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, August 16, 2022
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 08.16.22
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 in the public review binder at Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way. 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 account 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.
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.
City Council
Agenda Page 2 08.16.22
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. Proclamation Recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the Orinda Farmer’s Market
D.2. Proclamation Recognizing August 31, 2022 as International Drug Abuse and Overdose Awareness Day throughout the City of Orinda 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. July 5, 2022 - Regular Meeting
2. July 19, 2022 - Closed Session
1. July 19, 2022 - Regular Meeting
F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:
City Council
Agenda Page 3 08.16.22
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of August 17, 2022 to September 15, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
F.3. Monthly Report of Receipts and Disbursements for the Period May 1, 2022 through May 31, 2022 and Summary of Revenue, Expenditures, and Preliminary Fund Balances for July 1, 2021 through May 31, 2022 Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report of receipts, disbursements, and preliminary fund balances for the month of May 2022.
F.4. Adopt Resolution No.42-22 Regarding The Annual Review of City Investment Policy And Delegating Authority To Make Investments Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution 42-22 which completes the Annual Review without making any changes to the policy; and delegating the authority to make investments
F.5. Adoption of Resolution No. 38-22 Establishing the Property Tax Rates for the General Obligation Bond Series 2014 and Series 2016 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 38-22 establishing the property tax rates for bonded indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2022-2023; and, direct staff to provide the information to the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller for preparing of the tax levy.
F.6. Increase Contingency for Construction Contract with Valentine Corporation for the Lavenida Culvert Repair Project (Project No. 4148), and Appropriate Funding.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve an increase in the contingency for said contract from 15% to 20%, and to appropriate funding of $31,000 from Fund #514, Stormwater Utility Assessment for such purpose.
F.7. Approve the Design and Award Construction Contract to E. E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. For the Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project #4152
Recommendation:
City Council
Agenda Page 4 08.16.22
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve the design of Project #4152; 2) Reject the non-responsive bids from Brannon Corporation and ETIC; 3) Award the contract for construction to third lowest bidder E. E.
Gilbert Construction, Inc. of Martinez, California for an amount of $700,378.44; 3) Authorize City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and 4) Authorize the City Manager to administratively approve contract change orders provided that the cumulative amount does not exceed $105,056.56 (approximately 15% contingency)
G. PUBLIC HEARING
G.1. Consider the following items/applications related to the 52-unit affordable, senior-restricted Vista Verde Community Housing Project at 10 Irwin Way: 1. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project; 2. Proposed General Plan Map Amendment (GPA-2021-001) Amending the General Plan land use designation of a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential: Multifamily”; 3. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA-2021-001) amending the Zoning Map to designate a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way “Residential Medium Density” and applying the “Senior Housing Overlay District”; and 4. Proposed Planning Entitlements for the subject property at 10 Irwin Way, including: a. Minor Subdivision (MNS-2021- 001) lot split; b. Design Review Permit (DRA-2021-023); c. Elevated Deck Permit (EDP-2021-019); d. Tree Removal Permit (TRP-2021-025); and e. Density bonus concessions to private open space
requirement, height and story limits.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution 39-22 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project;
2. Adopt Resolution 40-22 amending the General Plan land use designation of a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential: Multifamily”;
3. Waive the full reading of the text and introduce Ordinance 22-03, amending the Zoning Map to Designate a Portion of the Property at 10 Irwin Way “Residential Medium Density” and applying the “Senior Housing Overlay District”; and
4. Adopt Resolution 41-22 approving a Minor Subdivision, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, Elevated Deck Permit, and Density Bonus Application for a Portion of the Property at 10 Irwin Way (Vista Verde Community Housing Project).
City Council
Agenda Page 5 08.16.22
G.2. Wilder Annual Review
Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing to determine whether OG Property Owners, LLC (“OGLLC”), the entity that owns the Wilder property, is in substantial compliance with the terms of the Second Amendment and Restatement of the Development and Pre-Annexation Agreement for Gateway Valley (“DA”) as amended. Staff recommends that the City Council find, based on all of the evidence set forth below, that OGLLC has not complied in good faith with the DA and related approvals. Staff further recommends that the City Council direct OGLLC to bring its performance into good faith compliance with the DA, as specified below, by October 11, 2022. Staff further recommends that OGLLC provide a written report to the City on or before September 6, 2022 describing the actions it has taken to date to cure the defaults identified by the City Council on August 16, 2022 and that OGLLC appear before the City Council on September 27, 2022 to address the further actions required to bring OGLLC into good faith compliance with the DA.
G.3. Consider an ordinance to update Orinda Municipal Code Section
17.1.11 (Development of lots divided by district boundaries), Section
17.3.5 & 17.3.6 (Small Family Day Care & Large Family Day Care), Section 17.4.18 (Building Projections into Yards and Courts), Section
17.4.31.D (Affordable Housing Incentive Program and Density Bonus), Section 17.11.2 (Open Space District Development Limitations), and Section 17.24.3 (Designation of Heritage Tree). Two of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments are in response to changes in State Law and the others are to update sections of the code where clarification or modification would help with implementation.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council waive the full reading of the text and introduce Ordinance 22-02, amending Municipal Code Section
17.1.11 (Development of lots divided by district boundaries), Section
17.3.5 & 17.3.6 (Small Family Day Care & Large Family Day Care), Section 17.4.18 (Building Projections into Yards and Courts), Section
17.4.31.D (Affordable Housing Incentive Program and Density Bonus), Section 17.11.2 (Open Space District Development Limitations), Section
17.24.3 (Designation of Heritage Tree)
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Fuel Reduction Incentive Program Using Measure R Funds Recommendation:
Receive Report, Discuss, and Conceptually Approve Incentive Program as Presented
City Council
Agenda Page 6 08.16.22
H.2. Designation of Voting Delegate and Potential Alternate at the League of California Cities Annual Conference
Recommendation:
Designate Voting Delegate (and potential Alternate) at the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting on September 7-9, 2022 at League Annual Conference and Expo
I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, September 06, 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
Agenda Page 7 08.16.22
City Council meeting, please call 925.253.4221 or visit the website at www.cityoforinda.org.
~ Accessible Public Meetings ~
The City of Orinda will provide special assistance for disabled citizens to participate in public meetings upon advance notice. If you need auxiliary hearing aid or sign language assistance at least two (2) working days advanced notice is necessary.
Please contact the City Clerk’s Office, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, Ca 94563 or 925.253.4221 or [email protected] with the following information: name, mailing address, phone number and type of assistance requested.
PROCLAMATION
Proclamation recognizing the 25th Anniversary
of the Orinda Farmer’s Market
WHEREAS the Orinda Farmer’s Market, established 25 years ago, is operated by Contra Costa Certified Farmers’ Markets, Inc.; a membershipbased non-for-profit organization; and WHEREAS the mission of Contra Costa Certified Farmer’s Markets is to support the development of local sustainable farming by cultivating vibrant farmer’s markets. The Orinda Farmers’ Market serves as a community gathering place; celebrating local farmers, food producers, and artisans. Freshly picked produce is made accessible with family-friendly events and educational outreach to enhance and promote the quality of a healthy lifestyle and conscientious food choices; and
WHEREAS Contra Costa Certified Farmer’s Markets continues to embrace its original vision of supporting small family farms and making healthy food accessible to all. As such, remain committed to serving the community and nurturing the market to thrive.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, as Mayor of the City of
Orinda, I hereby recognize the 25th Anniversary of operation for making fresh, healthy, and high-quality produce available to the citizens of Orinda and surrounding communities.
Dated this 16th day of August 2022.
___________________
Dennis Fay
Mayor of Orinda
D.1
Packet Pg. 8
Communication: Proclamation Recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the Orinda Farmer’s Market (ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY)
PROCLAMATION
Proclamation recognizing August 31, 2022 as International Drug Abuse and Overdose Awareness Day throughout the City of Orinda
WHEREAS, the City of Orinda does affirm and acknowledge the harm and hardship caused by drug abuse and overdose; and;
WHEREAS, we recognize that the purpose of International Overdose Awareness Day is to remember loved ones lost to drug abuse and overdose and to end the stigma surrounding substance use disorder (SUD) and drugrelated deaths; and WHEREAS, we resolve to play our part in reducing the toll of drug abuse and overdose in our community, which continues to claim the lives of Orinda community members every year and forever affects those who loved and cared about them; and
WHEREAS, we affirm that the people affected by drug abuse and overdose are our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, our brothers and sisters, and deserving of our love, compassion and support, and remembrance; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Orinda City Council along with the Contra Costa County MEDS Coalition, BAART, and other community partners do hereby proclaim August 31st, 2022, as International Drug Abuse and Overdose Awareness Day throughout the City of Orinda.
Dated this 16th day of August 2022.
___________________
Dennis Fay
Mayor of Orinda
D.2
Packet Pg. 9
Communication: Proclamation Recognizing August 31, 2022 as International Drug Abuse and Overdose Awareness Day throughout the City of AGENDA TITLE: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. July 5, 2022 - Regular Meeting
2. July 19, 2022 - Closed Session
1. July 19, 2022 - Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022
B. City Council Closed Session Minutes of July 19, 2022 C. City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022
Respectfully Submitted by:
Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
F.1
Packet Pg. 10
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 10 07.05.22
July 5, 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=2095.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 Gee.
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Gee moved 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. A Proclamation of the City of Orinda Recognizing July 2022 as Parks Make Life Better Month
Mayor Fay waived the reading of the proclamation.
Councilmembers thanked Parks and Recreation staff over the last few years, given the significant use of parks during the pandemic, and they described previous and upcoming events.
City Manager Biggs recognized Parks and Recreation and other staff that were key in making the 4th of July parade so successful.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers or emails.
E. PUBLIC FORUM
None.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 10 07.05.22
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fay asked and confirmed there were no speakers or requests for removal of items.
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. June 21, 2022 - Closed Session
F.2. Monthly Report of Receipts and Disbursements for the Period April 1, 2022 through April 30, 2022 and Summary of Revenue, Expenditures, and Preliminary Fund Balances for July 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022 Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report of receipts, disbursements, and preliminary fund balances for the month of April 2022.
F.3. 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 July 6, 2022 to August 4, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
F.4. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Orinda and City of Orinda represented employees
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 33-22, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Orinda and the City of Orinda represented employees for the period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025.
F.5. Adoption of Amendments To Terms and Condition of Employment for Unrepresented Employees Including the Consolidated Salary Schedule
Recommendation:
Staff recommends City Council approval of Resolution No. 34-22, amending the Unrepresented Employee Manual and also approval of Resolution No. 35-22 amending the Consolidated Salary Schedule including salary changes for both represented and unrepresented employees.
MOTION by Councilmember Kosla moved and seconded by Vice Mayor Miler to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.2, F.3, F.4 and F.5. Said motion carried by (5-0) roll call vote.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 10 07.05.22
G. PUBLIC HEARING – None.
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. City of Orinda Draft Safety Element & Introduction of AB 747 Evacuation Analysis
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, and provide feedback on the draft Safety Element and AB 747 evacuation analysis.
Planning Director Drummond Buckley gave the staff report and overview of the Safety Element, a portion of which is also the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment which PlaceWorks will be discussing tonight, as well as AB 747.
Eli Krispi, PlaceWorks, gave an overview of the Safety Element Update which he said is a mandatory part of the City’s General Plan. It identifies hazards of concern in the City and contains policies to help protect the community against these hazards such as fire, smoke, earthquakes, landslides, flooding, evacuation issues, etc. The Element must be reviewed and updated, as needed, every 8 years generally in parallel with the Housing Element. The current Element is 35 years old and is well overdue for renewal.
New policies are being included and all background information is being updated. They are also integrating policies and plans of the City and County to create a unified framework, which he described. He then spoke about and described climate hazards and integration of the climate change vulnerability assessment details. He noted wildfire has the potential to affect the greatest number of people and assets in Orinda, closely followed by severe storms, landslides, and extreme heat.
He then described how vulnerability is measured and scored, identified those most at risk, and local infrastructure and services’ vulnerability scores based upon the drought, extreme heat, flooding, human health hazards, landslides, severe storms, and wildfire.
Mr. Krispi then described the Evacuation Study being done by the City as part of this work and said Orinda is currently not required to do this but it will be done as part of the Countywide Mitigation Plan Update. Recent change in State law requires cities analyze potential evacuation routes and their capacity and performance during emergency conditions. The study will be available in the fall, will be put into an on-line map available to the public and integrated into the final Safety Element.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 10 07.05.22
Regarding next steps, the public review period is still open on the Safety Element and Vulnerability Assessment. Staff and PlaceWorks will be coordinating with Cal Fire who are required under State law to have the opportunity to review and provide recommendations. MOFD’s feedback has already been included in the Element and the public’s comments will also be incorporated, as well as the Council’s and the Planning Commission’s. They will integrate the Evacuation Study when it is available for adoption early this year or early next year. The project’s website is www.planorinda.org and Mr.
Buckley is the primary contact.
Vice Mayor Miller thanked Mr. Krispi for the presentation and work on the Safety Element and Vulnerability Study. She noted public members have had questions about fire safety for a decade with concerns about ADUs and SB 9 development in high fire hazard zones.
Mr. Biggs noted this is not something that would be addressed in the Safety Element. It is being done in conjunction with the Housing Element which assumes some level of ADU production and SB 9 units. SB 9 units cannot be precluded in very high fire severity zones but it is possible people can pursue an ADU as an SB 9 unit.
Mr. Buckley said the Safety Element is thought of separately from the issue of whether the City wants to place more restrictions on ADUs. Assuming an SB 9 unit is on a lot and it is not split into two lots, a resident is allowed a total of 4 units--2 SB 9 units which could be an existing single-family house plus an SB 9 unit, plus 2 ADUs, a JADU and a regular ADU.
If, after going through the Safety Element process, it is determined there are some major pinch points for evacuation the Council will have the option to direct staff to do any additional necessary study if applicable to identify locations where regular ADUs should not be allowed. The legislation talks about public safety and roads. State law requires additional building code requirements for SB 9 units so it is the City’s position that SB 9 units do not have that same kind of carveout to be able to prohibit them.
City Attorney Wolff concurred with Mr. Buckley and Mr. Biggs that the draft Safety Element is potentially relevant to the issue of whether ADUs should be allowed and whether SB 9 units can be prohibited in certain areas of the City; however, it is not agendized for this evening.
In terms of ADUs, the key legislative language talks about traffic flow and public safety as pointed out. When it comes to SB 9 units, there is an exception where you can have a Building Official denial based on written findings based upon the preponderance of evidence but this must come from a pre-established criteria for public health and safety protection. So, she thinks the idea here is the Safety Element might be a first step in that process of setting up written standards that the Building Official would then apply.
Councilmember Worth echoed compliments to staff and PlaceWorks, recognized the importance and need for fire preparedness, and confirmed that vegetation clearance will be spelled out in terms of evacuation routes.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 10 07.05.22
Mr. Biggs stated the Red Flag routes are not the entirety of evacuation routes but are the main feeder elements as well as high fire severity zones. The Fire District is most likely focusing on a broader map than the City in which over time will be reconciled through AB 747 evacuation and safety analyses. This will provide a much deeper dive into traffic generation and where trips would be better distributed to and better informing decisions.
Councilmember Worth said an element of the plan talks about setting up power systems in the event of a disaster or PSPS event and working with Central Sanitation such as for a hazardous waste situation. She also hoped for an opt out system for more convenient emergency notifications which would be a goal.
Mr. Biggs confirmed there are policies to protect against PSPS events and through analysis and evaluation, certain things might influence future policies and goals to be included in the plan.
Councilmember Gee referred to page 141 of the packet in the draft plan and said the second to the last paragraph mentions the City is using Zone Haven Aware. In the last paragraph it states, “Our established evacuation zone map differs somewhat from the zones in the Zone Haven Aware system.” She asked if this discrepancy will be resolved.
Mr. Krispi said they noted that in the Zone Haven and in the City’s separate evacuation notification system that the City has been divided up into different zones and those zones are not the same in both those two systems, but do not believe this creates a problem or barrier. If this was something the City wanted to bring into alignment there is the possibility for that.
Mr. Biggs agreed and said staff will look to reconcile that.
Vice Mayor Miller said undergrounding of power lines would solve many issues related to the PSPS events. She asked if that is part of that at all and asked if the State recognizes most customers have PG&E.
Mr. Biggs said the City gets Rule 20A money and has a planned undergrounding project from Camino Sobrante towards El Toyonal to be done by 2024. Separately, the CPUC has provided recent monies to PG&E to do additional undergrounding based on an approved program.
Mayor Fay referred to page 182 of the packet and there are words used in several places which he is not sure the City can enforce. For example, Policy S-25 on page 182 states, “Continue to require a high level of fire protection to residential and commercial development.” He knows the Fire District can require that but he did not believe the City could.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 10 07.05.22
He then referred to Policy S-29 which states, “Require the proposed development be in areas where fire and emergency services have sufficient capacity to meet the project needs.” Again, he asked who determines what is sufficient capacity. Similarly, S-34 on the next page states, “Continue to identify and maintain evacuation routes.” He was not sure what this really means.
The policy that stuck out at him is at the bottom of that page, Policy S-37 which states, “Reduce the level of risk from toxic and hazardous materials in Orinda by regulating the transportation and storage of these materials.” He did not think the City has the right to regulate the transportation of anything and noted similar ones like this under the goals and agreed to put these in writing to staff.
Councilmember Worth said what Mayor Fay is suggesting makes sense and while it is a goal, it may be another agency that acts on the City’s behalf or also has jurisdiction over this area.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
City Clerk Smith announced that the Council received three written communications which are available on the website and have been forwarded to the Council.
Mat Fogarty, Orinda, said he thinks it is bad people are seeing the destruction of the community due to climate change. Orinda is one of the highest polluting communities in the County. Lifestyles are driving climate change and increasing dangers, and he questioned why the Council will not fund a climate plan. He urged that the Council immediately discuss reducing emissions and look at how they can address global warming instead of accepting we are doomed and planning for destruction and evacuation.
Lynn Trowbridge, on behalf of Wilder and the shelter in place community, stated the Safety Element designates residents might shelter in place. Residents in Wilder are encouraged to evacuate and they have only one route which is out to Hwy 24. She cited the young families with children and noted Wagner Ranch parents are being told they cannot pick up their child. So, she would like the wording to be accurate. Wilder’s emergency preparedness team has also offered to do an evacuation drill to see if 245 vehicles can be evacuated out onto Hwy 24 and they would like to know more about evacuation.
Vice Mayor Miller and Councilmember Worth commented on the importance of the Safety Element and Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, the City putting money aside for disasters, voiced support for evacuation planning, undergrounding of utilities, consideration for recycled water, and working with the City’s vulnerable population, schools, and residents.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 10 07.05.22
Councilmember Gee said she thinks the element is critical but was troubled as to how the City will use it as an actionable document when most of it refers to the City continuing to follow the Fire Code, MOFD’s recommendations, and other requirements.
Mr. Biggs said generally General Plan updates are an exercise in planning but, at the same time, they are giving life to real plans that push the City towards things like Red Flag Warning Days, evacuation planning, and SSTOC initiatives. Over time, all of this will be reconciled with specific plans in place that have more specific outcomes.
Mr. Krispi echoed the City Manager’s comments and said this element is meant to be high-level framework and not a document dictating specific actions. They are trying to provide an umbrella or structure for those specific implementation efforts.
Councilmember Kosla said in looking at the current Safety Element compared to this one, it is a massive improvement. He wants to make sure that for a document that will be around for 8 more years it can be broad so the Council can point to items for future grants, making sure the element is permissive and finding balance.
Mayor Fay commented that he thinks residents expect more out of the Safety Element because of today’s world with climate change, wildfires, and other disasters. He called attention to page 184 of the packet, the bottom Policy S-45; “Renovate existing City owned assets and design future facilities to incorporate renewable energy generation systems, battery storage systems, and energy-efficient design and features as feasible.” He is happy it is there but recommended it be incorporated into the City’s CIP.
On page 191, it talks about implementation of the policy and he sees the Planning Department mentioned instead of Public Works. So, he asked to be sure the appropriate departments are listed on the action side of things. He thinks the previous City Manager had once suggested that in the case of a school evacuation, there should be predesignated meeting points for families and their students so he suggested a policy relating to this.
The last general comment has to do with climate change. The City has the Orinda Oaks Park which is a huge resource. It faces in the appropriate direction to have a solar farm.
If the City really wants to act, he suggested determining if that is an appropriate place to find a vendor that would create such a thing to provide additional renewable resources.
Mr. Biggs concluded the item of the introduction of the Safety Element and said there will be many more opportunities for feedback and input.
