planorinda email <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Meeting today regarding Orinda BART station Noted! Thanks again.

Drummond
From: Kamala Parks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 5:02 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Kimberly Koempel <[email protected]> Cc: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; David Biggs <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Meeting today regarding Orinda BART station CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Hi, Drummond,
Thanks for the summary. I see one bullet that needs editing.

Regarding parking, BART’s policy is to not fund the replacement of existing parking, nor to require that developers replace it.

It’s not quite that cut and dry regarding BART rider parking. As we move forward with TODs, we are prioritizing sites where parking replacement is minimized. So, we’re not advancing projects at this time that require 100% replacement parking. That doesn’t mean we won’t have any BART rider parking at our TODs. For example, at El Cerrito Plaza, we have adopted a maximum BART rider parking replacement of 250 spaces (out of 744 that are currently there). We probably won’t build quite that much, but we are putting some parking into the development in addition to other measures, like shared parking with the TOD residents, on-street parking with El Cerrito, and meeting with private owners for them to allow BART rider parking on specified days/hours.

Note the address of our new headquarters below!
If you need to talk to me, call my mobile phone as I am working remotely through February 20.

Sincerely,
Kamala Parks (She/her)
Senior Planner, Stations Planning
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
2150 Webster Street, 8th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Office: +1 (510) 817-5901
Mobile: +1 (510) 421-4435
Email: [email protected]
From: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Staff Correspondence with BART (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 4:52 PM
To: Kamala Parks <[email protected]>; Kimberly Koempel <[email protected]> Cc: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; David Biggs <[email protected]> Subject: Meeting today regarding Orinda BART station
Kamala and Kimberly,
It was a pleasure meeting with the two of you by Zoom this morning regarding the possibility of the Orinda BART site being included in the 6th cycle housing element. The intent of this email is to summarize some of our discussion, and confirm that I got it right, so that we may convey the same information to the City Council as part of our 2/15 meeting discussing RHNA sites.

This is what we heard:

You are pleased to hear that some community members, based on our Balancing Act survey, are interested in including BART in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

However, since the Orinda station is not owned by BART, you are concerned about how long it would take to implement any kind of TOD plan for the BART station. Coordinating with Caltrans, the landholder, could be challenging.

Regarding parking, BART’s policy is to not fund the replacement of existing parking, nor to require that developers replace it.

Regarding density and building heights, BART would be very unlikely to accept anything under the 75 d/u per acre and 5 stories specified in your TOD guidelines for Neighborhood Town Center:

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Staff Correspondence with BART (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) If/when BART begins a planning process for the Orinda station, it would be necessary to consider both stations holistically (i.e., not acceptable to plan for just one of the lots first, although the actual future development may be staged that way).

Retail/mixed use is unlikely to be a major component of any future TOD project at the Orinda BART station based on what you are seeing at existing BART TOD projects as well as the proximity of Orinda’s existing downtown commercial uses.

You are not necessarily opposed to including the BART station within the 6th Cycle Housing Element, but given the complexities of the ownership and your current station planning horizons (which include the Orinda station towards the end of the 6th Cycle Housing Element effective period), you also support the idea of including the BART station in the 7th Cycle Element if that is where the City lands.

Regarding the last bullet point, we did not discuss this issue on our call but I want to point out that RHNA sites identified within a housing element that are not rezoned concurrently are required to be rezoned within either one year or three years of HE adoption. So we would need to get started on the process very soon after 1/2023.

Please let me know if you would like to modify or delete any of the above bullet points. Thanks H.1.c
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Staff Correspondence with BART (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) again for your time!
Drummond
Drummond Buckley
Planning Director, City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way, Orinda CA 94563
925.253.4210 (main line)
925.956.9305 (direct)
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/c585f6cd/VCCVEPTgfECRopgKzy3LWA?u=http://www.cityoforinda.org/ How are we doing? Please take a moment to complete our Planning Department Customer Satisfaction Survey: https://link.edgepilot.com/s/929470b8/R1vXD4245UyhhbrDndszkA? u=https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HC9QJLV
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Staff Correspondence with BART (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Richard A. Rogan
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Balancing Act
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 3:44:30 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
The requirement is so large for a built out city that the only realistic choice is the BART lot. You can pick away at it which might result in a lesser monstrosity being built, but it does not appear that path has been explored. A BART lot development could incorporate the desired connector between the two sides of town, and might also provide much needed additional parking for more than commuters. I suspect Sen. Glazer might be willing to carry a bill providing an exception for his home town if it was thought through.

The parking restrictions might work in an existing city with numerous transit routes, but that is not Orinda. Most of our population lives up a steep hill from downtown, and the only we get up and down those hills with our groceries is to drive a car. If you think otherwise, ask the audience at your next public meeting how many people arrived by any other means. The answer will be zero. Please understand -- it we can no longer park easily near shops and restaurants, we will simply drive to Lafayette or Moraga where we can park. That's not a threat -- that is reality.

Please do not destroy this lovely, quiet town.

Dick Rogan
[email protected]
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Amy Worth; Dennis Fay; Darlene Gee; Inga Miller; Nick Kosla Cc: David Biggs; Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; Sheri Smith; "Jennifer Gastelum" Subject: RE: How to meet Orinda"s RHNA (including 25% buffer) Date: Thursday, December 16, 2021 11:10:10 AM
Attachments: affordable housing analysis v.6.xlsx
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Re my point #8: The EPS study does say, “Recent transactions suggest that vacant commercial land in the Orinda market sales commands about $60 per square foot (or $4.4 million per acre) compared to about $290 to $525 per land square foot ($8 to $16 million per acre) for revenue generating commercial properties. Thus, land assembly and site acquisition cost (including buy-out and demolition) represents a significant initial hurdle as the expected residual land value generated by any new project would need to at a minimum exceed this purchase price given prevailing market conditions.” (Page 5.) This info is then baked into Table 6, which is followed by this: “Because Orinda residents wish to retain the commercial character of the downtown, the financial hurdle associated with replacing an existing use include the cost of demolishing and then replacing existing retail space and parking. In other words, the retail replacement component of all the scenarios evaluated represents a significant financial hurdle which can only be overcome.” (Page 13.) But, as I said, the pro forma assumed residential rent of $4,499 is grossly overstated, which makes the residual land value overstated, which makes the feasibility (even with density bonus) dubious at best.