H.2. Update on Utility Trench Cut Encroachment Permit Conditions Recommendation:
Receive report, discuss, and provide direction, if any.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 10 07.05.22
Public Works Director Scott Christie provided the staff report, background, and an update of the utility trench cut encroachment permit conditions as to whether the conditions are appropriate. Staff found there are improvements that could be made to some of the conditions.
Councilmember Gee stated the contractors are not doing the patching in accordance with the standardized diagram and are not creating flush ridable surfaces, some of which are long sections. Other than that, she supports improvements and the moratorium and Is seeing the actual work as being sloppy and resulting in a more substandard condition.
Councilmember Worth asked if some of these are situations where a temporary patch is done and it will take a few months to get to the permanent patch.
Mr. Christie said it is a special condition in the case of the Overhill and Tara Road, noting this is part of a larger EBMUD pipe replacement project. What is there is not what he calls the permanent repair, and staff is working with them to return and fill it up. The road will be completely repaved next year which will be the finished product.
City Engineer Sivakumar Natarajan added that since the City has done multiple years of paving, they have had different types of agreements with EBMUD and other agencies. An example would be El Toyonal. They did part of Tara Road last year and are working on Overhill which also includes the last segment of Tara Road. EBMUD paid a City in-lieu fee based on the ADR and length of trench and then the City will use these funds towards the project paving next year.
Overhill was paved in 2014 so it was relatively new although it is outside of the moratorium period. Staff is working with EBMUD to come up with an agreement that will be beneficial for both, which he described.
Mayor Fay referred to page 259, the attachment with the highlighted new sections of the policy. He asked and confirmed that the one labeled “trench cut permit conditions” is all pavement no matter how old it is.
Under 1-A it states, “The asphalt cut line shall be 4 feet rather than 1 foot outside of the trench line.” He asked if this is 4 feet on each side. Mr. Christie confirmed it is 4 feet on each side and he agreed to clarify this language.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers or emails.
Councilmember Gee said if this were a situation where this was intended to be patching for several years she asked if there is enough teeth in the policy to enforce making it so it was a better product or, does the City need something else that would make it stronger to enforce?
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10 07.05.22
Mr. Christie said he thinks it is sufficient. There are cases where a utility company will have an emergency job and sometimes it is not an emergency. It is a burden on the Public Works Inspector to find out who is responsible so it just takes more work to enforce these situations. The other part is having the proper staff resources and the City is comparable to other cities and staff will continue to monitor it.
Councilmember Kosla said it seems people are getting away with shotty work and he recommended giving people fair warning about the City’s concerns.
Councilmember Gee suggested adding a sentence or two that states, “The final product is intended to provide the same ride quality finish as that prior to construction.” Vice Mayor Miller appreciates Councilmember Gee’s comments in bringing this forward and thinks the City should have a policy to require the pavement condition be brought back to the same standard it was and that the City should know who is doing the work.
Mayor Fay suggested being careful about the wording that requires it be brought back to the same standard it was given some of the road conditions. He observed that if this policy had been in place when some transfer cuts were made in Moraga Way south of Glorietta Boulevard, the City would not have the bumpy road on Moraga Way they now have. So, he asked if there should be more clarity in specifications. He would be happy to have something in the policy to ensure work is redone where ride quality is suffering.
Mr. Biggs said this is an administrative promulgated policy and he is hearing that the Council wants to perhaps add language to the policy that crafts something about rideability, the intent and goal of the quality of the work, and staff can bring it back.
City Attorney Wolff said she was trying to determine the nature of this policy and whether it is a staff, administrative or Council policy. She and Mr. Christie reviewed the Municipal Code and found an existing Section 12.08.200 which talks about the City Council having the authority to make amendments to the “standard specifications of the State of California issued by the Department of Public Works, Division of Highways” which might be Caltrans. So, the City’s trench cut policy per the Municipal Code appears to be the Caltrans policy but amendments can be made to that by the Council. The Council can direct staff to bring back a Council policy which could be adopted by resolution which can modify the standard State rules. It is also possible the Municipal Code is out of date and could use an update to better reflect the City’s actual practices.
Mayor Fay stated he is comfortable with this turning into a Council policy.
Ms. Wolff said what is important is that the City be clear and consistent about what that policy is. If the Council would like it to be an administrative policy this should be made clear in the Municipal Code. If instead the Council wants it to be a Council level policy, staff can bring back something approved by the Council so it will be enforceable.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 10 07.05.22
Councilmember Gee said she does not believe it should be a Council level policy because she does not want to create future work on things that get updated, but she would like the comments reflected tonight be included in an administrative policy.
Mayor Fay suggested staff bring it back to the Council as an information item when amendments have been made, and Councilmembers concurred.
I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Councilmember Kosla reported that he has been attending the EBMUD Water Academy every Wednesday from 4-6 p.m. where he has toured facilities and which was very informative and impressive.
He also reported he and Councilmember Worth attended a subcommittee meeting for Housing Element items which went well, with consultants and staff making a lot of progress.
Councilmember Worth stated the 4th of July was fun and she was reminded of all the volunteer work and organization that went into the celebrations.
Mayor Fay also stated the 4th of July celebration was wonderful and he thanked staff and volunteers. He then announced the holding of a Fire Prevention 2x2 Committee meeting on July 12th at 6:00 p.m.
Lastly, he received a letter from the League of California Cities about the conference in September, and he will not be going because he will attend the Sister City event and asked if Councilmembers were interested in attending.
Mr. Biggs stated typically staff will bring an item in August to designate the Council’s voting delegate at the League conference, and City Clerk Smith said she will be bringing this forward, with Councilmember Worth scheduled to attend.
J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – City Manager Biggs acknowledged the Police Department for their work during the 4th of July who play an important role during the event, and he thanked Police Chief Sullivan and his team.
K. MATTERS INITIATED – None.
L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:32 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 5, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) JULY 19, 2022
CITY OF ORINDA
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
6:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
Mayor Fay called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Manager Biggs called the roll and noted that all Councilmembers were present, except Councilmember Kosla who had an excused absence.
B. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MATTERS Mayor Fay identified the Closed Session Matter.
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
There were no members of the public wishing to speak.
D. CLOSED SESSION
1. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING
LITIGATION
Existing Litigation pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: City of Long Beach v. Monsanto Company et al., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case 2:16-cv03493-FMO-AS (class action)
2. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSELANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 potential case)
E. OPEN SESSION REPORT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Wolff reported that with four Councilmembers present (Councilmember Kosla absent), the Council voted unanimously (4-0) to opt-out of the class action settlement related to Monsanto Co.’s manufacture and sale of PCBs in City of Long Beach v. Monsanto (Case number 2:16 CV-03493-FMO-AS in the US District Court for the Central District of CA), and instead to initiate direct litigation.
F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 P.M.
_______________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City Council Closed Session Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 17 07.19.22
July 19, 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=2096.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, Amy Worth
Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Nick Kosla
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Vice Mayor Miller.
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Gee moved and seconded by Councilmember Worth to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.
D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY – None.
E. PUBLIC FORUM – None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fay requested removal of Item F.3. He asked and confirmed there were no speakers or additional requests for removal of items.
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. June 21, 2022 - Regular Meeting
2. July 5, 2022 - Closed Session
F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 17 07.19.22
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of July 20, 2022 to August 19, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
F.4. Award of a Construction Management Services Contract to Anchor CM for the 2022 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project No 4166), Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project No.4165), and Moraga Way Pedestrian Pathway Project (Project No.4168)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council award the Construction Management Services Contract in the amount of $263,895 to Anchor CM for the 2022 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project No. 4166), Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project No. 4165) and Moraga Way Pedestrian Pathway Project (Project No. 4168); authorize program expenditure up to $303,480 (includes 15% contingency); and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
MOTION by Councilmember Worth moved and seconded by Vice Mayor Miler to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.1.2, F.2 and F.4. Said motion carried by (4-0) roll call vote.
Item Removed from the Consent Calendar:
F.3. Proposed addition of a three-year full time limited term Education and Outreach Coordinator
Recommendation:
Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution No. 37-22 approving the addition of a three-year full time limited term Education and Outreach Coordinator Classification. This classification would allow the City to more effectively implement education and outreach programs related to Orinda's Measure R programs including fire prevention, emergency preparedness, roads, and storm drains.
Mayor Fay recommended that because the City Council indicated this position would assist in the formation of new Firewise neighborhoods he asked that this wording be added to the “Examples of Important and Essential Duties.” City Manager Biggs stated this is already included as the third item down as well as on the next page, and Mayor Fay asked to revise it to state “new Firewise neighborhoods.” Vice Mayor Miller voiced support of Firewise programs, but given Firewise is a private organization she asked for the City Attorney’s perspective as to whether the City may open itself up to any liability.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 17 07.19.22
City Attorney Wolff said she does not have a complete understanding of the nature of the Firewise community designation and what this entails. She imagines it would be similar to a Neighborhood Watch group where the City is in partnership with the group, and asked for the City Manager’s comment.
Mr. Biggs said the Firewise Council and the program is not in the control of the City and the City has supported their activities. The City believes grassroot components are very important so the person hired would conduct education and outreach and encourage people to become Firewise neighborhoods in conjunction with working with volunteers from the Firewise Council. He added that a position classification would not be that specific and several main bullet points of duties came directly from the SSTOC Ad-Hoc Committee.
Councilmembers commented that the job description also includes “perform additional related duties as assigned” which would cover most anything else, “Establish and nurture relationships with key stakeholders, inside and outside the City Hall, i.e.,” and it lists Firewise and others is comprehensive in terms of its inclusion.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
Melanie Light, SSTOC Commissioner, clarified that Firewise USA is a program run by the National Fire Protection Agency through the U.S. Forest Service. It is a legitimate body run through the government. On the other hand, the Orinda Firewise Council is not a nonprofit but an informal network of those Firewise USA groups. The person they are seeking is someone who can change the culture of Orinda and be creative about interfacing with different agencies, create unique programs, and reach the different demographics of the population here.
Vice Mayor Miller referred to the National Fire Protection Association referenced and read a portion from their website on what the NFPA states they are, and said the Firewise program is a program out of this. She voiced support to retain the current description which is complex and even more descriptive than normal.
Mr. Biggs further added that staff must create a classification that is in keeping with the City’s classification framework. When advertising for the position, staff has more flexibility in what they highlight. Also, staff has knowledge about the differences between Firewise and the Firewise Council but they cannot describe all those elements in this description.
Mayor Fay allowed another public comment.
Paula Reinman, SSTOC Commissioner, asked whether there is still room to write the job description in a way it is compelling and interesting to their target pool of applicants.
Mayor Fay replied that the advertisement for the position and what is stated in it can take parts of this job description and emphasize it as what is most important in this situation and in this recruitment.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 17 07.19.22
Mr. Biggs said this is correct and, as they recruit for specific positions, a classification is approved and staff updates and modifies these depending on what the City is looking for, and this is a necessary first step.
Mayor Fay asked and confirmed the job will be advertised starting in August once the job classification is approved and commented Commissioner Reinman has also been engaged with the City’s Human Resources Manager.
MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller moved and seconded by Councilmember Worth to adopt Resolution No. 37-22 approving the addition of a three-year full time limited term Education and Outreach Coordinator Classification. This classification would allow the City to more effectively implement education and outreach programs related to Orinda's Measure R programs including fire prevention, emergency preparedness, roads, and storm drains. Said motion carried by (4-0) roll call vote.
G. PUBLIC HEARING – None.
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. No On-Street Stopping or Parking During Red Flag Days along portions of evacuation routes within very High Fire Hazard Severity zones in Orinda.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council consider approving Resolution 36-22 and Traffic Order No. 216 to restrict stopping and parking during Red Flag Warning Days along portions of evacuation routes within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Orinda, which consist of Monte Vista Road, Claremont Ave, Manzanita Drive, Vista Del Mar, Camino Don Miguel, Sleepy Hollow Lane, Lombardy Lane, Dalewood Drive, Honey Hill Road, Charles Hill Road, and Sundown Terrace.
City Manager Biggs introduced the matter.
Public Works Director Scott Christie gave the staff report and an overview of the expansion of the program for no on-street stopping or parking during Red Flag Days along portions of evacuation routes within very high fire hazard severity zones in Orinda. He described costs, bids per the Public Contract Code, estimate of 6 months to complete all streets, displayed a map showing the high fire severity zones, signs, proposed road segments concurrent with evacuation routes, and described work on a more detailed plan to get bids for the work.
Councilmember Gee asked if they will need another parking enforcement person or parttime position to be effective once this is in place.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 17 07.19.22
Mr. Biggs said staff is close to hiring the second position, and Chief Sullivan also agreed to involve officer enforcement on weekends which staff will monitor.
Councilmember Gee asked if there is any way to speed up the bidding process while adhering to the Public Contract Code. Mr. Christie said he uses 6 months as a high estimate but the plan is to make this happen as soon as possible.
Councilmember Gee asked if there is any concern that materials needed might not be available. Mr. Christie replied they have not requested quotes at this time but he has had no issues getting replacements for standard signs.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there are no speakers or emails.
MOTION by Councilmember Gee moved and seconded by Councilmember Worth to adopt Resolution 36-22 and Traffic Order No. 216 to restrict stopping and parking during Red Flag Warning Days along portions of evacuation routes within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Orinda, which consist of Monte Vista Road, Claremont Ave, Manzanita Drive, Vista Del Mar, Camino Don Miguel, Sleepy Hollow Lane, Lombardy Lane, Dalewood Drive, Honey Hill Road, Charles Hill Road, and Sundown Terrace. Said motion carried by (4-0) roll call vote.
H.2. City Policies Related to Roadside Vegetation Clearance and Opportunities to Support Fire Prevention
Recommendation:
Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction, if any.
City Manager Biggs gave the staff report and overview of recommendations regarding roadside vegetation clearance and fire prevention. He described the 2 x 2 Committee meetings, recommendations for a “Boots on the Ground” program brought forward by the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee of the SSTOC for home evaluation and funding for an additional MOFD inspector.
The Fire Chief and MOFD Board emphasized the need to be more involved with roadside vegetation removal along evacuation routes and work is being done. The question is whether the City would like to take on a greater role in regards to roadside vegetation.
For the City to become more engaged in this area, the Municipal Code should be modified relating to rights to require this of property owners. The Fire Code has more specific and detailed requirements MOFD could enforce, but without delegating authority to the City an amendment would be needed to further clarify this under the street and nuisance elements of the Municipal Code.
Lastly, staff would need to fund an additional Public Works Inspector if this was in lieu of the Fire Inspector, and he asked if the Council supports an expanded role in fuel reduction along evacuation routes and roads.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 17 07.19.22
Mayor Fay stated he and Councilmember Gee met with the Joint City/MOFD Fire Prevention 2 x 2 Subcommittee last week. He emphasized that MOFD prefers the City fund an inspector but this has the effect of being an alternative to the Fire Inspector. If the City takes over roadside mitigation and enforcement along evacuation routes this will free up MOFD’s inspectors to do other parts of the City.
Councilmember Gee added that it has become clear that as they get the opportunity to talk about areas the Chief thinks the City can be most supportive this will help make evacuation routes safer and more in compliance with the Fire Code.
Councilmember Worth said there is a challenge with two agencies with two sets of legal authority and expertise. She is hearing the City should take an active role regarding roadside vegetation clearance and sight lines. She referred to the four items in the staff report and asked how the City and MOFD would coordinate the two elements so the right agency, i.e., MOFD versus the City, have the specific authority.
Mr. Biggs said MOFD has the authority but wish to dedicate their resources into other areas. They believe the City could also do this and staff has identified in the staff report that they would have to fine-tune their Municipal Code. Staff recommends Options 1 and 2 which would give the ability to pursue this under a roadway provision and a nuisance provision. This would be a more comprehensive outreach with annual inspections and notices.
Councilmember Worth asked how to continue to have the Fire District engaged once getting to that point. Mr. Biggs said they are looking to delegate that primarily to the City to do this under the Municipal Code.
City Attorney Wolff said the City’s actions here would not displace or substitute for MOFD because the Fire Code is a very powerful instrument and its rules are clear. The City, as owner and operator of public rights-of-way, has complementary tools but they arise out of easement rights.
She could imagine a situation where if the pavement is very close to the edge of the rightof-way the City will not necessarily be able to get a full three feet of clearance consistent with what the Fire Code requires. They will then need to work with MOFD if this is what is necessary for public safety.
Vice Mayor Miller asked which of these options require the City to acquire more staffing beyond the staff position for education and outreach.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 17 07.19.22
Mr. Biggs said any option with the City taking the lead in enforcing reduction of vegetation along evacuation routes or right-of-way would require additional staffing. Assuming the Council agrees, staff would bring back an item that modified two sections of the Municipal Code and then they would hire someone to do inspections, issue notices, do follow-up and issue administrative citations. If people still do not comply, they would have to make a determine of going on the property, doing the work, and placing a lien on the property.
The City cannot do this with existing staffing and will need to hire for this.
Vice Mayor Miller asked what the cost would be to update the City’s code and asked why MOFD is not doing this work.
Ms. Wolff stated the effort to update the code will be quite modest. Where the expense will come in is at the enforcement stage. She has been involved in a handful of encroachment enforcement activity as the City Attorney but these are difficult issues that involve surveying the location of the public right-of-way, arguing over what the City’s rights and responsibilities are with respect to the easement, going back and looking at the subdivision map, and determining what was and was not offered.
Mr. Biggs stated this year MOFD has done inspections of the right-of-way and sent notices so they have had a focus. The question was asked in the context of whether there could be an additional inspector to do fire inspections and the response was that it would be better served to do roadway vegetation work. Therefore, MOFD is doing the work now and once staff gets through the AB 747 analysis they will have more streets designated as evacuation routes and more outside very high fire severity zones.
Councilmember Gee said it was not her understanding that MOFD was intending to completely not be involved in enforcement on these evacuation routes and they were hoping the City could augment what they were doing.
Mayor Fay said they would continue to do some of this and the City will have to determine who does what. Possibly when they encounter a difficult land owner they will need the force of the Fire Code. The City can work with MOFD to deal with those situations and this will need to be worked out through the process.
He then referred to page 76 of the packet under Item 2 which states, “Also, this effort would be distinct from MOFD’s enforcement of the Fire Code and could involve different standards.” He asked if they mean “standards” or different underlying reasons for why they would be enforcing it. The standard MOFD uses is 3 feet from edge of pavement, 15 feet up from edge of pavement and this is the same standard the City would use, but they would have different underlying reasons for enforcing that standard.
Mr. Biggs agreed but they can enforce up to 10 feet of the edge of pavement and 6 feet trimming up as well, so there is a difference where the Fire Code is more expansive. The other limitation that might come into play is that they will assume where the road is and they would go info further details only if they ran into an issue.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 17 07.19.22
Mayor Fay noted that per the Fire Chief, MOFD is not going to do much enforcement of the 10-foot from the edge of pavement until the next year or so. Juniper comes into play at the end of next year. He then thought if they were going to hire someone it would be a limited term employee.
Mr. Biggs said he did not believe this type of position could be limited term, as they would need to continue with the work. Vegetation grows back and advertising for a limited term position also narrows the field of candidates. He also thinks they will be expanding evacuation routes as well, so in time all roads in the City should have this treatment.
Mayor Fay asked if this position would also be available to help with the Red Flag Day no parking restrictions.
Mr. Biggs said staff has not considered this, but they could as well as other duties.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
Jud Hammon, Chair of the SSTOC, said what he has not heard in this discussion is the potential to combine any of the listed enforcement approaches with incentives. He thinks this has the potential to be an effective tool to supplement whatever approach the Council decides on.
Vice Mayor Miller said vegetation clearance has been a big priority but thinks the City’s role here is with education and outreach. If the City works on citations for vegetation clearance beyond what they can currently do under the Municipal Code they would need to see some of the tax revenue that comes to MOFD be re-directed to the City because essentially the City would be taking on the functions of MOFD.
She cited the amount of authority MOFD has in going back 10 feet versus the City at 2 or 3 feet and sometimes less, thinks MOFD would not renegotiate with LAFCO on the amount of tax it receives, and that the Moraga Town Council might not also feel the same way.
Lastly, they talked about offering incentives and she believes the City Attorney is looking into that and guessed those will be an important part of the program. Therefore, her concern is that the City would be taking on work that is legally and financially assigned to MOFD.
Councilmember Worth thinks they have an interesting arrangement where constituents are served by two governmental agencies that have important purposes. When looking across the state, where they have done very assertive vegetation management, community education and especially enforcement, it is done by the Fire Department. They have the tax resources and legal authority.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 17 07.19.22
She thinks the City could continue the conversation with MOFD about how they will approach this with rights-of-way. The difficulty is that the City’s legal standards are different than the Fire Code. Also concerning is the City has streets over which they have no jurisdiction; however, the Fire Code has jurisdiction over all property in Orinda.
Finally, when getting involved with litigation with regards to what their authority is, the City can provide residents with tools and education and MOFD can provide enforcement.
Councilmember Gee said she respects and understands comments. At this point in having so many conversations with the Fire District, she was probably willing to attempt to be more creative in the hopes they are accomplishing more. She does not disagree with the Chief that the City should be able to require trimming for safety purposes, but the City does not have the legal authority over the Fire Code.
She also agrees with Chair Hammon’s comments that incentives are the best way to effectively spend Measure R dollars in this regard. They are at an impasse of using Measure R dollars to fund additional inspection by MOFD which is not an option so she would be prone to want to put more resources into the incentive aspect to support MOFD in helping.
Education and outreach are also geared towards helping but it has been eye-opening and disappointing how many residents are not willing to be compliant. She would be willing to look at something more creative but if there is not the consensus to do that she would suggest considering the incentives program.
Councilmember Worth said there has been a lot of good materials that have gone out to residents along with the chipper and people working to clear their property. She asked if the City could increase the efforts with regards to evacuation routes and asked if there has been a concerted effort identifying all corridors.
Mayor Fay said he and Councilmember Gee have had extensive conversations with the Joint City/MOFD Fire Prevention 2x2 Committee, SSTOC, and private conversations with the Fire Chief. They are focusing on evacuation routes this year exclusively. The Fire Chief has repeatedly over the last 6 months that his belief that getting the word out and telling people they need to clear their properties does not work. It needs enforcement, but they have limited resources.
This year the focus is on 3 feet back from edge of pavement and 15 feet up from the edge of pavement and on large properties. MOFD must determine how best to use their resources and he continues to believe time is of the essence on this issue so anything that can be done to speed up the process is important.
Councilmember Worth said earlier the map showed the proposed Red Flag parking, and asked if there were more streets.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 17 07.19.22
Mayor Fay said there would be more streets because there are evacuation routes in South Orinda and the focus is on North Orinda. They would also have to expand it to school routes as well at some time. It would be a trim notice that would be 15 feet up from the edge of pavement and 3 feet back from the edge of pavement. He clarified that the 10 feet from the edge of pavement is from the Fire Code. The City does not have that authority and MOFD is not enforcing that right now.
Councilmember Gee thinks they have learned a lot in comparison to other districts and the Chief has been generous in sharing information. People are doing a good job but they are not even close to the wooded and overgrown environment Orinda residents live in.
There are also a few places and circumstances where there have been more resources in areas that are not nearly as overgrown as Orinda is. She agrees with the Mayor that what they are collectively trying to achieve is that they do things faster than slower.
If there is some way they can be effective with the incentive idea of vegetation removal and still be within governmental boundaries of what they can do with funding this would seem to make sense.
Mayor Fay pointed out that even if they were to say they will do this, they would not have that person hired and ready to do anything during the current fire season. So, this diminishes the urgency and it may suggest they need to return to the 2x2 and be more creative in how they mix incentives with the Fire District’s stick to get more done.
Councilmember Worth said in augmenting and supporting MOFD, her concern is taking over their work and authority. She suggested proceeding with Option 1 now to get the word out to residents along evacuation routes, then return with an incentive plan, and then go back and finetune issues around enforcement.
Mayor Fay said he could relay this conversation to the Joint City/MOFD Fire Prevention 2x2 Committee at the next meeting, voiced support to put monies into the incentives program, and recommended the Council return later with suggestions.
H.3. Award of a Construction Contract to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. for the 2022 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project No.4166 & CIP 4165) and Moraga Way Pedestrian Pathway Project (Project No. 4168)
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the design for the Annual Paving Project (CIP No.4166 and CIP No.4165), and Moraga Pedestrian Pathway Project (CIP No.4168); award the Construction Contract to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. of Concord, California for the total bid amount of $4,881,704.44; authorize program expenditure up to $5,613,960 to include a 15% contingency; and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 17 07.19.22
City Manager Biggs introduced the item.
Public Works Director Scott Christie gave the staff report and overview of the matter which is award of a construction contract to Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc. for the 2022 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project and Moraga Way Pedestrian Pathway Project which is included because it rehabilitates that section of Moraga Way between Altamonte and El Camino Moraga.
The other project included is the El Toyonal, Oak Flat Road and La Espiral project as part of the 2019 annual paving project, and since the 2022 project included other parts of El Toyonal, it made sense and merge that project into 2022.
Staff went out to bid, received four bids, and Bay Cities Paving and Grading, Inc. was the low bidder. He then described costs of the CIP projects, bid and contingency figures, CIP previous year funding for carry-over projects, NPDES increases and risks to pushing out the work, and stated the total additional appropriation needed is $3,407,500. Staff recommends moving forward with the base bid plus additive alternates, and said project construction is estimated to begin in early August 2022.
Mr. Biggs added that they rely on the SSTOC to advise on Measure R expenditures, and staff took this to them at their meeting last week, indicating staff would be recommending utilizing the Measure R funding to proceed with street projects. There was concern expressed, especially with timing, which he described. If there are other high priority fire prevention programs there is money available through Measure R and staff could defer some of the out-year storm drain projects and bridge cash flow issues. However, there is the ability to proceed with a very competitive bid from a known contractor where the next highest bid is $2 million higher.
Vice Mayor Miller announced her recusal regarding discussions about Los Espiral and Valley View roads.
City Attorney Wolff suggested taking up the two roads that Vice Mayor Miller indicated she has a conflict on and then making a final decision on those with her out of the room and then when she returns she can vote on the rest of the package at the end. If there is no discussion on those two roads, she does not need to leave the room.
Mayor Fay asked and confirmed there were no questions or discussion on those two roads. Regarding the overall package, he asked for questions from Councilmembers.
Councilmember Gee said she is happy to see the bids given the environment. She asked Mr. Christie to speak more on EBMUD truck traffic on Bear Creek Road, as well as major construction planned out there. She asked where they are with their program.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 17 07.19.22
Mr. Christie said EBMUD gave a brief presentation about the Briones Trench Soils Off Haul project in March, said they intend every 4 years to go through bringing backfill from trenching operations to the storage area on the Briones property, which he described.
The other project involved is within City limits across from the PG&E substation, which is EBMUD property. They have not started yet, but have permits to build a solar facility which will be tied into the PG&E substation.
Councilmember Worth thanked Mr. Christie for his presentation, noted challenges with projects which are that they must go to full depth reclamation where costs go up significantly in the future and asked if this was the case.
Mr. Christie said it was a great win for cities to limit the C3 impact to going to base like a reconstruction does and having the provision for contiguous segments. They are working through the ins and outs of new NPDES requirements for the MRP3 municipal regional permit No. 3.30 that they must get from the Water Board.
One change is how stormwater runoff is handled from a construction or roadway project.
What is triggered now is a much lower threshold or exemptions. If you exceed more than 1 acre in the area of the roadway being repaired down to the grade then they are exposing the soil and that is what triggers the C3 requirements, which he described. If they wait a year they will have over an acre full depth reclamation and then it would trigger the higher fees.
Mayor Fay asked what is the width and length of Bear Creek involved here. Mr. Christie said it is at least 24 feet wide. At the Camino Pablo end it is wider because of some turn lanes, and he confirmed the first section up to the turn-off into the elementary school is included in the base bid. As far as length, the total acres is 2 acres for that segment, or about 4,000 feet or so.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
Melanie Light, SSTOC Commissioner, said it is clear given the cost benefit the work should move forward. Since EBMUD and PG&E are the principal users of this road she asked if there is a way to get them to contribute to the maintenance of the road.
Mr. Biggs said generally no, the City cannot charge agencies for use of roads.
Occasionally, if there is a major development or construction the City might be able to condition a project but the solar farm will not be generating an unusual number of trips.
People pay a traffic impact fee, but he was not sure if this was for road purposes and if so, it would not be a significant amount.
Vice Mayor Miller said she thought if EBMUD spoils site was at a certain level and the EIR or Negative Declaration shows a certain amount of usage there is something that comes into play and/or the City can assess based on their road index.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 13 of 17 07.19.22
Ms. Wolff stated vehicles that are licensed to drive on streets pay a tax to fill their tanks.
That tax is transmitted to local government and that is the compensation they receive and the funds to maintain streets. In the context of solid waste, there is a part of the franchise fee the City charges for garbage trucks to offset damage, but this is a fee unique to that solid waste collection arrangement.
Jud Hammon said he noticed in some comments sent to the City with respect to this item had to do with the idea that Measure R money is strictly for fire or at least dramatically for fire more than anything else. He then read the Measure R text into the record and emphasized that emergency planning and fire risk reduction right now is incredibly important but understands the urgency of this funding.
Vice Mayor Miller recognized Measure R as a general tax and clearly for roads, drains and pressing fire matters, but not solely for wildfire prevention. If there is a desire to make Measure R funds solely for wildfire prevention she suggested bringing this to the Council and putting it on the ballot as a special tax.
Councilmember Gee echoed comments, voiced support for the staff recommendation, stating some of it was postponed; however, she would disagree with the current PCI rating of Bear Creek Road. If the Council were to include everything except Bid Alternate 2 she asked if staff would have only the 45 days to accept Bid Alternate 2, as presented. She is questioning the value to the City of what they have planned on Bear Creek Road given no one lives on it, it has a lot of truck traffic, and the City is obligated to keep it maintained.
Mayor Fay said he tends to agree with Councilmember Gee. There were some members of the old COIC that did not see the need to repave Bear Creek Road as well, and this has been a couple of years ago and the road has deteriorated a bit. He also has driven the road, does not think it could be a 26 rating in a couple of locations and these could be spot repaired. He is troubled the City will spend $1.1 million on this piece of road and no Orinda residents live on it. It is mostly used by EBMUD and people using EBMUD recreational facilities.
He is also troubled to see if they might be able to get some grants to help with repairing it because it is access to a regional recreation area. He also has consulted with an economist and they are not clear prices will continue to go up. They may be getting close to a recession in which case prices might stabilize. Also, if spot repairs are done it will be less than an acre and this will not trigger onerous permit requirements under stormwater requirements.
Lastly, he is troubled by doing something now on that road and EBMUD coming a year or two with construction of the solar farm and tearing the road up again. Therefore, he cannot support Additive No. 2 at this time.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 14 of 17 07.19.22
Mr. Christie pointed out the normal way they do these projects is they go out and take a current review with the contractor to map out what the limits are. They would want to minimize the reconstruct areas and this could be a provision of that work. Also, whether it is a reconstruction or a more limited project, if the City was to receive a claim these can be very costly.
Mayor Fay said Councilmember Gee alluded to the idea they might be able to come back later if after discussing it with the contractor they might identify a less expensive alternative. He asked if the base bid could be approved plus Bid Alternate 1 and 3, defer Alternate 2 and asked if they have time to come back.
Mr. Christie said the basic provision is 36 days from the bid opening they intend to award.
Their specification is open as to what happens after that time. Normally, they discuss with the contractor whether they are willing to extend their bid. The other option is to determine if there is a way to award the contract as is without Bid Alternate 2 and then add it by change order. He would have to look at the contract provisions and the specifications to see how that reads with respect to whether they have the right to add by change order at the price presented or some subset of it.
Mayor Fay thinks there are unit costs associated with the bid alternate.
Ms. Wolff stated when she looked at this in the past she has advised that change orders should be limited to the scope of the agreement awarded, not used to add in road segments that were not within the scope of the contract awarded. That would be potentially improper work around the Public Contract Code.
Councilmember Worth said she hears there is concern from the Council that it seems like a lot of work to do on this road. She asked if there is a way to make improvements looking at the unit elements of the bid and reducing the cost investment and scope of the work.
She understands claims are challenging and she wished the City could charge heavy industrial users for their impacts.
She asked if staff could go back and take another look at Bid Alternate 2 to see if there is a way to do less and bring it back where the Council could hold a special meeting to approve it.
Mayor Fay said he would hope that in the long run, the City look to CCTA or MTC which funnels federal monies to see where this might fit in and help the City pay for it.
Mr. Biggs said it would make sense to continue the entire item. The project has been in the CIP as a project with funding identified for many years. Staff has given the Council its recommendation to address the condition of the street, and next year they will do a seismic retrofit of the Bear Creek Bridge, so the City has obligations to maintain this street.
They could do that but the question is if it would be like a change order before award of the contract which is problematic.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 15 of 17 07.19.22
Ms. Wolff said she has not researched this recently but is not feeling optimistic the City has many options. She thinks the options before the Council are to award the full scope recommended by staff or pull out Bid Alternate 2 and award the remainder. She asked what date the bid bonds expire. Mr. Christie said he does not believe the bond has an actual expiration date and this goes back to the specification which is 36 days after the bid opening unless the City extends it which means they could ask the contractor if they are willing to extend the bid past the 36 days or August 2nd.
Mr. Biggs stated the Council is dark that day and if they wait until August 16th that is 50 days in total.
Ms. Wolff said therefore she would not recommend the Council hope the contractor will extend the time. Either the award should happen tonight or sometime before August 2nd.
Otherwise, the City stands to lose this contractor.
Councilmember Gee said if they award the whole contract including Alternate 2, the City always has the option to take work out of a contract after the fact within some time.
Ms. Wolff said yes, but the contractor is entitled to the benefit of what they bid and so it is not like they can cut the contract substantially. Mr. Christie said it can increase or decrease within a certain threshold, but he did not know the exact numbers.
Councilmember Gee said if they went ahead and awarded everything other than Bid Alternate 2 even if they made a final decision on that before the 36 days, she asked if the contractor would get going sooner or as soon as possible.
Mr. Christie said contractually he has “x” number of days after staff provides notification that the contract has been awarded and a signed contract is provided.
Mayor Fay said his preference would be to not award it with Bid Alternate 2 in it. He is concerned that they go out, repave the road, EBMUD comes in and will trench across the road to connect to the substation when the solar project is done. They will bring up heavy equipment and beat up the road. He would rather do some spot repairs that are necessary for now and then wait and return and do more spot repairs, all of which are under one acre so as not to trigger that situation. He cannot see spending $1.1 million on this road right now.
Councilmember Worth agreed Bear Creek has always been a challenge and her concern is that if it starts to deteriorate she does not see the City being able to afford doing any substantial repaving on this road in the future, given the change in the permit requirements which is not even the cost.
Mayor Fay described areas in the road where work would be needed in the middle of the road and not on the edges of the road where bicyclists would be riding.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 16 of 17 07.19.22
Councilmember Gee said her biggest concern is the timing of the EBMUD project and awarding the entire contract, agreed with the cited repair areas in the middle of the road, but said this might result in lack of negotiations and someone potentially protesting. Also, the reason staff set it up with bid additives is that not all have to be awarded.
Councilmember Worth said one other possibility is that they just bid the base, Alternate 1 and 3 and go back and re-bid just the repair piece for Bear Creek Road.
Mayor Fay said this is reasonable and they should find out when EBMUD will be constructing their solar facility so they time the repaving portions to occur after completion of their construction.
Councilmember Gee voiced support of this approach and said she was having a hard time with spending that much money on that road and thinks it may not be fully justified.
Vice Mayor Miller asked if the City considers this road as an evacuation route for those living in the Downs.
Mayor Fay said he does not believe so, and he confirmed with the City Manager it is not a priority street for evacuation. He voiced support to award the base bid plus Bid Alternate 1 and 3 and direct staff to review Bear Creek Road and determine whether they can construct a smaller and less costly project to bid at the appropriate time.
MOTION by Councilmember Gee moved and seconded by Councilmember Worth to award the Construction Contract to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. of Concord, California for the base bid and Alternate 1 and 3 and at this time not include Alternate Bid 2; include a 15% contingency on the base bid for the two Alternate 1 and 3; authorize the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and direct staff to review a potential re-bid of Alternate 2. Said motion carried by (4-0) roll call vote.
I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Councilmember Worth stated that after thoughtful discussion with her family, she announced she will not be running for re-election.
Vice Mayor Miller reported on the very positive and well-attended Downtown Subcommittee meeting on Guiding Principles.
Councilmember Gee reported the Joint City/MOFD Fire Prevention 2x2 Subcommittee met on July 12th with two members of the MOFD Board, Fire Chief Winnacker, and City Manager Biggs and the next meeting will be held August 15th.
Mayor Fay commented that he found attending the Downtown Committee meeting was very valuable. He also announced that he does not intend to run for reelection.
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 17 of 17 07.19.22
J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – City Manager Biggs said the filing period has opened for the three Council seats up for election in November. The City Clerk asks to visit the City’s website and for those interested in pulling papers to make an appointment.
City Clerk Smith stated the filing deadline is August 12th, but given announcements that existing Councilmembers will not be running, it will be extended to August 17th.
K. MATTERS INITIATED – None.
L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:12 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: City Council Minutes of July 19, 2022 (2876 : City Council Minutes) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: August 16, 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 August 17, 2022 to September 15, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
BACKGROUND:
On October 5th, 2021 the Orinda City Council adopted Resolution No. 42-21 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 19, 2021, and at subsequent meetings through 2021 and 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 February 25, 2022 Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order which extends the emergency proclamation to June 30, 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.
On August 9, 2022, Contra Costa Health Services issued the attached revised Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings in which online meetings are still encouraged.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Weblink to: Staff Report, Adopted Resolution at October 5, 2021 Council Meeting B. Contra Costa Health Services Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings F.2
Packet Pg. 39
Respectfully Submitted by:
Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
F.2
Packet Pg. 40
Recommendations for safely holding public meetings
Each local government agency is authorized to determine whether to hold public meetings in person, on-line (teleconferencing only), or via a combination of methods. The following are recommendations from the Contra Costa County Health Officer to minimize the risk of COVID 19 transmission during a public meeting.
1. Online meetings (i.e. teleconferencing meetings) are encouraged, where practical, as these meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19. This is particularly important when community prevalence rates are high. Our current trends as of August 9, 2022 in Covid-19 case rate, test positivity, Covid-19 hospitalizations, and Covid-19 wastewater surveillance are stable, but still remain high at this time. In addition to this, the predominant variant of Covid-19 being identified continues to be the Omicron variant and it’s subvariants the impact of which on the spread of Covid-19 has shown to dramatically increase COVID-19 transmission.
2. If a local agency determines to hold in-person meetings, offering the public the opportunity to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option is recommended, when possible, to give those at higher risk of and/or higher concern about COVID-19 an alternative to participating in person.
3. A written safety protocol should be developed and followed. It is recommended that the protocol require social distancing, where feasible – i.e. six feet of separation between attendees; and consider requiring or strongly encouraging face masking of all attendees and encouraging attendees to be up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccine.
4. Seating arrangements should allow for staff and members of the public to easily maintain at least six-foot distance from one another at all practicable times.
5. Consider holding public meetings outdoors. Increasing scientific consensus is that outdoor airflow reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission compared to indoor spaces. Hosting events outdoors also may make it easier to space staff and members of the public at least 6 feet apart. If unable to host outdoors, consider ways to increase ventilation and flow of the indoor space to reduce the risk of COVID-19 while indoors.
6. Current evidence is unclear as to the added benefit of temperature checks in addition to symptom checks. We encourage focus on symptom checks as they may screen out individuals with other Covid-19 symptoms besides fever and help reinforce the message to not go out in public if you are not feeling well.
7. Consider a voluntary attendance sheet with names and contact information to assist in contact tracing of any cases linked to a public meeting.
Revised 8-9-2022
Sefanit Mekuria, MD, MPH
Deputy Health Officer, Contra Costa County
F.2.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Contra Costa Health Services Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings (2877 : Ratify Continued Teleconference City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: August 16, 2022
Department: Finance
AGENDA TITLE: Monthly Report of Receipts and Disbursements for the Period May 1, 2022 through May 31, 2022 and Summary of Revenue, Expenditures, and Preliminary Fund Balances for July 1, 2021 through May 31, 2022
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report of receipts, disbursements, and preliminary fund balances for the month of May 2022.
BACKGROUND:
This report combines monthly reporting to the City Council of two separate financial benchmarks: 1) The issuance of checks and payments for obligations incurred by the City during the month; 2) A monthly report of Revenue and Expenditures for the month and preliminary fund balances based on year to date activity.
State Code References to City Financial Reporting
Section 37208 of the Government Code specifies the presentation of payments made by the City to the City Council. An option is available to forego the presentation of these lists provided the City Council ratifies an audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The City practice has been to present a monthly listing of payments, which goes above and beyond the minimum requirements in State law. Separate from the Payment Listing, California Government Code Section 41004, requires that the City Treasurer submit a monthly report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. This is contained in the second half of the report.
DISCUSSION:
Payment Listing
The disbursement listing includes detail for the month of May including: A) Checks and electronic fund transfers (EFT) issued for accounts payable (Listed in descending order of the amount of the payment); B) A summary of purchases made with Credit Cards (US Bank Corp); and C) A listing by name of payroll checks and direct deposits. The total payroll costs are disclosed in the aggregate.