From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:58 PM
To: Amy Worth <[email protected]>; 'Dennis Fay' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>
Cc: 'David Biggs' <[email protected]>; 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]>; 'Winnie Mui' <[email protected]>; 'Sheri Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Jennifer Gastelum' <[email protected]>
Subject: How to meet Orinda's RHNA (including 25% buffer) Here is a plan to meet the RHNA for Orinda:

1. Rezone the three churches south of downtown, plus St. Stephens, at 60 or 80 d.u./acre. See attached spreadsheet. All but one responded to survey saying they are interested. This would fully satisfy the low income RHNA (including H.1.d
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) the buffer) and free up over 750 units otherwise needed downtown. Indeed, only 35 d.u./acre is needed to satisfy the low income RHNA.

2. The surplus (if zoned at 60 or 80 d.u./acre) shown on my spreadsheet could be used for mod or above-moderate income housing. Freeing up hundreds of units that we need to zone for, by moving them out of downtown, more than covers the shortfall of 73 mod and 188 above-mod (total 261) units, which could be placed downtown. And as mod and above-mod, not subject to the “must be greater than 0.5 acres” rule. At 26.1 du/acre would only need 10 acres for mod and above mod. The new DO and DC zones total over 20 acres.

See slides 23 and 24.
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/eda5a30b/m0DE1ayKbE6Bk9W75qoxUg? u=https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/gnmrxpo8ptfgebt9rrf4idg20xe54w65

3. Or move all of the mod and above mod out of downtown to one govt site.

The best choice is the CalTrans site at 24 and Gateway Blvd, which is about 10 acres https://link.edgepilot.com/s/22a7c9ba/-8n-gC1vxE_h5ZjAprKzcw? u=https://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx? CssClass=%26Frame=%26ID=2611%26MediaPosition=%26MeetingID=2078 Building there would not only preserve existing businesses, but also avoid parking and traffic issues. There is a freeway interchange right there. The surface use by CalTrans could easily be preserved. You put one level of resident and guest parking above, and two (?) levels of residential above that.

4. There are other govt sites but the challenge is their lack of interest.

5. Any OUSD acreage would reduce the need for mod income housing. As a school district, I think they can limit their housing to their employees, and they would be interested.

6. The likelihood of housing at the churches is probably higher than downtown, giving that downtown is nonvacant and there is either little reason for a downtown owner to sell to a residential developer (where would current owner invest and get as good a return as currently getting – a problem identified by EPS) or some unwillingness (e.g., Phairs) for whatever reason.

7. Given our limited land, any discussion of reasonable capacity of nonvacant land and likelihood of current use ending during the planning period needs to consider: what is the alternative land that is more likely to be developed. I H.1.d
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) think the churches are the most likely location.

8. I will also observe in passing that the EPS development pro-forma grossly overstates the likely residential rents. See Table 4 on slide 11. https://link.edgepilot.com/s/c05c8a08/di8K2qkVg0KdQD1UOMwsuA? u=https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo To check this, search on line for rentals in Lafayette, which are at most about 60% of what EPS assumed. Land cost downtown (not clearly in any table) is also highest of anywhere in Orinda. Adjusting for these two variables invalidates the EPS feasibility analysis.

I have spent a lot of time figuring this out and would appreciate any feedback.

Nick Waranoff
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
A B CD
Capacities of Churches for Affordable Housing Sites
By: Nick Waranoff
Version 6 adds St. Stephens
12/15/2021
Site total acres notes
Holy Shephed 3.218 has not confirmed interest
St. Marks 4.477
St John 4.943 adjacent to Orinda Oaks Park
St. Stephens 5.48
total 18.118
density proposed
per acre 80 60 35
units 1449.44 1087.08 634.13
RHNA w/o buffer at 80 w/o buffer at 80
very low and low 587 587
current capacity
(per staff report) 64 64
pending
(per staff report) 38 38
net needed 485 485
still needed after
churches and
current capacity
and pending ‐964.44 ‐602.08
(negative =surplus)
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
EF G
w/25% buffer at 80 w/25% buffer at 60 w/25% buffer at 35 d.u./acre 734 734 734
64 64 64
38 38 38
632 632 632
‐817.44 ‐455.08 ‐2.13
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) View this email in your browser
*NEW* Create Your Own Housing Plan!
Create your own housing plan with the Housing Element simulation tool! The simulation tool allows you create a housing plan by selecting housing sites and adjusting the number of housing units at each site. The goal is to create a complete housing plan that would accommodate at least 1,699 housing units (the City's required RHNA + buffer).

Once you have created a complete housing plan, submit your plan. The results from the simulation tool will be shared with the City Council and inform development of the Housing Element.

Watch a video tutorial on how to use the tool here.

From: [email protected]
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
Date: Thursday, December 16, 2021 10:31:56 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Digusting communism,,,,,,
From: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:53 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
Create A Housing Plan
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) View this email in your browser
From: RICHARD COLMAN
To: Winnie Mui
Cc: David Biggs
Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 3:16:17 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Dear Ms. Mui:

My view on the construction of state-mandated housing in Orinda and elsewhere is this: The State of California has usurped local control of housing.

Any additional housing in Orinda must be approved only by the Orinda City Council.

Orinda has become too crowded. An overcrowded Orinda is subject to the danger of wildfires and other perils. During a time of drought, extra housing in Orinda can only lead to excessive use of precious water.