The payment and disbursement report includes detailed itemization of City issued payments as follows:
MAY 2022 DISBURSEMENTS
F.3
Packet Pg. 42
Type of Transaction Check #’s $ Amount (Incl.
Wires)
General Checks / Wires 66680-66850 787,661.26
Payroll 9503-9506 189,979.35
52007-52091
Payroll Tax Withholding Electronic 55,585.59
Retirement/Medical/Clipper Electronic 80,106.81
TOTAL 1,113,333.01
Payments / disbursements processed for the month including general accounts payable plus payroll and benefits totaled approximately $1.1 million. The General Accounts Payable payments totaled $787,661. Approximately 33% of the general accounts payable were comprised of the following categories of expense: 1) Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Project contract payments ($145,909), 2) Housing & Safety Element Project contract payments ($69,318), and 3) Chipper and Tree Trimming Services ($43,848).
Included in the listing of General disbursements is a payment to US Bank Corporation for expenses made with purchase cards. In addition to disclosing the total payment to the bank for credit card purchases, a separate summary list detailing the charges is provided (Attachment B). The purchases were made between March 16 to April 16, 2022 and the total expenditures made with credit cards was $25,252.
Report of Revenue / Expenditures and Fund Balances as of May 31, 2022 The following Table displays the activity for the month of May in the first three columns.
The right side of the table reports year to date results including the preliminary beginning and ending fund balance as of May 31, 2022. Rather than listing all of the funds individually the table combines funds by common groups.
Monthly Report of Revenue, Expenditures, and Preliminary Fund Balance (Includes Inter-fund Transfers in Revenue / Expenditures –Preliminary Unaudited) For the Period Ending May 31, 2022
F.3
Packet Pg. 43
CURRENT PERIOD 7/1/2021 YEAR TO DATE: Jul-May 5/31/2022 Fund Name / Group
Current
Month
Revenue /
Transfers In
Current
Month
Expenses /
Transfers Out
Beginning
Fund Balance
Year To Date
Revenue
Year To Date
Expenses
Fund Balance
End of Period
General Fund $ 1,791,688 $ 1,064,177 $ 11,021,922 $ 13,988,691 $ 12,073,685 $ 12,936,928 G.F. Measure L Sales Tax 2,285 4,700 3,646,087 123,098 185,275 3,583,910 Add-on Sales Tax Measure R 412,158 79,907 587,348 2,754,904 852,529 2,489,723 Gas Tax 68,591 3,883 452,543 774,281 281,347 945,477
Impact Fees 12,251 87,645 4,207,943 463,136 318,186 4,352,893 Grants - 40,057 669,380 3,332,244 1,091,169 2,910,455
CCTA Funds 495,011 208,230 799,949 692,086 478,374 1,013,661 Road Maintenance Fund - - 948,301 1,005,553 216,643 1,737,211 Trust Funds - - 1,466,395 5,810 1,267,376 204,829
Maintenance Assessment Dist. - 12,940 10,877 55,064 91,942 (26,001) Stormwater Fund - 18,445 279,664 13,647 241,146 52,165
Library Fund - 73,080 302,123 499,212 352,899 448,436
Wilder Community Facilities Dist. - 21,508 205,263 239 232,028 (26,526) Debt - - 2,163,069 2,639,690 2,633,805 2,168,955
Internal Service Funds - 11,492 2,510,294 1,022,899 569,397 2,963,796 Road Emergency Stabilization - 1,884 825,526 4,147 17,798 811,875 Other Capital Projects 95,288 263,372 2,444,992 116,731 409,455 2,152,268 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 2,877,272 $ 1,891,320 $ 32,541,676 $ 27,491,434 $ 21,313,054 $ 38,720,056 In the monthly report of Revenue and Expenditures above total revenue recorded in May was $2.9 million and total expenditures were $1.9 million. The most significant revenue item was the receipt of a $1.2 million Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees payment disbursed by the County in May.
As noted in the Table above, the total fund balance across all funds as of May 31st has increased by approximately $6.2 million from the July 1, 2021 beginning balance of $32.5 million. The largest contributors for the increase are Grants Fund ($2.2 million) for the receipt of American Rescue Plan (ARP) Federal Local Fiscal Recovery Fund in July, Add-on Sales Tax Measure R Fund ($1.9 million), and General Fund ($1.9 million), offset by a decrease of $1.3 million in Trust Fund. The deficit in the Maintenance Assessment District occurs since the General Fund transfer to support these activities does not occur until June 30th at year end. The property tax for the Wilder Community Facilities District is collected on an annual basis after the year-end, the deficit will be reversed by June 30th as well.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
A. May 2022 Check Listing
B. May 2022 Cal-Card Transactions
C. May 2022 Payroll Listing
Respectfully Submitted by:
Doug Alessio
Administrative Services Director
F.3
Packet Pg. 44
Prepared By: Nancy Zhang,
Approved by:
F.3
Packet Pg. 45
City of Orinda
Check/Voucher Register
From 5/1/2022 Through 5/31/2022
Check # Check Payee Transaction Description $Amount
66722 5/4/2022 Gruendl Inc dba Ray's Electric CAMINO PABLO BICYCLE ROUTE 75,436.23 66848 5/25/2022 Gruendl Inc dba Ray's Electric APR. 22 CAMINO PABLO BICYCLE ROUTE 70,472.90 66820 5/23/2022 SHUTE MIHALEY & WEINBERGER MAR 22 LEGAL FEES 36,043.54 66718 5/4/2022 PlaceWorks, Inc. MAR. 22 HOUSING & SAFETY ELEMENT 35,777.78 66815 5/23/2022 MCE CORPORATION APR. 22 LANDSCAPING SVCS. 33,726.43 66849 5/25/2022 RINCON CONSULTANTANTS, INC DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN - HOUSING ELEMENT 33,539.72 66691 5/4/2022 COUNTY TREASURER 4TH QTR, ANIMAL CONTROL SVCS. 32,267.78 66822 5/23/2022 Wildland Corporation APR. 22 CHIPPING SERVICE 29,267.90 66701 5/4/2022 D S BAXLEY INC FLOORING PROJECT - COMM. CTR. 26,442.00 66728 5/4/2022 U S BANK CORPORATION 3-16/4-16-22 CREDIT CARD CHGS. 25,251.89 66818 5/23/2022 SCHAAF & WHEELER DRAINAGE MAINT. - SAN PABLO CREEK CULVERT REPAIRS 21,420.50 66731 5/12/2022 S F ALLIANT INSURANCE SERV MAY. 1, 2022 - APR. 30, 2023, LIBRARY EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE 18,640.00 66816 5/23/2022 P G & E 3-24/4-22-22 SVC. 18,247.71
66775 5/12/2022 MIKSIS SERVICES INC ANNUAL DRAINAGE FACILITIES - EL SERENO 17,950.00 66805 5/23/2022 EBMUD 12-30/3-3-22 HYDRANT PERMIT 17,237.87 66838 5/25/2022 D S BAXLEY INC COMM. CTR. FLOORING PROJECT 16,406.00 66812 5/23/2022 LCC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING MAR. 22 BROOKWOOD RD STUDY PROJECT 16,242.75 66839 5/25/2022 EXPERT TREE SERVICE TREE MAINTENANCE 14,235.00 66741 5/12/2022 COWAN & THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION ANNUAL DRAINAGE FACILITIES - HARRAN CIRCLE 13,600.34 66772 5/12/2022 HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 02-27/3-26-22 VARIOUS STORM DRAIN REPAIRS 12,501.30 66785 5/12/2022 WEX INC APR. 22 FUEL PURCHASE 11,071.23 66721 5/4/2022 QOVO Solutions, Inc. INSTALL LIBRARY SECURITY SYSTEM 10,907.93 66711 5/4/2022 Brian & Angel Johnson REFUND DRA APPLICATION - 15 ADOBE CT 10,883.05 66780 5/12/2022 QOVO Solutions, Inc. CONTROLLED ACCESS SYSTEM - LIBRARY 10,082.50 66709 5/4/2022 Interwest Consulting Group,Inc MAR. 22 ON-CALL PLNG. SERVICES 10,047.50 66807 5/23/2022 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. JAN-MAR. 22, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 9,763.00 66771 5/12/2022 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 02-27/04-02-22, VARIOUS STORM DRAIN REPAIRS 9,018.50 66725 5/4/2022 PATRICIA TOMLINSON INSTR. CONTRACT - BALLET 7,926.32 66693 5/4/2022 CCC SHERIFF FORENSIC SERVICE MAR. 22 FORENSIC SERVICES 7,702.50 66823 5/23/2022 Tripepi, Smith and Associates MAY 22 MONTHLY RETAINER 7,200.00 66783 5/12/2022 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES APR. 22 JANITORIAL SVCS. 6,849.00 66684 5/4/2022 ASSOC OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS MAY 2022 NATURAL GAS SERVICES 6,226.45 66779 5/12/2022 PRECISION IT CONSULTING APR. 22 MONTHLY SUPPORT SVCS. 6,205.00 66736 5/12/2022 California Consulting, Inc. MAY 22 GRANT WRITING SERVICES 5,000.00 66726 5/4/2022 Tuff Shed Inc. TENNIS SUPPLIES SHED 4,285.80 66802 5/23/2022 DELTA FENCE COMPANY INC. INSTALL FENCE & GATE 3,891.00 66800 5/23/2022 COWAN & THOMPSON CONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE - WANDA LN. 3,862.17 66717 5/4/2022 P G & E 3-17/4-15-22 SVC. 3,622.70
66803 5/23/2022 DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION JAN-MAR. 22, TRAFFIC SIGNS/LIGHTS 3,411.30 66797 5/23/2022 CINTAS FAS LOCKBOX 636525 FIRE EXTINGUISHER SVC. 3,089.88 66810 5/23/2022 HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES JUN. 22 DENTAL PREMIUMS 2,734.92 66832 5/25/2022 CINTAS CORPORATION CLEANING SCVS. 2,658.99 66840 5/25/2022 FOLGER GRAPHICS MAILINGS 2,568.15
66825 5/25/2022 BAY ALARM COMPANY 6-1/9-1-22 ALARM SVCS. 2,477.70 66796 5/23/2022 CINTAS CORPORATION CLEANING SVCS. 2,470.79 66806 5/23/2022 ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS APR. 22 HOUSING ELEMENT 2,366.25 66787 5/23/2022 AppleOne Employment Services 4-25/4-29-22, SENIOR ADMIN. ASSISTANT - PLNG. DEPT. 2,181.60 66682 5/4/2022 AMS AMERICAN MECHANICAL SVCS LIBRARY HVAC SERVICE 2,061.00 66830 5/25/2022 CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION FY2020-21 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT COSTS 2,011.00 66801 5/23/2022 Degryse Electric Inc TENNIS COURT LIGHT REPAIR 1,972.50 66776 5/12/2022 Municipal Pooling Authority MAY 22, LTD/LIFE 1,956.19 66843 5/25/2022 GHA TECHNOLOGIES, INC CAMERA FOR FIELD #1 1,925.21 66687 5/4/2022 James Brovelli REFUND DUPLICATE PAYMENT - EXC2022-010 1,890.00 Page: 1
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: May 2022 Check Listing (2837 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - May 2022) City of Orinda
Check/Voucher Register
From 5/1/2022 Through 5/31/2022
Check # Check Payee Transaction Description $Amount
66837 5/25/2022 DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC. APR. 22 CAMINO SOBRANTE RETAINING WALL 1,884.52 66700 5/4/2022 DC ELECTRIC GROUP INC FEB 22 EXTRA WORK TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT. 1,825.85 66817 5/23/2022 Nino Rytokoski INSTR. CONTRACT - KIDS CARPENTRY 1,628.90 66729 5/4/2022 Larry Wadford INSTR. CONTRACT - MARTIAL ARTS 1,449.00 66799 5/23/2022 Comcast Business 5-13/6-12-22 SCV. 1,442.90 66845 5/25/2022 SUSAN MCALLISTER INSTR. CONTRACT - ART CLASS 1,413.50 66786 5/23/2022 Allana Buick & Bers, Inc. DEC. 21, LIBRARY TILE ASSESSMENT 1,394.30 66683 5/4/2022 AppleOne Employment Services W/E 4-23, SENIOR ADMIN. ASSISTANT 1,377.14 66821 5/23/2022 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 856 MAY 22 PASS THRU DUES 1,370.00 66743 5/12/2022 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering ON-CALL ENGINEERING - MORAGA WY. WALL MONITORING 1,302.00 66792 5/23/2022 SPORTS SUPPLY GROUP INC SPRING SOCCER JERSEY 1,274.35 66811 5/23/2022 KANE GeoTech, Inc. ZANDER DRIVE LANDSLIDE MONITORING 1,250.00 66847 5/25/2022 PlaceWorks, Inc. DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN - CREEK RESTORATION 1,234.20 66715 5/4/2022 NMS Labs SPECIMEN PROCESSING 1,234.00
66790 5/23/2022 BASIC CDA 5-13-22 FLEX SPENDING 1,233.29 66694 5/4/2022 CINTAS CORPORATION CLEANING SVCS. 1,176.36 66746 5/12/2022 EBMUD 3-2/4-28-22 SVC. 1,128.54
66686 5/4/2022 Atlas Technical Consultants SOILS PEER REVIEW - 12 WARFORD TERRACE 1,100.00 66824 5/25/2022 BASIC CDA 5-27-22, FLEX SPENDING 1,092.88 66705 5/4/2022 ANDREA GASPARI INSTR. CONTRACT - GYMNASTICS 1,050.00 66707 5/4/2022 LISA HARPER 4-19-22, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1,020.00 66773 5/12/2022 IEDA MAY 22 LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTING 1,009.00 66699 5/4/2022 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering ON-CALL ENGR. - MORAGA WY WALL 1,000.00 66788 5/23/2022 AT&T 4-4/5-03-22 SVC. 937.16
66719 5/4/2022 PRECISION IT CONSULTING MERAKI LICENSING RENEWAL 935.40 66727 5/4/2022 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 4-13/5-10-22 PORTABLE RENTAL 926.52 66713 5/4/2022 Mikes Automotive Service BATTERY - VEHICLE #84 843.60 66680 5/4/2022 T-MOBILE USA, Inc. APR. 22 CELL PHONE SERVICE 798.28 66730 5/12/2022 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT MAY 22, STORAGE DOCUMENTS 752.29 66809 5/23/2022 LISA HARPER 05-11-22, SSTOC MINUTES 750.00 66846 5/25/2022 Pestfinders Pest & Termite Svc PEST COMTROL - WILDER PARK 725.00 66842 5/25/2022 ANDREA GASPARI INSTR. CONTRACT - MUSIC CLASS 720.00 66732 5/12/2022 ASI AIR SYSTEMS INC A/C REPAIR - COMM. CTR. 689.00 66782 5/12/2022 Total Compensation Systems,Inc 1ST. INSTALLMENT, OPEB ACTARIAL VALUATION 675.00 66706 5/4/2022 GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC FEB. 22 ANNUAL PAVEMENT REHAB. 598.54 66734 5/12/2022 BAY AREA BARRICADE SERVICE STREET NAME SIGNAGE 552.38 66768 5/12/2022 FAST SIGNS CONCERT & MOVIE NIGHT BANNERS 513.97 66770 5/12/2022 LISA HARPER MAY 3, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 480.00 66714 5/4/2022 MEHRAN MOJTAHEDI INSTR. CONTRACT - JUJITSU CLASS 474.00 66834 5/25/2022 THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE 428.03 66844 5/25/2022 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ON-CALL ENGR. SVCS. - MINER RD, MANZANITA BR, NORTH LANE
390.00
66740 5/12/2022 CINTAS CORPORATION CLEANING SERVICE 389.80 66690 5/4/2022 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT 4-29-22, GARNISHMENT 379.84 66712 5/4/2022 DAVID GORDON REFUND FOR CAMP ORINDA - AQUA ADVENTURE 370.80 66685 5/4/2022 AT&T NUMBER TRACKING 370.00
66767 5/12/2022 ECOFERT INC APR. 22 FERTIGATION SERVICE 365.00 66696 5/4/2022 COMCAST 4-15/5-14-22 SVC. 358.12
66833 5/25/2022 COMCAST 2-15/3-14-22 SVCS. 358.12
66793 5/23/2022 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT 5-13-22 GARNISHMENT 356.76 66827 5/25/2022 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT 5-27-22 GARNISHMENT 356.76 66716 5/4/2022 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY CHANGE IN CONTRACT CHARGE 314.50 66689 5/4/2022 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT 4-29-22 GARNISHMENT 307.84 66794 5/23/2022 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT 5-13-22 GARNISHMENT 307.84 Page: 2
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: May 2022 Check Listing (2837 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - May 2022) City of Orinda
Check/Voucher Register
From 5/1/2022 Through 5/31/2022
Check # Check Payee Transaction Description $Amount
66826 5/25/2022 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT 5-27-22, GARNISHMENT 307.84 66777 5/12/2022 ORINDA ACADEMY REFUND OF RENTAL DEPOSIT OF LIBRARY AUDITORIUM 300.00 66835 5/25/2022 COUNTY ASPHALT LLC PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 281.97 66798 5/23/2022 COLE SUPPLY CO. JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 264.09 66784 5/12/2022 West Coast Energy Systems LLC GENERATOR REPAIRS - COMM. CTR. 256.06 66733 5/12/2022 VERY NICE POOLS APR. 22 SUPPLIES 254.61 66814 5/23/2022 MCA Direct SUPPLIES 234.49
66781 5/12/2022 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 218.71 66724 5/4/2022 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 217.40 66828 5/25/2022 California Printer Repair, Inc REPAIRS & PARTS FOR LEXMARK PRINTER 216.09 66681 5/4/2022 ADVANCE TITLE RESEARCH TITLE RESEARCH - 1 ORINDA WY 200.00 66710 5/4/2022 BRANDYN IVERSON REFUND RENTAL OF LIBRARY GARDEN ROOM 198.88 66744 5/12/2022 DIAMOND K SUPPLY CRUSHED ROCK 195.75
66698 5/4/2022 CSG CONSULTANTS FEB. 22 ON-CALL ENGR. & CODE INFORCEMENT SVCS. 180.00 66739 5/12/2022 SCOTT CHRISTIE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CALIF. ENGINEERING LICENSE RENEWAL 180.00 66774 5/12/2022 FARAH KHORASHADI REIMBURSEMENT FOR CALIF. ENGINEERING LICENSE RENEWAL 180.00 66836 5/25/2022 DOLAN'S OF CONCORD LUMBER PURCHASE 172.97 66702 5/4/2022 EBMUD 2-9/4-12-22 SVC. 171.72
66791 5/23/2022 BAY AREA BARRICADE SERVICE SAFETY GEAR 166.76 66697 5/4/2022 Concentra Medical Centers APR. 22 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 155.00 66778 5/12/2022 ORINDA ASSOCIATION MAY 22 NEWSPAPER ADS 155.00 66704 5/4/2022 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 4-29-22 GARNISHMENT 145.00 66808 5/23/2022 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 5-13-22 GARNISHMENT 145.00 66841 5/25/2022 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 5-27-22, GARNISHMENT 145.00 66735 5/12/2022 BPXPRESS BID DOCUMENTS - LAVENIDA CULVERT REPAIR 133.55 66720 5/4/2022 PUSHING FOR PEACE INSTR. CONTRACT -TAI-CHI 126.00 66769 5/12/2022 FOLGER GRAPHICS HAZARD MITIGATION FLYER 117.41 66695 5/4/2022 COLE SUPPLY CO. SUPPLIES 111.20
66813 5/23/2022 DANIA MALLETTE 5-6-22, MODELING SERVICE 96.00 66708 5/4/2022 DAVID HILL 4-22-22 MODELING SERVICE 93.00 66737 5/12/2022 MANUEL CAMACHO JR 4-29-22 MODELING SERVICE 93.00 66738 5/12/2022 CCC GENERAL SERVICES DEPT MAR. 22 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT. 79.94 66829 5/25/2022 CCC GENERAL SERVICES DEPT APR. 22 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT. 78.02 66789 5/23/2022 BASIC Benefits LLC MAY 22, FLEXABLE SPENDING ADMIN. FEE 71.40 66703 5/4/2022 FAST SIGNS TENNIS SHED SIGN 60.22
66850 5/25/2022 STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL SUPPLIES 58.66 66742 5/12/2022 CSMFO CSMFO MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 50.00
66745 5/12/2022 EAST BAY BLUE PRINT 2-13/3-12-22, SERVICE CONTRACT 42.50 66688 5/4/2022 SPORTS SUPPLY GROUP INC MLB REPLICA HAT 38.42 66692 5/4/2022 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DOIT FREIGHT CHARGES - RADIO REPAIR 35.65 66804 5/23/2022 DOJ ACCOUNTING SERVICES APR. 22 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 32.00 66831 5/25/2022 Suzanne Chasalow REFUND FOR 2 NIA PASSES 30.90 66723 5/4/2022 Screening One, Inc. EMPLOYMENT SVCS. - BACKGROUND CHECK 28.00 Report Total 787,661.26
Page: 3
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: May 2022 Check Listing (2837 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - May 2022) City of Orinda
Payment Summary for US Bank CalCard Payment
May 2022 (Attachment B)
U. S. BANK CORPORATION
MARCH 16, 2022 THRU APRIL 16. 2022
STMT. 04-18-2022
Transaction Description $Amount
OFFICE DESK CHAIR 929.66
OFFICE SUPPLIES 92.24
SUBSCRIPTION - EAST BAY TIMES 14.00
VEHICLE REPAIR - CHIPPER 169.56
FASTRAK REPLENISHMENT 90.00
SEMINAR - 1 ATTENDEE 149.00
COMPUTER SUPPLIES 305.84
ANNUAL ZOOM CORPORATE LICENSE 7,088.30
ELECTION MATERIALS 48.11
BOTTLE FILLER TO REPLACE DRINKING FOUNTAIN 2,579.12
WHEELS FOR SOCCER GOALS 853.68
TUFF SHED - PARTIAL PAYMENT 1,500.00
MEETING SUPPLIES - ALL HANDS 186.55
HARDWARE SUPPLIES - PARK & REC. 158.28
TRANSMISSION REPAIRS - DUMP TRUCK 783.91
EMPLOYEE LUNCHEON SUPPLIES - ALL HANDS MEETING 81.72
RESTROOM REPAIRS PARTS 154.54
MISC. HARDWARE SUPPLIES - PARK & REC. 268.75
JOB POSTINGS - ADMIN. ASSIST., TRAFFIC & PARKING ASSIST. 632.00 COVID SELF TEST KITS 98.65
OYA SPRING BASEBALL HATS, COACH SHIRTS & T-SHIRTS 1,695.85 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 133.37
VARIOUS FACEBOOK ADS. 251.94
BOBCAT REPAIRS 972.10
TIRES FOR - '11, F150 793.01
VEHICLE REPAIRS - '16 CHEVY 223.99
MAINT. SUPPLIES - PUBLIC WORKS 76.73
PAINT SUPPLIES 127.95
BUS RENTAL - LAKE TEMESCAL 163.00
FIELD TRIP - BOOMERS OF LIVERMORE 500.00
WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATION 2,579.13
TIRE DISPOSAL FEES & SHIPPING CHGS. 23.12
CABLE CORD, CANAPY, FLASHLIGHTS, AIR FILTERS 430.56
FACE MASKS, WATER FILTER CAPS,LIGHTBULBS 427.20
FOLDING SHOVEL, SENSOR, BATTERY, FLUSH VALVE, DUSTER 320.34 ORGANIZER BAG, SECURITY SIGN, EQUIPMENT PARTS, WIRE CUTTER 110.34 PARK IRRIGATION CONTROLS SUBSCRIPTION 59.80
PARTS - DUMP TRUCK 60.61
MISC. HARDWARE SUPPLIES - PUBLIC WORKS 118.94
US BANK CHECK 66728 Issued MAY 04, 2022 25,251.89
Page: 1
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: May 2022 Cal-Card Transactions (2837 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - May 2022) City of Orinda
Summay Check/Transaction Register
Payroll Register for May 2022
Document # Document Date Employee Name First, MI Name
9503 5/13/2022 CaseyCynthia C.
9504 5/13/2022 Hayashi Daniel T.
52007 5/13/2022Alessio Douglas R.
52008 5/13/2022Allnutt Wesley H.
52009 5/13/2022Alvarez Patrick James E.
52010 5/13/2022Amerman Jennifer K.
52011 5/13/2022Arroyo Miguel A.
52012 5/13/2022 Biggs David C.
52013 5/13/2022 Bodner Jude C.
52014 5/13/2022 Buckley Drummond F.
52015 5/13/2022 Chatman Rasha
52016 5/13/2022 ChengLy
52017 5/13/2022 Christie Scott
52018 5/13/2022 Cortez Christopher A.
52019 5/13/2022 Cronin Michele B.
52020 5/13/2022 Delmartini Matthew C.
52021 5/13/2022 Ecklund Steven C.
52022 5/13/2022 Ehrhardt Stephen D.
52023 5/13/2022 Fierner Tod D.
52024 5/13/2022 Flores Jennie
52025 5/13/2022 Frank James A.
52026 5/13/2022 Gerk Rueben A.
52027 5/13/2022 Hayden Carla L.
52028 5/13/2022 Hernande
z Ricardo
52029 5/13/2022 Karuppusamy Natarajan Sivakumar
52030 5/13/2022 Khorashadi Farah
52031 5/13/2022 Laris Jane
52032 5/13/2022 Leach Mark S.
52032 5/13/2022 Low Jamila
52033 5/13/2022 McCourt Kevin
52034 5/13/2022 Mui Winnie
52035 5/13/2022 Needoba Roger
52036 5/13/2022 Perez Norma
52037 5/13/2022 Reedy Sisan L.
52038 5/13/2022 Rubalcava Israel P.
52039 5/13/2022 Santos Landon B.
52040 5/13/2022 Schaufler Lori B.
52041 5/13/2022 Smith Sheri
52042 5/13/2022 Staton Virginia K.
52043 5/13/2022 Tamayo Julia M.
52044 5/13/2022 Thompson Linda M.
52045 5/13/2022 Thompson Robert A.
52046 5/13/2022 Trimble Todd
52047 5/13/2022 Wellman-Miner Sheena
52048 5/13/2022 Zhang Ning
9505 5/27/2022 CaseyCynthia C.
9506 5/27/2022 Hayashi Daniel T.
52049 5/27/2022Alessio Douglas R.
52050 5/27/2022Allnutt Wesley H.
52051 5/27/2022Alvarez Patrick James E.
52052 5/27/2022Amerman Jennifer K.
52053 5/27/2022Arroyo Miguel A.
52054 5/27/2022 Biggs David C.
Date: 6/23/2022, 3:26 PM Page: 1
F.3.c
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: May 2022 Payroll Listing (2837 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - May 2022) City of Orinda
Summay Check/Transaction Register
Payroll Register for May 2022
Document # Document Date Employee Name First, MI Name
52055 5/27/2022 Bodner Jude C.
52056 5/27/2022 Buckley Drummond F.
52057 5/27/2022 Chatman Rasha
52058 5/27/2022 Cheng Ly
52059 5/27/2022 Christie Scott
52060 5/27/2022 Cortez Christopher A.
52061 5/27/2022 Cronin Michele B.
52062 5/27/2022 Delmartini Matthew C.
52063 5/27/2022 Ecklund Steven C.
52064 5/27/2022 Ehrhardt Stephen D.
52065 5/27/2022 Fierner Tod D.
52066 5/27/2022 Flores Jennie
52067 5/27/2022 Frank James A.
52068 5/27/2022 Gerk Rueben A.
52069 5/27/2022 Hayden Carla L.
52070 5/27/2022 Hernandez Ricardo
52071 5/27/2022 Hughes Darin E.
52072 5/27/2022 Karuppusamy Natarajan Sivakumar
52073 5/27/2022 Khorashadi Farah
52074 5/27/2022 Leach Mark S.
52075 5/27/2022 Low Jamila
52076 5/27/2022 McCourt Kevin
52077 5/27/2022 Mui Winnie
52078 5/27/2022 Needoba Roger
52079 5/27/2022 Perez Norma
52080 5/27/2022 Reedy Susan L.
52081 5/27/2022 Rubalcava Israel P.
52082 5/27/2022 Santos Landon B.
52083 5/27/2022 Schaufler Lori B.
52084 5/27/2022 Smith Sheri
52085 5/27/2022 Staton Virginia K.
52086 5/27/2022 Thompson Linda M.
52087 5/27/2022 Thompson Robert A.
52088 5/27/2022 Trimble Todd
52089 5/27/2022 Urbina Vanessa K,
52090 5/27/2022 Wellman-Miner Sheena
52091 5/27/2022 Zhang Ning
Payroll Payments Pay Period 05-13: 95,412.62
Pay Period 05-27: 94,566.73
Subtotal Payroll 189,979.35
Payroll Taxes 55,585.59
EE Benefits 80,106.81
Accounts Payable (See Attachment A) 787,661.26
Grand total 1,113,333.01
Date: 6/23/2022, 3:26 PM Page: 2
F.3.c
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: May 2022 Payroll Listing (2837 : Monthly Disbursements Rev Exp Fund Balance - May 2022) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.4
Date: August 16, 2022
Department: City Council
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Resolution No.42-22 Regarding The Annual Review of City Investment Policy And Delegating Authority To Make Investments RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 42-22 which completes the Annual Review without making any changes to the policy; and delegating the authority to make investments BACKGROUND:
On July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 31-21 which established the Investment Policy that is currently being used to guide the City Investment portfolio. The policy follows recommended guidelines for the prudent management of public funds.
The City portfolio is managed by Chandler Asset Management which also assists in reviewing and proposing changes to the adopted policy. The current policy states that it is to be reviewed annually by the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) and that any recommended changes are to be presented to City Council no later than June 30th. The review of the policy by the Finance Advisory Committee occurred at the July 27th meeting. This delayed the presentation to the City Council until after June 30th.
As required under State law the proposed resolution also includes the City Council delegation of authority to make investments.
DISCUSSION:
The City’s current portfolio includes a General Reserve managed by Chandler Asset Management based on the City Investment policy in discussion with City Staff. In addition to the funds that they manage the City retains a pooled investment account in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), which is managed by the State Treasurer.
Focus of a Public Agency Portfolio
It is important to keep in mind that a public agency portfolio has distinct differences from private investments in terms of goals and risks. The 2021 publication prepared by the California Debt Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) and titled “Local Agency Investment Guidelines”, described this difference as follows:
“The vast majority of local agency portfolios are managed with a buy and hold investment strategy. Investments are purchased with the intent and capacity to hold them until maturity. At times, market forces or operations may dictate exchanging one security for another or selling a security before maturity.
Continuous analysis and fine tuning of the investment portfolio are considered part of prudent investment management. This passive investment strategy is F.4
Packet Pg. 52
different from one in which securities are purchased with the intent to sell them before maturity at a profit or the use of leverage to enhance yield.” Given the focus of public funds the investment objectives are to always seek safety and liquidity which take precedence and may impact a market rate return compared to private or personal portfolios.
Investment Manager Review
The Administrative Services Director met with staff from Chandler Asset Management and reviewed the current policy to ensure its conformance with all applicable state law and any changes to industry best practices. That review resulted in Chandler Asset Management recommending no changes to the policy as it is currently written. The results of the review were shared and discussed by the FAC at their July 27, 2022 meeting. During that review, the FAC unanimously recommended presenting no changes to the investment policy to the City Council for the Fiscal year 2022-2023.
Government Code Section 53607 only provides two options for authorizing the investment of public funds. It can be completed by either: 1) The City Council; or 2) Delegated for a one year period to the City Treasurer. From a practical and logistical manner of conducting business it makes sense to delegate this function. Adoption of the proposed resolution will continue this practice.
Proposed Investment Policy
Attachment A contains the Resolution adopting the Investment Policy, which completes the Annual Review with no proposed changes to the existing policy. The resolution also formally delegates the authorization to make investment decisions to the City Treasurer for a one year period in accordance with the Government Code.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no immediate fiscal impacts as a result of reviewing the Investment Policy. It is anticipated that the policy will continue to provide investment options consistent with State law and appropriate for a public agency portfolio.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy
Respectfully Submitted by:
Doug Alessio
Administrative Services Director
Prepared By: Doug Alessio, Administrative Services Director Approved by:
F.4
Packet Pg. 53
F.4
Packet Pg. 54
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:
Annual Review of Investment Policy)
And Delegation of Authority ) Resolution No. 42-22
To Make Investments )
WHEREAS, the City Council on July 6, 2021 adopted Resolution 31-21 approving an Investment Policy which in accordance with State law provides for an annual review by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has requested that the Finance Advisory Committee review and make recommendations on the policy; and
WHEREAS, the City has engaged Chandler Asset Management to provide professional investment services which include reviewing the policy for conformance with State laws and best practices; and
WHEREAS, at a meeting on July 27, 2022 the Finance Advisory Committee reviewed the Investment Policy and made the recommendation that no policy changes are required at this time; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 53607 allows the City Council to annually delegate the authority to make investments to the City Treasurer as described in section IV of the policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Orinda City Council hereby adopts the Investment Policy attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby delegates the authority to make investments to the City Treasurer (Administrative Services Director) and Deputy Treasurer (City Manager).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda on August 16, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022)
CITY OF ORINDA, CALIFORNIA
INVESTMENT POLICY
ADOPTED – AUGUST 16, 2022 (RESOLUTION NO.42-22)
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 II. SCOPE.................................................................................................................1 III. OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................................2 IV. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY ..................................................................................2 V. PRUDENCE...........................................................................................................3 VI. ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.....................................................................4 VII. INTERNAL CONTROLS ............................................................................................4 VIII. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, DEPOSITORIES, AND BROKER/DEALERS.........4 IX. INVESTMENT POOLS..............................................................................................5 X. COLLATERALIZATION .............................................................................................6 XI. DELIVERY, SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY.................................................................6 XII. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS ...................................................................................6 XIII. MAXIMUM MATURITY ...........................................................................................11 XIV. PROHIBITED INVESTMENT VEHICLES AND PRACTICES.............................................11 XV. RISK MANAGEMENT AND DIVERSIFICATION............................................................11 XVI. REVIEW OF INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO ....................................................................12 XVII. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION................................................................................13 XVIII. REPORTING........................................................................................................13 XIX. REVIEW OF INVESTMENT POLICY ..........................................................................14 GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS ...................................................................................15 F.4.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 1 I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Orinda was incorporated on July 1, 1985 and is located in the East Bay area within 20 minutes of downtown San Francisco. The City operates under a CouncilManager form of government and provides municipal services that include public safety, public works, parks and recreation, and community development. The City Council consists of five members with the position of Mayor and Vice Mayor chosen by the Council. The Council serves as the policy board for the City.
The City of Orinda has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the productive use of assets entrusted to its care and to invest and manage those public funds wisely and prudently with the overriding objectives to preserve principal and provide sufficient liquidity while seeking a market-rate of return. The purpose of this investment policy is to identify various policies and procedures that will foster a prudent and systematic investment program designed to seek the City of Orinda’s objectives of safety, liquidity and yield through a diversified investment portfolio. This policy also serves to organize and formalize the City’s investment-related activities, while complying with all applicable statutes governing the investment of public funds.
II. SCOPE
This policy covers all funds and investment activities under the direct authority of the City, as set forth in the State Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq., with the following exceptions:
• Retirement Plans offered to City Employees including the 457 Deferred Compensation Plan, and 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan are excluded because the Plans are administered by a third party administrator and held in trust for the exclusive benefit of participants and are not assets of the City. Individual plan participants select the investments from those offered under the Plans. • Proceeds of debt issuance shall be invested in accordance with the City’s general investment philosophy as set forth in this policy; however, such proceeds are to be invested pursuant to the permitted investment provisions of their specific bond indentures.
• Any other funds specifically exempted by the City Council.
POOLING OF FUNDS
Except for cash in certain restricted and special funds, the City will consolidate cash and reserve balances from all funds to maximize investment earnings and to increase efficiencies with regard to investment pricing, safekeeping and administration.
Investment income shall accrue solely to the General Fund except where required by law, or other binding agreement, in which case interest shall accrue to other funds based upon the fund’s proportionate ratio of balances to total pooled cash. Investment income shall not be credited to individual reserve accounts, except where required by law.
Investment income shall be credited no less than annually.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 2 III. OBJECTIVES
The City’s overall investment program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism worthy of the public trust. The overriding objectives in order of priority shall be:
• SAFETY. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program.
Investments will be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio.
• LIQUIDITY. The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated.
• YIELD. Yield should become a consideration only after the basic requirements of safety and liquidity have been met. The investment portfolio will be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints for safety and liquidity needs.
IV. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Authority to manage the City’s investment program is derived from California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. The City Council is responsible for the policy level management of City funds, including the adoption and review of this investment policy. The day-to-day management of idle cash and investment transactions is the responsibility of the Administrative Services Director / City Treasurer. The Administrative Services Director is designated as the City Treasurer, in accordance with a Resolution specifying the job description adopted by the City Council. As authorized in Government Code Section 53607, the City Council delegates the authority to invest funds of the City to the Administrative Services Director / City Treasurer and/or any duly appointed Deputy Treasurer. The City Treasurer and any duly appointed Deputy City Treasurer shall make all investment decisions and transactions in accordance with State law and this investment policy. The Administrative Services Director / City Treasurer has designated the City Manager as Deputy City Treasurer for the purpose of carrying out investment transactions, at such times as the Administrative Services Director / City Treasurer is unavailable.
The City shall strive to maintain the level of investment of all idle funds as near 100 percent as possible through daily and projected cash flow determinations. The City’s cash management system should monitor and forecast revenues and expenditures, thus insuring the investment of monies to the fullest extent possible. The Administrative Services Director will be responsible for all transactions undertaken and will establish a system of procedures and controls to regulate the activities of subordinate employees.
Such procedures will include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and procedures determined by the Administrative Services Director to be consistent with this policy.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 3 The City Council may authorize engaging the services of one or more external investment advisers, who are registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to assist in the management of the City’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City’s objectives. The selection process will follow standard City and industry practices for selecting a qualified firm to provide investment advisory services. The contract for such services must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Under the review by the Administrative Services Director external investment advisers are granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this investment policy. On February 15, 2015 the City Council authorized an agreement with Chandler Asset Management which serves as the external investment manager pursuant to this policy. The contract was fully executed in May 2015 and the initial investment services focused on GO Bond proceeds. The Orinda Reserve portfolio management services began in February 2016.
The City's overall investment program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. The City intends to hold its investments to maturity in order to maximize its return on its investments and minimize its exposure to potential losses resulting from temporary declines in the market values of its investments. However, if a decline in the market value of a security is deemed by the Administrative Services Director in consultation with the external Investment Manager, to be permanent, the security may be sold early to minimize the loss of principal.
Although there may be opportunities to resell securities, this type of regular trading is not recommended.
V. PRUDENCE
Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 53600.3, all persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the City are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the Prudent Investor Standard:
“…all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the Agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the Agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.” F.4.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 4 VI. ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Employees and officials involved in the investment process shall at all times comply with each of the following:
- Recognize that the process is subject to public review - Act as a custodian of the public trust
- Recognize that their professional duties, loyalties, and responsibility are solely to the City
- Submit to the City statements of economic interest under the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.)
- Not engage in any activity or have any interest that would result in a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict interest under the Political Reform Act, the common law, or Government Code section 1090 et seq.
- Not engage in any activity or have any interest that could interfere with unbiased involvement in the investment process (e.g., by impairing their ability to make impartial investment decisions).
VII. INTERNAL CONTROLS
The Administrative Services Director is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the entity are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management.
Periodically, as deemed appropriate by the City and/or the City Council, an independent analysis by an external auditor may be conducted to review internal controls, account activity and compliance with policies and procedures.
VIII. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, DEPOSITORIES, AND BROKER/DEALERS
EXTERNAL INVESTMENT ADVISERS
Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by the City will be at the sole discretion of the adviser. Where possible, transactions with broker/dealers shall be selected on a competitive basis and their bid or offering prices shall be recorded and presented as part of the information on the Trade Ticket. If there is no other readily available competitive offering, the investment adviser shall make their best efforts to document quotations for comparable or alternative securities. When purchasing original issue instrumentality securities, no competitive offerings will be required as all dealers in the selling group offer those securities as the same original issue price.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 5 Process If City Does Not Engage Professional External Investment Advisor If the City Administrative Services Director is directly completing investment transactions without an external investment adviser, to the extent practical, the Administrative Services Director shall endeavor to complete investment transactions using a competitive bid process whenever possible. The City’s Administrative Services Director will determine which financial institutions are authorized to provide investment services to the City. It shall be the City’s policy to purchase securities only from authorized institutions and firms.
The Administrative Services Director shall maintain procedures for the establishing a list of authorized broker/dealers and financial institutions which are approved for investment purposes that are selected through a process of due diligence determined by the City.
These institutions may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15c3-1 (uniform net capital rule).
Institutions eligible to transact investment business with the City include:
• Primary government dealers as designated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and non-primary government dealers.
• Nationally or state-chartered banks.
• The Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
• Direct issuers of securities eligible for purchase.
All financial institutions which desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions (and which are not dealing only with the investment adviser) must supply the Administrative Services Director with a statement certifying that the institution has reviewed the California Government Code, Section 53600 et seq. and the City’s investment policy.