During rush hour, there is heavy traffic as a driver approaches or leaves from the Orinda BART station. Ten to twenty years ago, Orinda did not have the kind of traffic jams that now exist.

The time for a moratorium on the construction of additional housing in Orinda arrived years ago.

I would encourage the City of Orinda to join with other entities that wish to oppose additional housing. I even suggest that parties opposed to additional housing in Orinda (and elsewhere) consider filing suit against any statemandated plans for additional housing.

Please feel free to communicate my thoughts to members of the Orinda City Council and to Orinda's city manager.

Sincerely,
Richard Colman
Resident of Orinda
TEL (925) 609-2820 ext. 203
FAX (925) 363-7798
Email: [email protected],
From: Winnie Mui [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:53 PM
To: RICHARD COLMAN
Subject: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: CHARLES PORGES
To: Drummond Buckley
Cc: David Biggs; Dennis Fay; Darlene Gee; Inga Miller; Amy Worth; Nick Kosla; Winnie Mui Subject: Housing element tool issues.

Date: Thursday, December 16, 2021 11:37:03 PM
Attachments: RHNA & DPP #s.xlsx
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Mr Buckley,
I urge you to consider some limitations of the housing element tool. 1- St John’s Anglican Church, at 50 Santa Maria way, with 9.3 acres, is not included in the churches that could have housing built. Is there some compelling reason? 2- Here are your selected church’s lot sizes:

St Stevens 5.4
Holy Shepherd 3.2
St Marks 4.5
St John orth 4.9
18 The four churches total 18 acres. At 20du/a this should allow me to have 360 units built. Yet the tool only allows about 170. The total lot size multiplied by the du/a determines the number of units. This seems to be a mistake or an arbitrary constraint. 3- Church properties should not be limited to 20du/a. They all should be zoned at 80 du/a with a four or even five story height limit.

The churches are Orinda’s best chance to build a significant number of low income units as required by RHNA. We should make it as easy as possible for them to build as much as they can. St John’s Orthodox Church is adjacent to park land and presents an opportunity to build many units. The churches can retain ground floor parking and build units above. This is a lost opportunity.
4- Why not zone the EBMUD site for 40du/a like the CalTrans site? Is there a reason? 5- Only two schools are to be developed. Have the other schools said they will not under any circumstances want to provide housing for their teachers? Does HCD require a “letter of interest”? The schools are most likely to build moderate income housing.

I have attached a spread sheet that has all income levels and propose some plausible numbers for church units. It incorporates all current input from PlaceWorks. It is a first cut.

Unless told otherwise I do not believe that HCD will consider BART, CalTrans or EBMUD land as acceptable for inclusion in the housing element. Has this question been asked of an HCD technical assistant? What is PlaceWorks opinion?
Thank you for your reply,
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Charles Porges
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) acres Low Moderate High Zoned for du/a
Vista Verde OCC 4.9 38 13 1 Note 2 75 du/a 50' 4 story 10.6St Stevens 5.4 85 29 2 75 du/a 50' 4 story 21.5St John ang 9.3 294 101 8 75 du/a 50' 4 story 43.3 Missing. Why?Holy Shepherd 3.2 25 9 1 75 du/a 50' 4 story 10.9St Marks 4.5 71 24 2 75 du/a 50' 4 story 21.6St John orth 4.9 160 55 4 75 du/a 50' 4 story 44.7Christ.Sci 1 0 0 0 Not interestedSanta Maria 4.5 64 PW 75 du/a 50' 4 story 14.2vacant lots 97 308 PW residential: as isADUs 0 32 22 PW ?? residential: as is Suspect more high less moderate.

Sleepy Hollow 2.4 26 20 du/a 35' 3 story 10.8Miramonte 10 of 52 52 5 20 du/a 35' 3 story ~1Other schools 0 0
0 20 du/a 35' 3 story
SB9 0 0
0 tbd n/a
CalTrans 10 0 0
0 HCD->No? 40 du/a
EBMUD 3 0 0 0 HCD->No? 20 du/aBART East 4.4 0 0 0 HCD->No? 75 du/aBART West 10.1 0 0 0 HCD->No? 75 du/aOther govt 0 0
0 Downtown 25
0 0 345 Proposed Note 1 13.8
—- TOTALS —-> 737 438 698RHNA no bufr 587 215 557Proposed Buffer % 25.6 103.7 25.3 These buffer amounts seem plausible for no net loss.Total church acres= 37.7Proposed church units= 986Proposed church density = 26.15 H.1.d
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Note 1:

PW says the current zoning (as is) for downtown capacity is realistically 405 units.

Thus no density or height change is required downtown.Note 2:All churches have same ratio of low to mod to high income units that Irwin has. To "pencil out".One small church is est @ 1x Irwin density, two @ 2x, & the two largest @ ~4x since they have more room.Misc PlaceWorks data:PW DPP densities: 20du/a (DO) 75du/a (BevMo) 85du/a (Orinda Way) DC is inconsistent PW downtown acres = 2.6+2.0+11.67+ 8.72 = 25 acres.PW acres >0.5= 1.05+.7+.57+.97+1+1+.92+.6+.99+.89+.91+.97+.57+.55+1.04 =12.73 acres potentially for low H.1.d
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Winnie Mui
Cc: David Biggs; Drummond Buckley
Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
Date: Thursday, December 16, 2021 11:45:58 AM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
I think you are confusing zoning with the amount of land on the site upon which the zoned density can be built; the latter is irrelevant to the housing element. (I initially made the same error in my analysis.) Also, why the limit to 20 d.u./acre when you are proposing 60 or 80 or more for downtown? Why not at least 30 d.u./acre, or 35 (the latter would fully satisfy the low income RHNA)?
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 11:36 AM
To: 'Winnie Mui' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'David Biggs' <[email protected]>; 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
Hi Winnie. Thanks for response. It would have been helpful if assumptions were more transparent. That being said, am I correct that you then simply did arithmetic and applied the reduced site size to the number of d.u./acre? If so, I question that methodology because you can develop the full number of d.u./acre on a less-than-100% of the site. Why I am not correct? Nick
From: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 11:29 AM
To: 'Nick Waranoff' <[email protected]>
Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
Hi Nick,
An assumption was made that only a percentage of each church site would be developed with H.1.d
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) View this email in your browser
housing, not 100% of the sites. A rough estimate was made based on how much of the site is comprised of surface parking and undeveloped areas. This is the estimate that was made for the 4 church sites:

St. Stephens Church – 25% of site
Holy Shepherd Lutheran Church – 33% of site
St. Mark’s Church – 50% of site
St. John Orthodox Church – 33% of site
Best,
Winnie Mui
Associate Planner, City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way, Orinda CA 94563
925.253.4210 (main line)
925.726.1757 (direct)
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/5d5952d6/8ls1NoN8jkS9idqflDPZyA?u=http://www.cityoforinda.org/ The Planning Department is open for appointments! Appointments are available Monday – Thursday from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. You may schedule an appointment here. All applications must be submitted electronically here.

How are we doing? Please take a moment to complete our Planning Department Customer Satisfaction Survey: https://link.edgepilot.com/s/22dd16c2/IIJrlz7X4Uy4jG_BvYRbHg? u=https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HC9QJLV
From: Nick Waranoff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 10:09 AM
To: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>
Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Why does the tool limit the church sites to a max of 124 housing units? My analysis shows those sites could accommodate over 700.

Nick Waranoff
From: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:53 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Orinda - Create A Housing Plan!
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Chris Kniel
To: Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Amy Worth; Darlene Gee
Cc: Sheri Smith; David Biggs; Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui Subject: 1699 new housing units is absurd - Orinda needs to reestablish local control Date: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:32:26 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
December 17, 2021
1699 new housing units is absurd - Orinda needs to reestablish local control As a long-term Orinda resident, and one who has participated in local government, it’s past time for our local elected officials to ramp up the pressure for local Orinda control of housing, which over the years has been taken away by Sacramento. This would be an excellent project for our newly elected Mayor, Dennis Fey and our Vice Mayor, Inga Miller.

Reference the recent memo from the Planning Department (December 15, 2021, Winnie Mui), “Create Your Own Housing Plan!” … “that would accommodate at least 1,699 housing units (the City's required RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) + buffer).” A goal of 1,699 new housing units in a city that is essentially built out is patently absurd.

Sacramento cannot continue to dictate these absurd requirements for Orinda. They are completely illogical and make no sense. Maybe team up with other cities. In any case, it's time for our City Council to take corrective action. No longer should we continue to surrender to these ridiculous rules imposed by Sacramento.

Sincerely,
Chris Kniel
88 Bates Blvd.

Long-term resident
cc
Dennis Fay <[email protected]>, Inga Miller <[email protected]>, Amy Worth <[email protected]>, Darlene Gee <[email protected]> "Sheri Smith (City Clerk)" <[email protected]>, David Biggs <[email protected]>, Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>, Winnie Mui <[email protected]>
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Nick Waranoff
To: David Biggs; "CHARLES PORGES"
Cc: Drummond Buckley; "Jennifer Gastelum"; Winnie Mui; Amy Worth; Dennis Fay; Darlene Gee; Inga Miller; Nick Kosla Subject: RE: Housing element tool issues. More on the FLAW Date: Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:44:03 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Assume only half a site is vacant. You can still build at a given density by going higher.

From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:31 AM
To: 'David Biggs' <[email protected]>; 'CHARLES PORGES' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]>; 'Jennifer Gastelum' <[email protected]>; 'Winnie Mui' <[email protected]>; 'Amy Worth' <[email protected]>; 'Dennis Fay' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; 'Nick Kosla' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Housing element tool issues. More on the FLAW Good morning. Thank you for confirming the built-in bias of the “tool.” The bias is that you make different assumptions for church sites than for downtown. For church sites, you assume a max density of 20 d.u./acre; for downtown, you do not make that assumption. The tool does not allow more than 20 d.u./acre for church sites.

For church sites, you do not assume that the total site is available; for downtown, you do.

The result of these biases is to require the demolition of downtown to allow for the construction of new buildings to downtown for housing. My model, attached again, shows that the low income RHNA plus buffer, and almost all of the rest of the RHNA plus buffer, can be achieved without ANY new housing downtown.

And without BART or other government sites.

My plan would allow us to preserve most if not all of our existing local businesses that serve the needs of the community.

Moreover, the portion of the site that is available is irrelevant, because you can always achieve a higher density by building up. THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST FLAW IN THE TOOL.

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) I have asked for your algorithm that computes or estimates the relationship among density, footprint, and height, but to date no one has responded. There are of course other variables, the most important of which is average square foot per unit. Others might be an industry-accepted percentage of total floor area to rentable area (former includes things like elevators, stairs, and other common areas not rented to individual tenants).

Nick
From: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:12 AM
To: CHARLES PORGES <[email protected]>; Nick Waranoff <[email protected]> Cc: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Jennifer Gastelum <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Housing element tool issues. Affordable housing overlays. Santa Maria site.

Good morning –
Perhaps this will help us all.

The Santa Maria site consists of three parcels, all owned by the Santa Maria church or related entities. 20 Santa Maria APN 260-200-003
30 Santa Maria APN 260-200-011
40/50 Santa Maria APN 260-200-001
St. John Anglican leases a facility from Santa Maria located on APN 260-200-001 as part of that established a new, additional address on that parcel. Often, there are multiple addresses for a single parcel, especially for commercial or non-residential parcels.