Public deposits will be made only in qualified public depositories as established by State law. Deposits will be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or, to the extent the amount exceeds the insured maximum, will be collateralized in accordance with State law.
IX. INVESTMENT POOLS
Participation in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) managed by the State Treasurer shall be an authorized investment under this policy. Participation in any other pool shall require approval of the City Council upon investigation of the investment pool legal structure, objectives, and suitability as a component of the City portfolio.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 6 X. COLLATERALIZATION
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT (CDS). The City shall limit the value of investments in CD’s held by a single institution to the maximum insured value by the FDIC COLLATERALIZATION OF DEPOSITS. Process by which a bank or financial institution pledges securities, or other deposits for the purpose of securing the repayment of deposited funds. The type and value of eligible securities is as defined by California Government Code, Section 53651.
XI. DELIVERY, SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
DELIVERY-VERSUS-PAYMENT (DVP). Settlement of all investment transactions will be completed using standard delivery-vs.-payment procedures.
SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY. To protect against potential losses due to failure of individual securities dealers, and to enhance access to securities, interest payments and maturity proceeds, all cash and securities in the City’s portfolio shall be held in safekeeping in the City’s name by a third party custodian, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City. All investment transactions will require a safekeeping receipt or acknowledgment generated from the trade. The custodian shall provide a monthly report to the City listing all securities held in safekeeping with current market data and other information. The Administrative Services Director shall implement procedures to review and reconcile the custodian statements on a regular basis.
The only exceptions to the foregoing shall be depository accounts and securities purchases made with: (i) local government investment pools; (ii) time certificates of deposit, and, (iii) money mutual funds, since the purchased securities are not deliverable.
XII. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
The City’s investments are governed by California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. The City intends for the investments permitted by this policy to be more restrictive than what is authorized in the Government Code. In the event a discrepancy is found between this policy and the Code, the more restrictive parameters will take precedence.
Percentage holding limits and credit rating minimums listed in this section apply at the time the security is purchased.
Any investment held at the time the policy is adopted which does not meet the new policy guidelines can be held until maturity, provided it is disclosed as an exception at each reporting period. At the time of the investment’s maturity or liquidation, such funds shall be reinvested only as provided in the current policy.
An appropriate risk level shall be maintained by primarily purchasing securities that are of high quality, liquid, and marketable. The portfolio shall be diversified by security type F.4.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 7 and institution to avoid incurring unreasonable and avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institutions.
1. MUNICIPAL SECURITIES include obligations of the City, the State of California, and any local agency within the State of California, provided that the following criteria is met:
• The securities are rated in the “A” category or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”.)
• No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any issuer. • No more than 30% of the portfolio be in Municipal Securities. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
2. MUNICIPAL SECURITIES (REGISTERED TREASURY NOTES OR BONDS) of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California.
• The securities are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
• No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. • No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
3. U.S. TREASURIES and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in U.S.
Treasuries, provided that the following criteria is met:
• The maximum maturity is five years.
4. FEDERAL AGENCIES or United States Government-Sponsored Enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in Federal Agency or Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), provided that the following criteria is met:
• No more than 25% of the portfolio may be invested in any Agency/GSE issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
• The maximum percentage of callable agency securities in the portfolio is 20%.
5. BANKERS’ ACCEPTANCES, provided that the following criteria is met:
• They are issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations rated “A1” or higher by at least one NRSRO; or long-term debt obligations which are rated in the “A” category or higher by at least one NRSRO.
• No more than 40% of the portfolio may be invested in Bankers’ Acceptances. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed 180 days.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 8 6. FEDERALLY INSURED TIME DEPOSITS (Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit) in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions, provided that the following criteria is met:
• The amount per institution is limited to the maximum covered under Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration. • No more than 20% of the portfolio will be invested in a combination of federally insured and collateralized time deposits.
• The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
7. COLLATERALIZED TIME DEPOSITS (Non-Negotiable Certificates of Deposit) in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions in excess of insured amounts which are fully collateralized with securities in accordance with California law, provided that the following criteria is met:
• No more than 20% of the portfolio will be invested in a combination of federally insured and collateralized time deposits.
• The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
8. PLACEMENT SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT , provided that the following criteria is met and as allowed under California Government Code section 53601.8:
• No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in a combination of Certificates of Deposit, including those transactions using a placement service. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
9. NEGOTIABLE CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT (NCDS), provided that the following criteria is met:
• The amount of the NCD insured up to the FDIC limit does not require any credit ratings.
• For any amount above the FDIC insured limit they must be issued by institutions which have short-term debt obligations are rated “A-1” or higher by at least one NRSRO; or long-term obligations are rated in the “A” category or higher by at least one NRSRO.
• No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in NCDs. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
10.COLLATERALIZED DEPOSITS. The City’s deposits with financial institutions will be collateralized with pledged securities per California Government Code, Section 53651 and a maximum maturity not exceeding five years.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 9 11.COMMERCIAL PAPER, provided that the following criteria is met:
• The issuer is a corporation organized and operating in the United States with assets in excess of $500 million.
• The securities are rated “A-1” or higher by at least one NRSRO. • They are issued by corporations which have long-term obligations rated in the “A” category or its equivalent or higher, if the issuer has long-term ratings, by at least one NRSRO.
• No more than 25% of the portfolio may be invested in Commercial Paper. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed 270 days.
12.STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF), provided that the following criteria is met:
• The City may invest subject to the maximum permitted balance established by LAIF.
13.LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS
• Other LGIPs are permitted provided that the City Council takes a separate action to authorize the LGIP and it is added to this policy.
14.CORPORATE MEDIUM TERM NOTES (MTNS), provided that the following criteria is met:
• The issuer is a corporation organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States.
• The securities are rated in the “A” category or its equivalent or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. • No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in MTNs. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any one issuer. • The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
15.ASSET-BACKED, MORTGAGE-BACKED, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH SECURITIES, AND COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS, provided that the following criteria is met:
• The securities are rated in the “AA” category or the equivalent or higher by a NRSRO.
• No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. • No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any Asset-Backed or Commercial Mortgage security issuer. There is no issuer limitation on any Mortgage security where the issuer is the US Treasury or a Federal Agency/GSE. • The maximum maturity does not exceed 5 years.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 10 16. MUTUAL FUNDS AND MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, provided that the following criteria is met:
a. No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. b. MUTUAL FUNDS that invest in the securities and obligations as authorized under California Government Code, Section 53601 (a) to (k) and (m) to (q) inclusive and that meet either of the following criteria:
1. Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two (2) NRSROs; or
2. Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience investing in the securities and obligations authorized by California Government Code, Section 53601 and with assets under management in excess of $500 million.
3. No more than 10% of the total portfolio may be invested in shares of any one mutual fund.
c. MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1 et seq.) The company shall meet either of the following criteria:
1. Have attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two (2) NRSROs; or
2. Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of $500 million.
3. No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in Money Market Mutual Funds.
17.SUPRANATIONALS, provided that the following criteria is met:
• The issue purchased shall be U.S. dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank.
• Issues are "eligible for purchase and sale within the United States.” • The securities are rated in the “AA” category or higher by a NRSRO. • No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. • No more than 10% of the portfolio per issuer
• The maximum maturity does not exceed five years.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 11 XIII. MAXIMUM MATURITY
To the extent possible, the overall portfolio and investments shall take into consideration anticipated cash flow requirements and known future liabilities.
The City will not invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of trade settlement, unless the City Council has by resolution granted authority to make such an investment at least three months prior to that investment.
XIV. PROHIBITED INVESTMENT VEHICLES AND PRACTICES
• State law notwithstanding, any investments not specifically described herein are prohibited, including, but not limited to futures and options. • In accordance with Government Code, Section 53601.6, investment in inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage derived interest-only strips is prohibited. • Investment in any security that could result in a zero interest accrual if held to maturity is prohibited.
• Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited.
• Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited. • The use of repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited. • The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited.
XV. RISK MANAGEMENT AND DIVERSIFICATION
MITIGATING CREDIT RISK IN THE PORTFOLIO
Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all of its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The City will mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies:
• The diversification requirements included in the “Authorized Investments” section of this policy are designed to mitigate credit risk in the portfolio. • No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be invested in securities of any single issuer per each category in Section XII of this policy, except where the issuer is the U.S. Government, its Agencies and GSEs, or Supranationals, or where the security is Money Market Mutual Funds or Local Government Investment Pools, or where otherwise specified in this investment policy.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 12 • The City may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to improve the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or the City’s risk preferences.
• If securities owned by the City are downgraded by a NRSRO to a level below the quality required by this investment policy, it will be the City’s policy to review the credit situation and make a determination as to whether to sell or retain such securities in the portfolio.
• If a security is downgraded, the Administrative Services Director/ City Treasurer will use discretion in determining whether to sell or hold the security based on its current maturity, the economic outlook for the issuer, and other relevant factors.
Downgraded securities will be reported to the City Council in the quarterly investment report.
• If a decision is made to retain a downgraded security in the portfolio, its presence in the portfolio will be monitored and reported monthly to the City Council.
MITIGATING INTEREST RATE RISK IN THE PORTFOLIO
Market risk includes the risk that the portfolio value will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. The City recognizes that, over time, longer-term portfolios have the potential to achieve higher returns. On the other hand, longer-term portfolios have higher volatility of return. The City will mitigate market risk by providing adequate liquidity for short-term cash needs, and by making longer-term investments only with funds that are not needed for current cash flow purposes.
The City further recognizes that certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal pay downs prior to maturity, and securities with embedded options, will affect the market risk profile of the portfolio differently in different interest rate environments. The City, therefore, adopts the following strategies to control and mitigate its exposure to market risk:
• The City will maintain a minimum of six months of budgeted operating expenditures in short term investments to provide sufficient liquidity for expected disbursements. • The maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five years, except as otherwise stated in this policy.
• The duration of the portfolio will strive at all times be approximately equal to the duration (typically, plus or minus 20%) of a market benchmark, an index selected by the City based on the City’s investment objectives, constraints and risk tolerances.
XVI. REVIEW OF INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
The Administrative Services Director shall periodically, but no less than quarterly, review the portfolio to identify investments that do not comply with this investment policy and establish protocols for reporting major and critical incidences of noncompliance to the City Council. The compliance status shall be reported as part of the quarterly reporting.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 13 XVII. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a rate of return consistent with the overriding objectives of the program to preserve principal and provide sufficient liquidity.
The investment portfolio shall take into account the City’s risk constraints, the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio, and state and local laws, ordinances or resolutions that restrict investments.
The Administrative Services Director shall monitor and evaluate the portfolio’s performance relative to market benchmark, which will be included in the Administrative Services Director’s quarterly report. The Administrative Services Director in consultation with the external investment adviser, shall select an appropriate readily available index to use as a market benchmark.
XVIII. REPORTING
QUARTERLY REPORTS
Quarterly investment reports will be submitted by the Administrative Services Director to the City Council. These reports will disclose, at a minimum, the following information about the characteristics of the City’s portfolio in order to comply with GC 53646 (b):
1. These reports shall include the type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount invested on all securities, investments and moneys held by the City, and shall additionally include a description of any of the City’s funds, investments, or programs, that are under the management of contracted parties, including lending programs. With respect to all securities held by the City, and under management of any outside party that is not also a local public agency or the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund, the report shall also include a current market value as of the date of the report, and shall include the source of this same valuation.
2. Monthly transactions for the period in accordance with California Government Code Section 53607.
3. A statement of compliance with investment policy, including a schedule of any transactions or holdings which do not comply with this policy or with the California Government Code, including a justification for their presence in the portfolio and a timetable for resolution. Although this policy measures compliance at the time of purchase, any transactions or holdings that were in compliance at the time of purchase, and no longer comply shall also be disclosed and reviewed by the Treasurer.
4. A statement regarding whether the portfolio will allow the City to have adequate funds to meet its cash flow requirements for the next six months.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 14 XIX. REVIEW OF INVESTMENT POLICY
The investment policy will be reviewed at least annually by the Finance Advisory Committee, which shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding any recommended changes to address consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity and return, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends.
The results of the review including any recommended modifications, amendments, and delegation of authority as described in Section IV, shall be presented by the Administrative Services Director / City Treasurer to the City Council for their consideration and adoption at a public meeting. For consistency it is recommended that the review be timed to occur no later than June 30th at the same time as the Annual Appropriations Limit Adoption.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 15 GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS
Glossary of Investment Terms
AGENCIES. Shorthand market terminology for any obligation issued by a government-sponsored entity (GSE), or a federally related institution. Most obligations of GSEs are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Examples are:
FFCB. The Federal Farm Credit Bank System provides credit and liquidity in the agricultural industry. FFCB issues discount notes and bonds.
FHLB. The Federal Home Loan Bank provides credit and liquidity in the housing market.
FHLB issues discount notes and bonds.
FHLMC. Like FHLB, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLMC, also called “Freddie Mac” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.
FNMA. Like FHLB and Freddie Mac, the Federal National Mortgage Association was established to provide credit and liquidity in the housing market. FNMA, also known as “Fannie Mae,” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.
GNMA. The Government National Mortgage Association, known as “Ginnie Mae,” issues mortgage pass-through securities, which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.
PEFCO. The Private Export Funding Corporation assists exporters. Obligations of PEFCO are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government.
TVA. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides flood control and power and promotes development in portions of the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi River valleys. TVA currently issues discount notes and bonds.
ASKED. The price at which a seller offers to sell a security.
ASSET BACKED SECURITIES. Securities supported by pools of installment loans or leases or by pools of revolving lines of credit.
AVERAGE LIFE. In mortgage-related investments, including CMOs, the average time to expected receipt of principal payments, weighted by the amount of principal expected.
BANKERS’ ACCEPTANCE. A money market instrument created to facilitate international trade transactions. It is highly liquid and safe because the risk of the trade transaction is transferred to the bank which “accepts” the obligation to pay the investor.
BENCHMARK. A comparison security or portfolio. A performance benchmark is a partial market index, which reflects the mix of securities allowed under a specific investment policy.
BID. The price at which a buyer offers to buy a security.
BROKER. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a transaction for which the broker receives a commission. A broker does not sell securities from his own position.
CALLABLE. A callable security gives the issuer the option to call it from the investor prior to its maturity. The main cause of a call is a decline in interest rates. If interest rates decline since an issuer issues securities, it will likely call its current securities and reissue them at a lower rate of interest. Callable securities have reinvestment risk as the investor may receive its principal back when interest rates are lower than when the investment was initially made.
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate.
Large denomination CDs may be marketable.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 16 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT REGISTRY SYSTEM (CDARS). A private placement service that allows local agencies to purchase more than $250,000 in CDs from a single financial institution (must be a participating institution of CDARS) while still maintaining FDIC insurance coverage. CDARS is currently the most common entity providing this service.
CDARS facilitates the trading of deposits between the California institution and other participating institutions in amounts that are less than $250,000 each, so that FDIC coverage is maintained. The placement must also conform to California Government Code section 53601.8 which as of June 2018 contains provisions to expire January 1, 2021.
COLLATERAL. Securities or cash pledged by a borrower to secure repayment of a loan or repurchase agreement. Also, securities pledged by a financial institution to secure deposits of public monies.
COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS (CMO). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities.
COMMERCIAL PAPER. The short-term unsecured debt of corporations.
COST YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the purchase cost. Because it does not give effect to premiums and discounts which may have been included in the purchase cost, it is an incomplete measure of return.
COUPON. The rate of return at which interest is paid on a bond.
CREDIT RISK. The risk that principal and/or interest on an investment will not be paid in a timely manner due to changes in the condition of the issuer.
CURRENT YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the current market value.
Since the mathematical calculation relies on the current market value rather than the investor’s cost, current yield is unrelated to the actual return the investor will earn if the security is held to maturity.
DEALER. A dealer acts as a principal in security transactions, selling securities from and buying securities for his own position.
DEBENTURE. A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.
DELIVERY VS. PAYMENT (DVP). A securities industry procedure whereby payment for a security must be made at the time the security is delivered to the purchaser’s agent.
DERIVATIVE. Any security that has principal and/or interest payments which are subject to uncertainty (but not for reasons of default or credit risk) as to timing and/or amount, or any security which represents a component of another security which has been separated from other components (“Stripped” coupons and principal). A derivative is also defined as a financial instrument the value of which is totally or partially derived from the value of another instrument, interest rate, or index.
DISCOUNT. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is below par. Some short-term securities, such as T-bills and bankers’ acceptances, are known as discount securities. They sell at a discount from par, and return the par value to the investor at maturity without additional interest. Other securities, which have fixed coupons, trade at a discount when the coupon rate is lower than the current market rate for securities of that maturity and/or quality.
DIVERSIFICATION. Dividing investment funds among a variety of investments to avoid excessive exposure to any one source of risk.
DURATION. The weighted average time to maturity of a bond where the weights are the present values of the future cash flows. Duration measures the price sensitivity of a bond to changes in interest rates. (See modified duration).
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 17 FEDERAL FUNDS RATE. The rate of interest charged by banks for short-term loans to other banks. The Federal Reserve Bank through open-market operations establishes it.
FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE. A committee of the Federal Reserve Board that establishes monetary policy and executes it through temporary and permanent changes to the supply of bank reserves.
LEVERAGE. Borrowing funds in order to invest in securities that have the potential to pay earnings at a rate higher than the cost of borrowing.
LIQUIDITY. The speed and ease with which an asset can be converted to cash.
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF). A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non-profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer’s Office.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL. Investment pools that range from the State Treasurer’s Office Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) to county pools, to Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs). These funds are not subject to the same SEC rules applicable to money market mutual funds.
MAKE WHOLE CALL. A type of call provision on a bond that allows the issuer to pay off the remaining debt early. Unlike a call option, with a make whole call provision, the issuer makes a lump sum payment that equals the net present value (NPV) of future coupon payments that will not be paid because of the call. With this type of call, an investor is compensated, or "made whole."
MARGIN. The difference between the market value of a security and the loan a broker makes using that security as collateral.
MARKET RISK. The risk that the value of securities will fluctuate with changes in overall market conditions or interest rates.
MARKET VALUE. The price at which a security can be traded.
MARKING TO MARKET. The process of posting current market values for securities in a portfolio.
MATURITY. The final date upon which the principal of a security becomes due and payable.
MEDIUM TERM NOTES. Unsecured, investment-grade senior debt securities of major corporations which are sold in relatively small amounts on either a continuous or an intermittent basis. MTNs are highly flexible debt instruments that can be structured to respond to market opportunities or to investor preferences.
MODIFIED DURATION. The percent change in price for a 100 basis point change in yields.
Modified duration is the best single measure of a portfolio’s or security’s exposure to market risk.
MONEY MARKET. The market in which short-term debt instruments (T-bills, discount notes, commercial paper, and bankers’ acceptances) are issued and traded.
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH SECURITIES. A securitized participation in the interest and principal cash flows from a specified pool of mortgages. Principal and interest payments made on the mortgages are passed through to the holder of the security.
MUNICIPAL SECURITIES. Securities issued by state and local agencies to finance capital and operating expenses.
MUTUAL FUND. An entity which pools the funds of investors and invests those funds in a set of securities which is specifically defined in the fund’s prospectus. Mutual funds can be invested in various types of domestic and/or international stocks, bonds, and money market instruments, as set forth in the individual fund’s prospectus. For most large, institutional investors, the costs associated with investing in mutual funds are higher than the investor can obtain through an individually managed portfolio.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 18 NEGOTIABLE CD. A short-term debt instrument that pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market.
NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL RATING ORGANIZATION (NRSRO.) A credit rating agency that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses for regulatory purposes. Credit rating agencies provide assessments of an investment’s risk. The issuers of investments, especially debt securities, pay credit rating agencies to provide them with ratings. The three most prominent NRSROs are Moody’s, S&P and Fitch Ratings.
PREMIUM. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is above par.
PREPAYMENT SPEED. A measure of how quickly principal is repaid to investors in mortgage securities.
PREPAYMENT WINDOW. The time period over which principal repayments will be received on mortgage securities at a specified prepayment speed.
PRIMARY DEALER. A financial institution (1) that is a trading counterparty with the Federal Reserve in its execution of market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy, and (2) that participates for statistical reporting purposes in compiling data on activity in the U.S.
Government securities market.
PRUDENT PERSON (PRUDENT INVESTOR) RULE. A standard of responsibility which applies to fiduciaries. In California, the rule is stated as “Investments shall be managed with the care, skill, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent person, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters, would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims to accomplish similar purposes.”
REALIZED YIELD. The change in value of the portfolio due to interest received and interest earned and realized gains and losses. It does not give effect to changes in market value on securities, which have not been sold from the portfolio.
REGIONAL DEALER. A financial intermediary that buys and sells securities for the benefit of its customers without maintaining substantial inventories of securities and that is not a primary dealer.