In the Balancing Act tool, under Housing Units Allocation – Existing Capacity, if you use the pull down menu, you will see the Santa Maria site and information, by clicking on the (I), confirming it was rezoned as part of the last housing element as Residential Medium Density with a High Density Overlay which permits 20 units an acre. Like with other church sites, we do not assume in the Housing Element that the total of site is available, and there is also a map under more detail which shows what portion of the one Santa Maria parcel may be available for housing.

Regards,
David
From: CHARLES PORGES [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 6:42 PM
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) To: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Jennifer Gastelum <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Housing element tool issues. Affordable housing overlays. Santa Maria site.

CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
David,
Thanks for your reply! But I remain confused.

Are you saying that Santa Maria was zoned by overlay to a high density but has said it is only interested in (or planning to) building 64 low income units as stated in the PlaceWorks presentation? Or is this a guesstimate?
The Google address for Santa Maria is 40 Santa Maria, and the address for St Johns is 50 Santa Maria. Google places St John’s church at the very end of Santa Maria on a 9.4 acre lot.

But the largely vacant 9.4 acre lot there appears to be “school property” located at 40 (not 50) Santa Maria according to CCMAP.

So who owns the adjacent 4.5 acre lot upon which the Santa Maria church seems to be built that is designated as 30 (not 40) Santa Maria, church land, on CCMAP. I presume this is the real Santa Maria church property on a 4.5 acre lot.

Is this correct?
I assume the street numbering is snafu’d. There are two lots. One of 9.4 acres and the other of 4.5 acres.

If a school (and not St John’s as I erroneously assumed) owns the 9.4 acre largely vacant lot, which school? And has the school said it is not interested in building any housing there under any conditions?
Thanks,
Charles.

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) H.1.d
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) On Dec 17, 2021, at 4:25 PM, Nick Waranoff <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Drummond for replying while on vacation. This was only necessary because Drummond or Winnie chose to release the so-called design your own plan "tool" at this time.

The tool. As Charles and I have explained in other emails, the "tool" is like a shovel without a handle. Or like be offered a chance to drive a car at the Indy 500 racetrack, only to be given a Prius with a governor on the accelerator that limits you to 30 MPH, and another governor that limits you to driving a total of two miles.

That "tool" MUST BE WITHDRAWN.

The Santa Maria Site. The Santa Maria site is 9.43 acres. I am not sure it was "rezoned" (as David says) or if there was some overlay used. (I admit to ignorance about overlays, although I did find this
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/8867c8eb/AfjfiRh940qPHhqYp6EP_Q? u=https://www.planetizen.com/news/2021/03/112491-100-percent-affordableH.1.d Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) overlay-next-berkeleys-reform-movement.)
In any event, past is prologue. If 9.43 was rezoned to 80 d.u./acre (less than staffproposed zoning for parts of downtown), it could accommodate most if not all of the low income RHNA. It is a somewhat out of the way area and wouldn't create the canyons that such density would create downtown. Also would avoid destruction of existing businesses and traffic and parking issues.

Affordable housing overlay Not sure why an affordable housing overlay isn't being discussed.

Wooded area behind community center Also, there is a large wooded area behind the Community Center. Why isn't that part of the plan? It doesn't get much use as a park. Having been up there, it looks like a place teenagers would go... maybe there are power lines there, I don't quite recall because I was mostly looking at the ground to be careful where I stepped.

Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:50 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>; 'Jennifer Gastelum' <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; Amy Worth
<[email protected]>; Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Housing element tool issues.

Thank you to Drummond for replying while he is on vacation.

Just on additional clarification, the St. John Anglican Church does not own any property but uses a chapel on the Santa Maria Church site which was already rezoned in the prior Housing Element process.

David
-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Buckley
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:36 PM
To: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>; 'Jennifer Gastelum' <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui
<[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Housing element tool issues.

The residential rezoning at the Santa Maria Church carries over from the last housing element. That is why it is not included as a new site.

Drummond Buckley
Planning Director, City of Orinda
925-956-9305
________________________________________
From: Nick Waranoff [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 10:20 AM
To: 'Jennifer Gastelum'
Cc: David Biggs; Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; Amy Worth; Dennis Fay; Darlene Gee; Inga Miller; Nick Kosla
Subject: FW: Housing element tool issues.

CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
FYI
From: CHARLES PORGES <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 11:37 PM
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Dennis Fay
<[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]> Subject: Housing element tool issues.

Mr Buckley,
I urge you to consider some limitations of the housing element tool.

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 1- St John’s Anglican Church, at 50 Santa Maria way, with 9.3 acres, is not included in the churches that could have housing built. Is there some compelling reason?
2- Here are your selected church’s lot sizes:

St Stevens

5.4 Holy Shepherd

3.2 St Marks

4.5 St John orth

4.9 18
The four churches total 18 acres. At 20du/a this should allow me to have 360 units built. Yet the tool only allows about 170. The total lot size multiplied by the du/a determines the number of units. This seems to be a mistake or an arbitrary constraint.
3- Church properties should not be limited to 20du/a. They all should be zoned at 80 du/a with a four or even five story height limit.

The churches are Orinda’s best chance to build a significant number of low income units as required by RHNA. We should make it as easy as possible for them to build as much as they can. St John’s Orthodox Church is adjacent to park H.1.d
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) land and presents an opportunity to build many units. The churches can retain ground floor parking and build units above. This is a lost opportunity. 4- Why not zone the EBMUD site for 40du/a like the CalTrans site? Is there a reason?
5- Only two schools are to be developed. Have the other schools said they will not under any circumstances want to provide housing for their teachers? Does HCD require a “letter of interest”? The schools are most likely to build moderate income housing.

I have attached a spread sheet that has all income levels and propose some plausible numbers for church units. It incorporates all current input from PlaceWorks. It is a first cut.

Unless told otherwise I do not believe that HCD will consider BART, CalTrans or EBMUD land as acceptable for inclusion in the housing element. Has this question been asked of an HCD technical assistant? What is PlaceWorks opinion? Thank you for your reply,
Charles Porges
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Nick Waranoff
To: "CHARLES PORGES"; David Biggs; Winnie Mui; Drummond Buckley; Darlene Gee; Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Nick Kosla; Amy Worth
Subject: RE: Church land and low income housing
Date: Sunday, December 19, 2021 1:35:45 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
I agree with Charles. The entire DPP and HE process is about changing densities. So why is the density on church properties restricted? From: CHARLES PORGES <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 12:26 PM
To: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Subject: Church land and low income housing
The problem I anticipate is focused only on low income housing and not just the total number of units. We need 587+25% = 734 of these for the HE.

The church properties are the most likely to build (mostly) low income housing. We already have the Vista Verde example. Two churches have expressed interest.

I anticipate that only a relatively small number could economically be built anywhere else.

I strongly urge you to substantially increase the allowed density on all church properties to 60 or 80 du/a.

And modify the tool accordingly.

Charles
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) View this email in your browser
From: Maclers
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Re: City of Orinda - Have you created your housing plan? Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 5:10:22 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
As far as I'm concerned, unless the Orinda plan addresses and improves emergency evacuation capacity, it will not have my support. Suggesting increased housing in areas with insufficient escape routes in this city of high wildfire danger is inappropriate.

Bruce Macler
On Thursday, January 6, 2022, 04:59:05 PM PST, Winnie Mui <[email protected]> wrote:

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) View this email in your browser
From: Chase Sun
To: Winnie Mui
Subject: Re: City of Orinda - Have you created your housing plan? Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:21:07 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Winnie: Thanks for sending this to us. I started doing this when you send it before but I stopped when I found that I do not know the impact of these additional residents on the traffic, parking, safety, etc. So, whatever I came up with may not be meaningful. Do you have any additional guidance on these issues? Intuitively speaking, I believe more residents will lead to more traffic congestion. There are times I was not able to make a left turn on Moraga Way for 10 minutes already. I also have problems parking at Theater Square area during the day as well. But if the new housing is at BART parking area, these traffic/parking issues may be minimized. Any place else, I can see traffic congestion/parking issues. Are there plans to widen Moraga Way to improve the traffic situation? I am also concerned about traffic blockage during mandatory evacuation under wildfire situations. As far as I can see, the human toll at Paradise was due primarily to inadequate egress means and abysmal evacuation coordination. I am afraid that we have similar egress situation in Orinda, one way in and out.

Chase Sun
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 4:58 PM Winnie Mui <[email protected]> wrote:

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Mary Gilles
To: Orinda Planning; Winnie Mui
Subject: Comments on regional housing plan and planning tool Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:37:36 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
General Comments
When I look over my own comments listed below, a whole-what shows up as a preference is to decrease the preference for mega density downtown.

The primary preference is to have some high density in each of the locations further out from the center of town. This is not a knee jerk reaction to updating and reinvigorating the downtown area. Rather it is an attempt at addressing a broader range of future residents in Orinda and to minimize potential for “-ism” with new housing. Specifically, if most of the new residents are confined into a couple of blocks- they will have a more difficult time being welcomed into this community. As a newer member to this community - it is very clear how closed it is to newcomers. If all of the higher density housing is confined to this area it is much easier for people to create a “them” and “us” mentality. And I fear a strong local prejudice against the individuals moving into these units.

Moreover, many of the newer developments near Bart stations are ideal locations for young singles, couples, professionals, as well as downsizing seniors (my personal category). But this is not a particularly welcoming environment for families with school age children and the housing crisis also extends to families. However, the locations near Wagner Ranch and Miramonte could be of great interest to families with school children due to their proximity to the schools and in case of Miramonte- proximity to a bus line. This location would also make it much easier for these families to integrate into the community and become neighbors. This could potentially be beneficial for the acceptance of residents In the higher density downtown areas.

These areas would also be inviting for teachers and potentially other city residents. For example, the condominiums on 73 Brookwood have about 8 residents that were previously/currently teachers /academics in the local area.

This increase in density could also be considered in the church areas. However, it is harder for me to discern which areas on the lots would be developed so I can’t provide a suggestion for a higher density. Note: These are of a lower priority than the large lots near the schools.

As there is rezoning potentially occurring in the downtown areas to accommodate higher density- having at least half of the acreage near the schools zoned for 2x the current density would be beneficial to the community.

I personally hope to see Orinda pick up some of the regional housing responsibility.

Limitations with the planning tool
There were a number of limitations and assumptions using the RHNA simulation. That did not H.1.d
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) allow full development of alternative ideas for the housing allocations.

It would have been useful to have the names/addresses of local developmentsLafayette/Walnut Creek/Moraga and their density. I drove around to look at a number of these parcels- but it is very difficult from just the photos to get a real “feel” for the different densities.

All areas that are zoned “downtown office” or “downtown commercial” are lumped together.

This makes it impossible to suggest housing across from the community park in zone 4, but not on the corner of Northwood Dr- also zone 4.

The description doesn’t give the acreage- one needs to max out the housing then back calculate the acreage to think about the effect of a different # dwellings/ac. The alternative would be that the number could adjust to show the #dwellings/ac when one presses the “+” or “-“ signs.

Some zoning limits seem arbitrary. See suggestions on 11, 12 & 13.

It seems strange that 10 has a density of 40 units/ac while 11,12 & 13 are half of that.

High density housing should be spread out in town to more equalize effects.

My suggested RHNA Housing plan
These are listed in order of preference.