REPURCHASE AGREEMENT. Short-term purchases of securities with a simultaneous agreement to sell the securities back at a higher price. From the seller’s point of view, the same transaction is a reverse repurchase agreement.
SAFEKEEPING. A service to bank customers whereby securities are held by the bank in the customer’s name.
STRUCTURED NOTE. A complex, fixed income instrument, which pays interest, based on a formula tied to other interest rates, commodities or indices. Examples include inverse floating rate notes which have coupons that increase when other interest rates are falling, and which fall when other interest rates are rising, and "dual index floaters," which pay interest based on the relationship between two other interest rates - for example, the yield on the ten-year Treasury note minus the Libor rate. Issuers of such notes lock in a reduced cost of borrowing by purchasing interest rate swap agreements.
SUPRANATIONAL. A Supranational is a multi-national organization whereby member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in the decision making to promote economic development in the member countries.
TOTAL RATE OF RETURN. A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains, and losses in the portfolio.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) 19 U.S. TREASURY OBLIGATIONS. Securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasuries are considered to have no credit risk, and are the benchmark for interest rates on all other securities in the US and overseas.
The Treasury issues both discounted securities and fixed coupon notes and bonds.
TREASURY BILLS. All securities issued with initial maturities of one year or less are issued as discounted instruments, and are called Treasury bills. The Treasury currently issues three- and six-month T-bills at regular weekly auctions. It also issues “cash management” bills as needed to smooth out cash flows.
TREASURY NOTES. All securities issued with initial maturities of two to ten years are called Treasury notes, and pay interest semi-annually.
TREASURY BONDS. All securities issued with initial maturities greater than ten years are called Treasury bonds. Like Treasury notes, they pay interest semi-annually.
VOLATILITY. The rate at which security prices change with changes in general economic conditions or the general level of interest rates.
YIELD TO MATURITY. The annualized internal rate of return on an investment which equates the expected cash flows from the investment to its cost.
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Resolution 42-22 Adoption of Investment Policy (2883 : Annual Investment Policy Review And Authorize City Treasurer 2022) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.5
Date: August 16, 2022
Department: Finance
AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of Resolution No. 38-22 Establishing the Property Tax Rates for the General Obligation Bond Series 2014 and Series 2016 for Fiscal Year 2022- 2023
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 38-22 establishing the property tax rates for bonded indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2022-2023; and, direct staff to provide the information to the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller for preparing of the tax levy.
BACKGROUND:
The voters in Orinda have authorized two City Measures by a two-thirds vote to increase taxes in order to repair streets and storm drains. General Obligation Bonds were issued to finance these public improvements. Annually the City must establish the tax rate necessary to generate sufficient property tax revenue required to repay the bonds.
On June 3, 2014, voters in the City authorized the issuance of $20 million in General Obligation Bonds for Road and Storm Drain Repair Projects. The bonds were issued in two separate transactions of $10 million each. The first issuance occurred in March 2015, (“2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series A”) and the second issuance of $10 million was completed in April 2017 (“2014 General Obligation Bonds, Series B”).
On June 7, 2016, voters in the City authorized issuance of $25 million in General Obligation Bonds for Road and Storm Drain Projects. In April 2017, the City issued the entire $25 million authorized (“2016 General Obligation Bonds, Series A”).
General Obligation Bonds are payable from a dedicated ad valorem tax on property within the City. The property tax levy is set once a year, typically in July or early August.
The taxes placed on the roll generate revenues in December and April. By requesting that the County place the tax on the roll for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the City can ensure that tax revenues are available to make debt service payments on the General Obligation Bonds that are due in March 2023 and September of 2023.
The ad valorem tax is calculated annually based on preliminary assessed property values (AV) as adjusted for exemptions and delinquencies. This is then compared to the debt service schedule for each of the three different bond issues to develop a tax rate that will collect the necessary funding. The amount required is also adjusted to the extent there is any estimated excess cash on hand from prior year taxes that can be applied towards the debt service. The format of the calculation used in Orinda was F.5
Packet Pg. 76
developed in prior years in consultation with representatives of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company (Stifel), who served as the underwriters for all of these bond issues.
The annual tax rate will fluctuate throughout the bond repayment period. Factors that impact the tax rate include: a) increases or decreases in the scheduled debt service; b) increases or decreases in the assessed valuations; and c) estimated excess cash on hand that can be applied towards debt service.
DISCUSSION:
Resolution No. 38-22 has been prepared to request that Contra Costa County levy a tax on property within the City necessary to provide the funding required for the outstanding General Obligation Bonds (Attachment A). The format used by the County is to present the calculation based on a rate per $100 of Assessed Valuation. For information purposes, Staff have also provided the rate per $100,000 assessed value in the table below as well as a comparison to the 2021-2022 Tax Levy. Details of the calculation are included in Attachment B.
2022-2023 Ad Valorem Tax Rates For Orinda General Obligation Bonds With A Comparison To Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Rate
Bond Authorization
2022/2023
Tax Levy Rate
Per $100
Assessed Value
2022/2023
Info Only
Rate Per
$100,000
Assessed Value
Prior Year 21-22
Info Only
Rate Per
$100,000
Assessed Value
2014 General Obligation Bonds
- $20 Million (Series A Issued March
2015 and Series B Issued April 2017)
$ 0.0127 $12.70 $14.00
2016 General Obligation Bonds
- $25 Million (Series A Issued April
2017)
$ 0.0184 $18.40 $19.00
TOTAL GO BOND TAX LEVY $ 0.0311 $31.10 $33.00
The combined rate for the upcoming year is slightly lower than the rate levied last year due to an increase of 8.63% for the taxable secured assessed valuation from $8,188,099,837 to $8,895,047,843.
As part of the bond financing process, estimates were prepared by Stifel to project the highest tax rate required to service the debt. The amount levied in 2022-2023 remains below the estimates presented in the Tax Rate Statement financing documents. The “Highest Estimated Tax Rate” for the 2014 authorization was $20.00 compared to the proposed $12.70. The “Highest Estimated Tax Rate” for the 2016 authorization was $21.47 compared to the proposed $18.40.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will transmit the request for the tax levy to Contra Costa County officials for inclusion on the 2022-2023 Property Tax bills that are distributed to property owners after September 1, 2022.
F.5
Packet Pg. 77
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Resolution will ensure property tax revenues are available as approved by the voters of Orinda to make payments on the City’s General Obligation Bonds as they come due. The rates are estimated to result in taxes totaling $2,737,063.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 38-22 Requesting Tax Levy General Obligation Bonds FY 2022-2023 B. FY 2022-2023 GO Bond Calculation Details
Respectfully Submitted by:
Doug Alessio
Administrative Services Director
Prepared By: Nancy Zhang,
Approved by:
F.5
Packet Pg. 78
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:
Resolution of the City of Orinda, California ) Resolution No. 38-22 Establishing the Property Tax Rates for Bonded )
Indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 )
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orinda, located in the County of Contra Costa, California, is obligated to direct Contra Costa County to collect such ad valorem taxes in such amounts and at such times as is necessary to ensure the timely payment of debt service on voter approved Bonds issued by the City; and WHEREAS, the total taxable secured assessed valuation of the City of Orinda as reported by the Contra Costa County Assessor is $8,895,047,843; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA that the property tax rate within the City for the City of Orinda General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series A and Series B, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023 is hereby established at a combined rate of $0.0127 per $100 assessed value; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA that the property tax rate within the City for the City of Orinda General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023 is hereby established at $0.0184 per $100 assessed value.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and Administrative Service Director are each hereby authorized and directed to prepare and provide the debt service schedule to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, and to the officers of the County responsible for preparing and implementing the collection of the tax levy for bonds of the City.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on August 16, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Resolution 38-22 Requesting Tax Levy General Obligation Bonds FY 2022-2023 (2870 : Tax Rate General Obligation Bonds FY Row 1. Calculate 2022-23 Net Taxable Assess Valuations
1 2022-23 taxable secured assessed valuation of the City (est): 8,895,047,843.00 $ Delinquency Factor
2 Less: delinquency factor shown at right (includes exemptions) 1.00% $ (88,950,478.43) 3 Equals: 2022-23 net taxable secured assessed valuation of the City: 8,806,097,364.57 $ 4 2022-23 taxable unsecured assessed valuation of the City (est): 39,654,860.00 $ 5 Less: delinquency factor shown at right (includes exemptions) Delinquency Factor (793,097.20) $
2.00%
6 Equals: 2022-23 net taxable unsecured assessed valuation of the City: 38,861,762.80 $
2. Calculate 2022-23 Net Requirement for Secured Property 7 2021-22 secured tax rate $ 0.0140
8 2022-23 revenue from unsecured taxable property based on 2021-22 secured tax rate 5,440.65 $ 9 2022-23 semi-annual net debt service requirements:
Series A March 1, 2023 104,131.25 $
Series B March 1, 2023 171,512.50 $
Series A September 1, 2023 434,131.25 $
Series B September 1, 2023 496,512.50 $
10 Total 2022-23 annual debt service requirement (net of premium): 1,206,287.50 $ 11 $ 1,200,846.85
12 Adjustment For Estimated Excess Cash Balance Applied Toward Debt Service 80,000.00 $
3. Calculate 2022-23 Secured Tax Rate per $100 of Secured Assessed Value 13 Net 2022-23 debt service requirement for secured property $ 1,120,846.85 14 Calculated 2022-23 secured tax rate per $100 of secured assessed value $ 0.0127 Rate Per $100,000 Asessed Value 12.70 $
Net requirement for secured taxable property after considering revenues from unsecured property City of Orinda
General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series A and Series B Tax Rate Calculation Details For Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Prepared 8/1/2022
F.5.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 GO Bond Calculation Details (2870 : Tax Rate General Obligation Bonds FY 2022-2023) Row 1. Calculate 2022-23 Net Taxable Assess Valuations
1 2022-23 taxable secured assessed valuation of the City ( Preliminary est): 8,895,047,843.00 $ Delinquency Factor
2 Less: delinquency factor shown at right (includes exemptions) 1.00% $ (88,950,478.43) 3 Equals: 2022-23 net taxable secured assessed valuation of the City: 8,806,097,364.57 $ 4 2022-23 taxable unsecured assessed valuation of the City (est): 39,654,860.00 $ 5 Less: delinquency factor shown at right (includes exemptions) Delinquency Factor (793,097.20) $
2.00%
6 Equals: 2022-23 net taxable unsecured assessed valuation of the City: 38,861,762.80 $
2. Calculate 2022-23 Net Requirement for Secured Property 7 2021-22 secured tax rate $ 0.0190
8 2022-23 revenue from unsecured taxable property based on 2021-22 secured tax rate 7,383.73 $ 9 2022-23 semi-annual net debt service requirements:
March 1, 2023 420,300.00 $
September 1, 2023 1,285,300.00 $
10 2022-23 semi-annual net debt service requirements: 1,705,600.00 $ 11 Net requirement for secured taxable property after considering revenues from unsecured property 1,698,216.27 $ 12 Adjustment For Estimated Excess Cash Balance Applied Toward Debt Service 82,000.00 $
3. Calculate 2022-23 Secured Tax Rate per $100 of Secured Assessed Value 13 Adjusted Net 2022-23 debt service requirement for secured property $ 1,616,216.27 14 Calculated 2022-23 secured tax rate per $100 of secured assessed value $ 0.0184 Rate Per $100,000 Asessed Value 18.40 $
City of Orinda
General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A
Tax Rate Calculation Details For Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Prepared 8/1/2022
F.5.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: FY 2022-2023 GO Bond Calculation Details (2870 : Tax Rate General Obligation Bonds FY 2022-2023) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.6
Date: August 16, 2022
Department:
Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Increase Contingency for Construction Contract with Valentine Corporation for the Lavenida Culvert Repair Project (Project No. 4148), and Appropriate Funding.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve an increase in the contingency for said contract from 15% to 20%, and to appropriate funding of $31,000 from Fund #514, Stormwater Utility Assessment for such purpose.
BACKGROUND:
At its May 3, 2022 meeting, City Council awarded a construction contract to Valentine Corporation for the Lavenida Culvert Repair Project (Project No. 4148). The authorization included the base contract value of $619,369 in addition to a 15% contingency (approximately $93,000). Funding sources are Fund #105 (Orinda Add on Sales Tax, Measure L) and Fund #210 (Drainage Impact Fees). The project is currently approximately 40% complete.
DISCUSSION:
On or around August 8, 2022, during excavation operations it was found that unsatisfactory subgrade conditions exist adjacent to 14 Lavenida Dr. which impact construction of a culvert headwall and a large (36” diameter) redwood tree. To correct this condition, additional work will be required, including subgrade removal and replacement and removal of the tree. The regulatory agencies have been advised of the revision of the tree removal plan. It is estimated that this work will utilize nearly all of the contingency. Since the project is not near completion, in order to provide adequate contingency for the remainder of the work, an increase in the contingency is recommended. In order to continue to make progress on the project, which is subject to a regulatory construction window in the creek, which ends on October 15, staff recommends providing an additional 5% contingency so that if other change orders are warranted, that authorizations are in place. This would amount to $31,000. It is recommended that funds be utilized from Fund #514, Stormwater Utility Assessment, for such purpose.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Upon approval of the additional contingency, the Finance department would appropriate $31,000 from Fund #514 for Project #4148. Such funds would only be used if the current 15% contingency is expended, and a change order is approved by the City.
The updated estimated total Project cost including design, permit acquisition, construction and construction management, including the increased contingency, is F.6
Packet Pg. 82
$970,000. It should be noted that the tree removal may result in additional monitoring requirements by the regulatory agencies, which will consume additional staff time.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Scott Christie, Public Works Director
Approved by:
F.6
Packet Pg. 83
City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.7
Date: August 16, 2022
Department:
Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Approve the Design and Award Construction Contract to E. E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. For the Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project #4152 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve the design of Project #4152; 2) Reject the non-responsive bids from Brannon Corporation and ETIC; 3) Award the contract for construction to third lowest bidder E. E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. of Martinez, California for an amount of $700,378.44; 3) Authorize City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and 4) Authorize the City Manager to administratively approve contract change orders provided that the cumulative amount does not exceed $105,056.56 (approximately 15% contingency)
BACKGROUND:
The existing retaining wall, located on Camino Sobrante, approximately 1,200 feet northwest from the intersection of Orinda Way is in a distressed condition and needs replacement. The wall is approximately 175 feet long, has a maximum face height of about 10 feet and located adjacent to the Orinda Country Club golf course. The wall appears to be constructed primarily of unreinforced stone and mortar, and is of unknown width at its foundation.
A geotechnical investigation was conducted by City selected geotechnical engineering consultant who evaluated the condition of the retaining wall and recommended options to replace the wall. The geotechnical evaluation determined that the distress consists of outward/overturning movement and several full-height vertical cracks in the central section of the wall. The influence of water is accelerating distress by both saturating and weakening the soil supporting the toe of the wall foundation.
Due to the proximity of the wall to the Orinda Country Club Golf course, feedback from the Country Club Staff was taken into consideration during design. A soldier pile wall was selected as the preferred option to replace the existing stone wall.
DISCUSSION:
Approval of Project Design
City Council approval of the attached project plans for the Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project #4152 (Attachment A) is in accordance with design immunity defense requirements listed under California Government Code Section 830.6.
Evaluation of Bids
F.7
Packet Pg. 84
In accordance with the adopted UPCCA (Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting) and municipal code section 2.55, the project was advertised for bids on June 14, 2022.
The Engineer’s Estimate for the work was approximately $650,000. On July 12, 2022, ten bids were received with the following results.
Bidder Total Bid
Brannon Corporation $636,542.00
ETIC $669,136.15
E. E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. $700,378.44
Redgwick Construction $701,831.00
Valentine Corporation $728,368.00
NBC Construction and Engineering, Inc. $797,945.00
Kerex Engineering $798,043.00
Jim Freethy $828,176.65
Bridgeway Civil $831,183.00
California Retaining Walls $848,811.73
Non-Responsive Bidders:
Staff reviewed the bids and determined that the lowest two bidders, Brannon Corporation and ETIC, was non-responsive because both did not meet all the requirements to submit a bid. According to the contract documents, in order to submit a bid, prospective bidders are required to complete and submit the Bidder Experience/Qualifications form. Both bidders did not submit the required form. Brannon Corporation and ETIC were notified of the non-responsive bid determination. There were additional bidders who were also deemed non-responsive, but their bid prices were higher than the three lowest responsive bidders.
The third lowest bidder, E. E. Gilbert Construction, Inc. followed all the requirements to submit a bid and were responsive. Therefore Staff recommends that the City Council determine the bid submitted by Brannon Corporation and ETIC to be non-responsive and award the construction contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, E.
E. Gilbert Construction, Inc.
In addition to the approval of the contract amount of $700,378.44, Staff is recommending that a contingency of approximately 15% be authorized to accommodate potential changes in quantities provided based on the unit values contained in the bid submitted by E. E. Gilbert Construction. The adjusted work could be approved administratively as a contract change order by the City Manager, provided that the cumulative cost of all changes does not exceed $105,056.56. The total combined bid and contingency is $805,435. The contingency will only be expended to the extent that F.7
Packet Pg. 85
demonstrated contract changes are required as a result of changes in quantities and/or field conditions, as warranted by the agreement.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon approval of the award of construction contract, the contract will be delivered to the contractor for their signature and evidence of insurance preparation. Subject to review by the City Attorney, the contract will be signed by the City Clerk and then executed by the City Manager. Project construction is estimated to begin in September 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Construction Cost based on the recommended bid plus contingency exceeds the amount budgeted for the project. It is necessary to appropriate an additional $196,000 and Staff recommends use of the Road and Drainage Stabilization Fund (Fund #704), which has sufficient fund balance available. Attachment B shows the Sources and Uses of Fund projection for Fund #704.
The total project cost as estimated in the CIP including design, construction management, construction and other incidental costs is $998,882, and of this amount the construction agreement including the contingency is $805,435. The project has two sources of funding for construction: 1) $610,000 Orinda Add-On Sales Tax (Fund #105); and 2) $196,000 Road and Drainage Stabilization Fund (Fund #704).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans B. Sources and Uses of Fund projection for Fund #704
C. Updated CIP Page for Project No. 4152
Respectfully Submitted by:
Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Sivakumar Natarajan, City Engineer
Approved by:
F.7
Packet Pg. 86
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
CAMINO SOBRANTE
RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PROJECT LOCATION U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-R-T.dwg (T-1) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:19pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION
LAKE CASCADE
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-R-PC.dwg (PC-1) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:21pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew F.7.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-S-R.dwg (R-1) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:24pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-S-L.dwg (L-1) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:26pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-S-G.dwg (G-1) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:28pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-S-RP.dwg (RP-1) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:30pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-S-RW1-GP.dwg (RW1-GP) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:32pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew OH OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-S-RW1-FP.dwg (RW1-FP) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:34pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-S-RD.dwg (RD-1) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:38pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew F F E E
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining U:\50130196 - On Call Structural Svcs - Ci of Orinda\50130198 Task Order 2 Camino Sobrante\400 Project Design Files\430 Bridges & Structures\Plans\CS-S-RD.dwg (RD-2) Plotted on: 06-13-22 3:38pm Plotted by: lkinnebrew F.7.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: 4152 Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall Replacement Project Plans (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining Capital Improvement Plan
City of Orinda, California
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
'21/'22 '25/'26 thru
704 Road / Drainage Stabilization
Source '21/'22 '22/'23 '23/'24 '24/'25 '25/'26
Beginning Balance 825,526 1,055,526 496,526 496,526 496,526 Revenues and Other Fund Sources
Revenue
5101 Transfer In From General Fund 300,000 0 0 0 0
Total 300,000 0 0 0 0
Total Funds Available 1,125,526 1,055,526 496,526 496,526 496,526 Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 300,000 0 0 0 0
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
PUBLIC WORKS
Canon Dr. Embankment repair 3548 0 (73,000) 0 0 0
Camino Sobrante at Golf Course Slide Stabilization 4152 (70,000) (196,000) 0 0 0 San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair TBD PW1 0 (290,000) 0 0 0 Total (70,000) (559,000) 0 0 0
Total Expenditures and Uses (70,000) (559,000) 0 0 0
Ending Balance 1,055,526 496,526 496,526 496,526 496,526 Change in Fund Balance 230,000 (559,000) 0 0 0
2022-2027 CIP
F.7.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Sources and Uses of Fund projection for Fund #704 (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall) Capital Improvement Plan
City of Orinda, California
Department PUBLIC WORKS
'21/'22 '25/'26 thru
Contact Public Works (925) 253-4231
Description
An existing retaining wall approximately 300 feet north of the 24 Camino Sobrante supports a section of Camino Sobrante roadway. The wall height varies from 2 feet to about 10 feet and is approximately 175 feet long. The unreinforced stone and mortar retaining wall shows severe distress; several full height vertical cracks in the central portion and an outward tilt over a majority of its length.