Section 12 is accessible to mass transit via the existing bus line and could provide an opportunity to increase the frequency of the bus which would further encourage the use of mass transit for other local residents. This site should be a mixture of densities, with ½ t0 2/3 at 14-20 units/ ac and roughly ½ to 1/3 at higher density of 40-65 units/ac. This location would be desirable for people with family who work in the community and the higher density would allow for some moderate or reduced income housing. This could also be a location for deedrestricted housing- such a program exists. If the high density housing is located more in the center of this development- the residents would potentially feel less cut off from their neighbors. It seems this type of a community would be economically feasible for a developer. 478 Units (minimum)
Section 11 & 13, to be zoned similarly at section 12 with ½ to 1/3 of the property at 40-65 units/ac and ½ to 2/3 at 20 units/ac. 90 units each
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 180 units (minimum)
Section 9 – development as suggested 20 un/ac
124 units
Develop either section 7 or section 8, but not both at this time.

Both are accessible to town center and to mass transit. Given the very high proposed densitythis should be attractive to a developer to build. As this would likely be among the smallest housing units it would likely be moderate or reduced income housing. This development would be radically different than any existing housing in Orinda. Section 7 is more desirable from the pedestrian standpoint as there is no need to cross Camino Pablo to access both parts of town and funneling all pedestrian traffic over the small BART bridge seems problematicparticularly since it is so poorly designed. If the building of section 8 would include improvements to this bridge and additional pedestrian walkways at the street level (all working better and safer than the Brookwood Rd intersection) this section would be more desirable than it currently is. For the residents of this area- there needs to be some sort of “open park space” within the center of the development. ONE but not both of these lots. 330 units (section 7)
These areas should all have reasonably similar densities between 30-40 un/ac And should be chosen to have a set of 3 or more contiguous lots, not the lots that are stand alone or isolated. This would allow more opportunity for significant development.

Section 6
Decrease the density on this section. This would be an ideal location for the above average income level for those who would like to live closer to the city center but have the money.

This is a more desirable, walkable location than the noisy area next to the BART and could command higher prices. 30-40 units/ac
~85 units
Section 5
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) The part of this building across from Peets are visually appealing, but this set of buildings is a reasonable choice for building multistory housing. Would be ideal to be 4 stories or less and decrease density to 40 un/ac
98 units
Section 4
One of the sites along Orinda Road with 3 side by side lots rated section 4. This project needs to be large enough to be attractive for a developer. Smaller isolated lots would likely be less lucrative for development. The density of 30 -40 un/ac allows for some moderate or reduced income housing in a part of town that is dated.
120-160 units
Section 3
Similar to section 4, there a a few contiguous lots and other lots scattered. The site along Altarinda rd would be the most attractive for development. Estimating this section as ~ ½ of the acreage denoted section 3 The density of 30 un/ac allows for some moderate or reduced income housing in a part of town that is dated.
120 units
These numbers basically get in the ball park of where we need to be.

Best,
Mary Gilles
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Amy Worth; Darlene Gee; Nick Kosla Cc: David Biggs; Drummond Buckley; Sheri Smith; Winnie Mui; John Smith; John Smith; Ann Parnigoni; Robert Hubner; Brandyn Iverson; Marian Jelinek; Lina Lee; Willy Mautner Subject: The DPP, the Housing Element, and RHNA: don"t kick the affordable housing can down the road Date: Thursday, January 13, 2022 1:18:51 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
I am not sure that you folks understand the risk of taking the developer-based solution to RHNA that staff is proposing. The staff approach is to upzone downtown and rely on developers to provide low income housing. There are at least two problems with this approach.

First, just because zoning at 20 units/acre counts towards the housing element requirement as satisfying RHNA for low income housing, doesn’t mean developers will actually build low income housing on sites so zoned. And you cannot force them to do so. Even were the city to pass an inclusionary ordinance, the most such ordinances can require is 15% or 20% affordable. So we might end up with higher density downtown and still no low income housing. Eight years from now (assuming more stringent housing laws are not enacted), we will again face the need for low income housing, but we will have a lot less land available. That would be kicking the can down the road.

Second, developers may invoke the density bonus law and only include a small percentage of affordable housing in a project. Maybe 15% or at most 20. If we look at just low income RHNA plus buffer, we need to zone for 734 low income units. See slide 28 here
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/299a74af/1rQm9cQxxUO5_WhKESQSrQ? u=https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/gnmrxpo8ptfgebt9rrf4idg20xe54w65 If developers build 734 low income units, and assuming low income units are 20% of the total units built, the total number of new units built (low income and market rate0 would be 3,670. At 2.5 people per unit, that would be 9,175 new residents downtown. (At 15% the total number of new units would be even higher.) And at least as many cars without an equivalent number of new parking spaces. How will that attract retail and restaurants that look for adequate parking as part of their site criteria? And that doesn’t include moderate income or above moderate income. Waivers, incentives, and concessions that you will not be able to deny will override your setback and stepback requirements, and your height limits.

There is a better way. Work with the churches who are willing to partner with H.1.d
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) affordable housing developers and put affordable housing on church properties. I have previously shown that there is sufficient church land to accommodate all of the low income RHNA. Churches, unlike developers, can be trusted to build 100% (or close to it) low income housing. That also reduces the pressure to add massive amounts of housing downtown. More effort should also be put into the govt sites as possible sites.

I would be pleased to discuss this one on one with anyone interested in getting this right.

Nick Waranoff
510-334-0729
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Amy Worth; Darlene Gee; Nick Kosla Cc: David Biggs; Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; Sheri Smith; John Smith; Ann Parnigoni; Robert Hubner; Brandyn Iverson; Marian Jelinek; Lina Lee; Willy Mautner
Subject: why should add more density to church sites
Date: Monday, January 17, 2022 10:55:10 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
See slides 15-18
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/c1e49f5a/dvvr52laQEmhKmagMPaIpA? u=https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/s7pkv59mqj01b03jo1pzr8llwwwgvza3 Nick Waranoff
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) From: CHARLES PORGES
To: Dennis Fay; Darlene Gee; Nick Kosla; Inga Miller; Amy Worth Cc: Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; David Biggs
Subject: HCD “methods”
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 7:03:47 PM
Attachments: sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
If you have not read this you ought to. It’s the HCD “Manual”. https://link.edgepilot.com/s/f906b981/10aQnnG7HEaf1Mmjy5zSIw? u=https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

The HCD Guidelines above, say:
“The following are examples of documentation that demonstrates the likelihood of housing being developed on sites outside the control of a local government. In each of these examples, the units would have to meet the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) definition of a housing unit:
• Agreement with the entity controlling the land that grants the jurisdiction authority regarding approving, permitting, certifying occupancy, and/or reporting new units to the California Department of Finance.
• Documentation from the entity controlling the land that demonstrates planned housing has been approved to be built within the current RHNA cycle. • Data pertaining to the timing of project construction and unit affordability by household income category.
• If the site is listed on the Department of General Services Real Estate Excess State Property map located EO N-06-19 Affordable Housing Development webpage.“ ——-
These “examples” imply that the govt agency must already have agreed to housing on its land.

AFAIK None of the proposed sites are listed as Excess State land.

This impacts the EBMUD lot, the BART lots and the Caltrans lot at Gateway.

Please advise if these agencies have agreed to housing development.

Charles
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

H.1.d
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 1 Winnie Mui
From: CHARLES PORGES <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 11:45 AM
To: Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; Dennis Fay
Subject: Fwd: Questions related to the Housing Element
Attachments: HE summary data.xlsx
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! Mr Buckley, Ms Wui, Mayor Fay,
I have received no replies to my inquiries from anyone in the planning department.

From Jan 31:
1) Please explain why the EBMUD site only allows 49 units.

From Jan 23:
2) Please explain if the NOP limits the scope of the EIR in any way. 3) Please inform me when and by whom the scope of the EIR will be decided. 4) I have requested a consolidated spread sheet to clearly define what the planning department is proposing - this MUST be known to you.
5) I have requested current number of units that PlaceWorks now estimates can be built predicated on your proposed zoning. - This also MUST be known to you and Placeworks. 6) I have requested an estimate of the affordability of the units identified in #5, given the data presented in the EPS study. In particular an explanation that justifies the affordability of the proposed units in the DPP study area.

Of these I believe that only for #6 might you not have well defined data. Nonetheless an explanation for #6 should be possible. All the rest is the planning department proposal and current PlaceWorks data which the planning department must have.

I have even provided an exemplary spreadsheet.

I know that you are busy, but time is of the essence.

Please respond.

Charles Porges
———————————————- Prior emails :

A serious error in the HE tool. Sent Monday Jan 31.

The EBMUD site is 17 acres but only allows a maximum of 49 units at 20du/a.

You have probably confused the EBMUD site with the OUSD site acreage! H.1.d
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 2 H.1.d
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 3 Begin forwarded message:

From: CHARLES PORGES <[email protected]>
Date: January 25, 2022 at 10:24:15 PM PST
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>, Winnie Mui <[email protected]>, Dennis Fay <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Questions related to the Housing Element

Dennis,
This is the consolidation of an email and a subsequent xls that I sent Mr Buckley with minor typographical numerical corrections.

I have not yet received a reply, but it’s only been two days. (I can wait a bit longer.) This data should be readily available to the planning department and the questions should be straightforward to answer.

I am copying Mr Buckley and Ms Mui, who was not originally cc’d, just to remind them.

Thank you all for your attention,
Charles
Begin forwarded message:

From: CHARLES PORGES <[email protected]>
Date: January 23, 2022 at 1:52:41 PM PST
To: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Subject: Questions related to the Housing Element

Drummond,
I am really trying to understand.

When will the scope of the EIR be decided? I believe the council must determine this. Am I correct? Does the NOP somehow define or limit the scope of the EIR already? —- Data request
I would like to understand where we stand today in a concise way.

Could you please provide me (and others) with exactly what proposed density and height limits are being changed and by how much from the current zoning.

Could you also provide the proposed # of units in each income category.

I have already sent you an xls file of the below which is included at the end of this email again.

Like this
Acres
Current
du/a
Current
height
Proposed
du/a
Proposed
height
Max
Proposed
#units
VL+L
income
Moderate
income
Above
Moderate
income
DC-Orinda
Way Block 10 35 85 55 221
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 4 DC-Bevmo
block 10 35 65 55 130
DC-Other 10 35 30 45‐55 316
DO 0 35 25 35 232
Churches 0 0 20 27 126
Santa Maria 64
Schools 0 0 20 27 54
BART 0 0 75 40 1095
Gateway 0 0 40 40 408
Bear creek
EBMUD 0 0 20 27 49
Other
Outside DPP 459
Approved
projects 90

Total 0 Totals 3244

I think such a spreadsheet would help everyone understand what is being proposed and what we believe that PlaceWorks thinks today. It avoids things called opportunity site 5.

Where we don’t know a ? can be used.

Please correct any errors or omissions and fill out the grey areas.

Lastly,
I would also like to know where we stand today on the estimated number of units that could be included in the HE from the DPP Study area. The last data I saw was from the PlaceWorks presentation which indicated that more units must be found for all income levels. Is this still the best estimate we have? Or do we have more recent data?
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory) 5 This seems to say that 396 Low and Very Low income and 142 Moderate income housing units could be built somewhere.

I believe that these are all proposed to be built within the DPP study area. Is this correct? If not, where are these units located?
If some of these (how many?) are within downtown (village and theater), could you please explain how this can be reconciled with the EPS economic study which seems to imply average rents of around $4500 are necessary? Something seems amiss.

Thank you,
Charles
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2684 : Housing Element sites inventory)