Status: Design work underway
Project # 4152
Justification
The existing wall continues to move and may eventually fail, creating road instability and potentially impacting golf course operations, which City would possibly be liable for
Useful Life 50
Project Name Camino Sobrante at Golf Course Slide Stabilization Category TRANSPORTATION / DRAI Type ROADS
Total Project Cost: $998,882
Expenditures '21/'22 '22/'23 '23/'24 '24/'25 '25/'26 Total 7125 Design Contracts 70,000 70,000
7127 Construction Costs 806,000 806,000
7126 Construction 90,000 90,000
Management
Total 70,000 896,000 966,000
Funding Sources '21/'22 '22/'23 '23/'24 '24/'25 '25/'26 Total 105 Orinda Add-On Sales Tax 700,000 700,000
(L)
704 Road / Drainage 70,000 196,000 266,000
Stabilization
Total 70,000 896,000 966,000
2022-2027 CIP
F.7.c
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Updated CIP Page for Project No. 4152 (2878 : Award Construction contract Camino Sobrante Retaining Wall) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: G.1
Date: August 16, 2022
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Consider the following items/applications related to the 52-unit affordable, senior-restricted Vista Verde Community Housing Project at 10 Irwin Way: 1.
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project; 2. Proposed General Plan Map Amendment (GPA-2021-001) Amending the General Plan land use designation of a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential: Multifamily”; 3.
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA-2021-001) amending the Zoning Map to designate a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way “Residential Medium Density” and applying the “Senior Housing Overlay District”; and 4. Proposed Planning Entitlements for the subject property at 10 Irwin Way, including: a. Minor Subdivision (MNS-2021- 001) lot split; b. Design Review Permit (DRA-2021-023); c. Elevated Deck Permit (EDP2021-019); d. Tree Removal Permit (TRP-2021-025); and e. Density bonus concessions to private open space requirement, height and story limits.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution 39-22 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project;
2. Adopt Resolution 40-22 amending the General Plan land use designation of a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential:
Multifamily”;
3. Waive the full reading of the text and introduce Ordinance 22-03, amending the Zoning Map to Designate a Portion of the Property at 10 Irwin Way “Residential Medium Density” and applying the “Senior Housing Overlay District”; and
4. Adopt Resolution 41-22 approving a Minor Subdivision, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, Elevated Deck Permit, and Density Bonus Application for a Portion of the Property at 10 Irwin Way (Vista Verde Community Housing Project).
HEARING PROCESS:
Staff recommends the following process in this matter because it involves a combination of legislative and quasi-adjudicative decisions:
1. Item called by presiding officer.
2. Presiding officer reviews order of procedure for public hearing.
3. City Attorney reviews City’s ex parte rules.
4. Council members disclose any ex parte communications and site visits occurring outside the public hearing relating to the subject of the hearing G.1
Packet Pg. 99
5. Staff summarizes issues before the Council.
6. Questions from the Council to Staff.
7. Applicant presents arguments in favor of its position (15 minutes including rebuttal time).
8. Questions from Council to applicant.
9. Statements from persons other than the applicant (3 minutes per speaker).
10. Applicant offers rebuttal and concluding remarks (time remaining from the 15 minutes allotted).
11. Following the public testimony portion of the hearing, the presiding officer shall declare the public hearing closed and the matter is then before the Council.
Each Councilmember shall be given the opportunity to speak to the subject.
If there are a number of speakers on both sides of an agenda item, the presiding officer may limit the number of proponents and opponents who may testify or, alternatively, may limit the total amount of time given to the item.
BACKGROUND:
In July 2021, the Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (Applicant) submitted an application to the City for Conceptual Development Review (CDR) for a proposed 52- unit five-story affordable senior housing project to be located on a portion of 10 Irwin Way. On August 10, 2021 the Planning Commission conducted a study session based on the CDR application. At that meeting, the Commission received a staff report and a presentation by the Applicant, asked Staff and the Applicant questions about the project, took public testimony, and provided feedback regarding the proposal. Three members of the public spoke, including two residents who live on La Plaza north of the project site, and one resident who lives on Watchwood in Orinda Woods, east of the site. The neighbors were generally supportive of affordable housing but expressed concerns about the height of the building, slope stability, and the impact on the Watchwood property owners. Commissioner feedback was generally supportive, with concerns expressed regarding the project’s height, the view of rooftop equipment, and the design of the rear façade facing the Watchwood neighborhood. A range of views were expressed regarding the color palette.
In September of 2021, the Applicant submitted an application for General Plan Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Minor Subdivision, Density Bonus, Design Review, Elevated Deck Permit, and Tree Removal Permit in order to entitle the proposed project. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and was noticed for public review on June 22, 2022.
On July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project. The Planning Commission received fourteen public comment letters before the meeting – ten expressed support for the project as proposed, three expressed concerns about the project as proposed, and one letter from East Bay Municipal Utility District reviewing development standards and water conservation priorities. Three members of the public spoke at the hearing – one expressed unequivocal support and the other two expressed support for senior housing in general but mentioned specific concerns with the project, G.1
Packet Pg. 100
as proposed. Those that spoke in favor of the project at the public hearing expressed support for affordable senior housing in general as well as support for the project as designed in this location. One member of the public expressed dislike of the aesthetics of the project as viewed from residences on Watchwood Drive and one member of the public expressed concerns about pedestrian safety crossing Irwin Way at Orinda Way.
The Planning Commission listened to public comments, discussed and deliberated, and ultimately provided unanimous support for the project. Since the ultimate deciding body for the Density Bonus request, General Plan Map Amendment, and Zoning Map Amendment is the City Council, the Planning Commission reviewed the entire project proposal and unanimously, with a vote of 7-0, recommended approval to the City Council for their ultimate decision on the project and its associated entitlements.
Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 and the draft Meeting Minutes are attached to this report (Attachments E and F).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project involves construction of a new affordable senior housing development on a 1.4 acre site consisting of 51 rental apartments for very low- to moderate-income seniors plus one caretaker’s unit that would not be income-restricted.
The single building would be a five-story, 53-foot tall structure served by 32 parking spaces in a second level garage. There would also be a new off-site pedestrian crosswalk, located south of the Orinda Community Church at the top of Irwin Way, that will provide safe access to residents to walk to Downtown Orinda. The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential:
Multifamily”, Rezoning from “Public, Semipublic, and Utility” to “Residential Medium Density” with a “Senior Housing-Overlay” (SH-O), Minor Subdivision (lot split), Design Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and Elevated Deck Permit. Additionally, an application for Density Bonus requests concessions to the to the private open space requirement, height limit, and story limit for the proposed project.
Of the 52 total units, there will be thirty-two (32) one and twenty (20) two bedroom units ranging from 700 - 958 square feet (gross). The rental units will be affordable to seniors with very low to moderate incomes (30-80% of the Contra Costa County area median income). The project will provide 25% of the units at moderate income (13 total), 59% of the units at low-income (30 total) and 16% of the units at very low-income (8 total), with one (1) unit for the caretaker that is not income-restricted. The average senior resident expected to live in the development is single, in their 70’s, and living on a fixed income.
The building will include amenities such as an on-site Community Room, a community garden, roof deck(s), two offices, Crafts and Computer Room, bike storage, resident parking garage with a security gate at the garage entry, building maintenance shop and landscaped open space areas. The Project Plans are included as Attachment G to this Staff Report. Additionally, the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment H) provides more detail on the building floor area calculations and specific uses for each floor in the building.
DISCUSSION:
G.1
Packet Pg. 101
Staff’s summary review of the project is divided into the sections noted below.
Additional analysis on each topic area can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment H).
Section 1.General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
Section 2.Minor Subdivision
Section 3.Development Review/Zoning Standard compliance (quantitative compliance with development standards)
Section 4.Senior Housing Design Review
Section 5.Tree Removal Permit
Section 6.Elevated Deck Permit
Section 7.Density Bonus
Section 8.Housing Accountability Act
Section 1: General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. The proposed project and associated General Plan Map amendment has been reviewed for conformance with the Orinda General Plan, General Plan Map, and the Zoning Map. The General Plan serves as Orinda’s blueprint for meeting the City’s long-term vision for the future development and is meant to be a living document. The General Plan is updated formally and on an as-needed basis to reflect changes in State law and desired development within the City.
The proposed residential use is not permitted under the existing Public and Semipublic General Plan Map land use designation nor the existing Public, Semipublic, and Utility Zoning District. Therefore, the General Plan Map and Zoning Map classifications must be amended to allow for the development of the project. The proposed change in General Plan and Zoning Map designations for the proposed parcel will be in keeping with the uses and designations of parcels to the south and southwest of the project site, which are more urban in nature. The suburban developments to the north and east are substantially elevated in grade above the project site.
The proposed project and associated General Plan Map Amendment would be consistent with the following policies of the City of Orinda General Plan Land-Use and Circulation Element:
Land-Use and Circulation Element Policy 2.1.1 Land Use: Guiding Policies – Maintain the semi-rural character of Orinda.
Land-Use and Circulation Element Policy 2.1.2.D Land Use: Implementing Policies, Subdivision Approval Process – To attain the best design on the remaining difficult subdivision sites suitable for five or more housing units, the City may require the proposal to be a planned unit development that does not increase the number of units. However, the inclusion of senior units at a greater density may be considered subject to environmental review… The proposed project and associated General Plan Map amendment would be consistent with the policies of the City of Orinda General Plan Housing Element, including, but not limited to, the following adopted 5th Cycle:
G.1
Packet Pg. 102
Housing Element Goal 1: New Housing Production – Encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, which will be assisted through appropriate zoning and development standards. Housing Element Policy 1.1 Housing Diversity - Provide for a diversity of housing types to meet current and future needs of all residents without compromising the semi-rural character of Orinda’s single-family neighborhoods. Housing Element Policy 1.2 Design Quality - Apply high standards of quality and design to all housing development in the city. Where multi-family or mixed-use housing is constructed, it should respect the context of the site and its surroundings and make a positive contribution to the character of Orinda. Housing Element Goal 3: Housing Opportunity Sites - Provide additional housing opportunities and sites to meet the needs of Orinda's low-, very low-, and moderate-income households.
Housing Element Goal 5: Fair Housing/Policy - Encourage the development of housing designated to meet the unique needs of seniors and persons with disabilities.
The proposed project and associated General Plan Map amendment would also be consistent with the following policies of the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (as currently-proposed):
Housing Element Goal 1: New Housing Production – Encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, which will be assisted through appropriate zoning and development standards. Housing Element Policy 1.1: Housing Diversity – Provide for a diversity of housing types to meet current and future needs of all residents without compromising the semi-rural character of Orinda’s neighborhoods. Housing Element Policy 1.2: Infrastructure – Maintain land use policies that allow residential growth consistent with the availability of adequate infrastructure and public services.
Housing Element Policy 1.4: Design Quality – Apply high standards of quality and design to all housing development in the city. Where multifamily or mixed-use housing is constructed, it should respect the context of the site and its surroundings and make a positive contribution to the character of Orinda. Housing Element Goal 6: Energy Conservation – Promote energy conservation and efficiency in existing housing and new development. Housing Element Policy 6.1 – Encourage the use of energy conservation features in residential construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling.
With approval of Resolution 40-22 (Attachment B) and the findings therein, the General Plan land use designation for the project site will be changed and the project will be consistent with the General Plan and Title 17 of the Orinda Municipal Code (OMC).
Exhibit A to the Resolution illustrates the General Plan Map revision.
With approval of Ordinance 22-03 (Attachment D) and the findings therein, the Zoning Map will be amended for the project site and the project will be consistent with the G.1
Packet Pg. 103
General Plan and Title 17 of the OMC. Attachment 1 to the Ordinance illustrates the Zoning Map revision.
Section 2: Minor Subdivision. In accordance with 16.20.120 of the OMC, approval of Tentative Maps requires that the Tentative Map and its improvements are consistent with the applicable General and Specific Plans. With the proposed General Plan Map amendment as described above, this consistency will be in place. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the following:
OMC Title 17 – Quantitative Criteria
As discussed in the Development Review Table, below, the proposed subdivision complies with the quantitative criteria of OMC Title 17.
OMC Title 17 – Discretionary Criteria
As described further in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment H) and Resolution 41-22 (Attachment C), which contains the findings for discretionary approvals including the Senior Housing Overlay design review, Tree Removal Permit, and Elevated Deck Permit, the project meets the discretionary criteria of OMC Title 17.
OMC Title 16 – Subdivisions:
Chapters 16.32, 16.36, 16.40 and 16.48 of the OMC contain provisions regarding street improvements, street lights, sidewalks, and curbs and gutters. Many of the requirements are not applicable to this project as all of the improvements are preexisting. The proposed project would not change the existing streetscape or public right of way, and access in and around the site would remain as is with the addition of one crosswalk near the top of Irwin Way to improve pedestrian access near the site.
Section 66474 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) specifies that the City must deny a Tentative Map if it makes any of several findings related to consistency with City policy documents, lack of suitability of the project to the project site, or design that would be injurious to the environment and/or public health. The Planning Commission did not recommend making any of the findings necessary to deny the Map and instead recommended that the proposed Tentative Map be approved. The findings for approval are described further in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment H) and are detailed in Resolution 41-22 (Attachment C).
Section 3: Development Review/Zoning Standard compliance. Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the quantative critieria for Title 17 of the OMC and finds that it meets the applicable Residential Medium Density Zoning District and Senior Housing Overlay Zoning District development standards. As shown in the table below, all zoning development standards are being met, with the exception of building height, number of floors, and amount of private open space. However, each of these standards are the subject of a requested concession through State Density Bonus Law, discussed further in Section 7 of this staff report. If the subdivision is approved, the subject property will be a legal lot that will have a total lot area of 60,068 square feet in a proposed Residential Multifamily (RM) zoning designation with a Senior Housing Overlay (SH-O).
G.1
Packet Pg. 104
Development Review Table
Criteria/Regulation Proposed Status
Senior Overlay
District (Section
17.4.33)
Code Standard Project
Standard
Private Open
Space
100 sq ft/unit 5,200 sq ft 3,599 sq ft Concession
Requested
Laundry
Facilities
1 washing
machine/15 units
5 washing
machines
52 washing machines
Permitted
Density
38 units/acre or 52.4 units on project
site
52 units
Story Limit
Per OMC 17.4.33.H 5 stories Concession
Requested
Building Height
Limit
Per 17.4.33.I 53’ (to top of roof)
53’ aggregate
Concession
Requested
Building
Setbacks
20 feet from face of curb no less than
10 feet from any property line
42.75 feet and 16.66
feet to closest property
line
Building Plane
Line
Inward at 45 degree angle from
setback line as follows:
27 feet high at street fronting
setbacks
40 feet high at interior setbacks
Plans meet this
requirement
Building
Separation
20 feet minimum unless connected
by 12-foot wide structure
Greater than 45 feet to
nearest structure.
Trash
Enclosures
Not allowed in street fronting setback
Not allowed within 5 feet of interior
property line
Internal to the building
Gathering
Rooms
10 sq ft/unit 520 sq ft Craft Rm 840 sq ft
Lounge 727 sq ft
Total 1,567 sq ft
Pedestrian
access
Direct access to public streets and
parks
Direct access via the
first or second level
Mechanical
Equipment
Screening
Screened from offsite view Mechanical equipment is
internal to the building,
with the exception of the
solar panels.
Verified at
plan check
Parking
Senior Unit:
Manager’s unit:
Guest:
0.5 covered/unit
1 covered/unit
1/10 units
26 min.
1 min.
5 min.
26 1
5
G.1
Packet Pg. 105
Development Review Table
Criteria/Regulation Proposed Status
Total:
Compact: 40% of guest max.
32 2 max.
32 2 (counted in guest
parking above)
Subdivision Standards
General Plan Consistency and Subdivision Map Act Criteria Subject to City
Council
approval of
proposed
General Plan
ammendment.
Minimum lot size 20,000 sq ft Project site: 60,068 sq ft.
Remainder: 152,941 sq ft
Presented with this information, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project.
Section 4: Senior Housing facility design review. Chapter 17.31 of the OMC notes that the purpose of design review is to preserve and enhance the semi-rural character of Orinda, maintain property values, conserve and enhance the visual character of the community and protect the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens. If the General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments are approved, the project would be subject to the design review standards that are applicable specifically to senior housing, multifamily housing, and high density design housing projects, which are identified in Section 17.31.11. These standards are written to ensure that higher density projects are designed to respect the existing neighborhoods and not infringe on them in a substantial fashion. There are six standards identified in the section, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with these standards in mind. The findings for approval of the Senior Housing facility design review are described further in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment H) and are detailed in Resolution 41-22 (Attachment C).
Section 5: Tree Removal Permit. Chapter 17.21 of the OMC governs tree maintenance in Orinda and aims to ensure that the city will continue to realize the benefits provided by its tree resources, while recognizing the rights of individuals to develop property, maintain views and privacy, and protect against fire and other hazards. Developing this project site will involve the removal of trees on site, which were reviewed by a certified arborist. An arborists report was prepared for the project site (Appendix B to Attachment I), and mitigation measures are incorporated into the project approvals to ensure that the remaining trees on site are protected during construction. A Tree Removal Permit for a development site shall be granted or denied based on three guidelines related to the proposed removal and the development project itself. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with these guidelines in mind. The findings for approval of the Tree Removal Permit are described further in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment H) and are detailed in Resolution 41-22 (Attachment C).
G.1
Packet Pg. 106
Section 6: Elevated Deck Permit. Chapter 17.35 of the OMC notes that elevated decks have the potential to impair the views and the privacy of surrounding properties, so they are regulated through the issuance of an Elevated Deck Permit. A permit for the construction of an elevated deck may be issued if findings of fact are made to support the four standards in Section 17.35.3, which consider privacy and noise impacts to adjacent properties. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with these standards in mind. The findings for approval of the Elevated Deck Permit are described further in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment H) and are detailed in Resolution 41-22 (Attachment C).
Section 7: Density Bonus. As described in detail below, the proposed project takes advantage of the “concession” provisions of California density bonus law (Government Code sections 65915-65918). The applicant is not using the density bonus law to increase density because the project would comply with the allowable density if the proposed general plan and zoning designations are approved by the City Council.
As described by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD):
“State law requires jurisdictions to provide density bonuses and development incentives to all developers who propose to construct affordable housing on a sliding scale, where the amount of density bonus and number of incentives vary according to the amount of affordable housing units provided. Specifically, state law requires the provision of total units to be affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. Under state law, a development of more than five units is eligible to receive density bonuses if it meets at least one of the following:
Very Low-Income Units: Five percent of the total units of the housing development as target units affordable to very low-income households; or Low-Income Units: Ten percent of the total units of the housing development as target units affordable to low-income households; or Moderate-Income Units: Ten percent of the total units of a newly constructed condominium project or planned development as target units affordable to moderate-income households, provided all the units are offered for purchase; or
Senior Units: A senior citizen housing development of 35 units or more.
If no density bonus ordinance is adopted by the jurisdiction, a programmatic action must be included to adopt density bonus provisions.” (HCD website) The proposed project qualifies under the density bonus provisions because 51 of the 52 units would be deed restricted for very-low to moderate income seniors. In addition to allowing added density, state law also requires other incentives for qualifying projects:
“Density Bonus Law incentivizes the construction of affordable housing by allowing a developer to add additional housing units to a project beyond the zoned capacity and secure other “incentives” in exchange for a commitment from the developer to include deed-restricted affordable units in the project. When a developer meets the G.1
Packet Pg. 107
requirements of the Density Bonus Law, a local government is obligated to permit increased building density, grant incentives, and waive any conflicting local development standards (e.g., height, parking requirements) unless certain limited exceptions apply.” (HCD website)
State law also requires each California jurisdictions to adopt a local ordinance to “comprehensively address all parts of the law (e.g., eligibility, bonus percentages, etc.) or simply indicate that the Density Bonus Law will be implemented directly from State statute.” Orinda’s density bonus provisions are contained in OMC Section 17.4.31 (Affordable housing incentive program and density bonus). This section also contains language that directs the Planning Commission to “make recommendations to the City Council regarding the proposed density bonus and incentive(s) or concession(s).” Eligibility for Density Bonus and Concessions
The Project is eligible for a density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law based on the percentage of affordable units it will provide (Government Code section 65915 and OMC section 17.4.31). The applicant has not proposed that the Project include any increase in density over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density.
This is allowed under Government Code section 65915(f). The applicant has instead focused on the concessions available to qualifying projects under State Density Bonus Law. The Project qualifies for three incentives or concessions because it includes at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households pursuant to Government Code section 65915(d)(2)(C).
The Applicant is seeking the following density bonus concessions:
1. Increase the maximum number of stories from two and a half (2.5) to five (5);
2. Increase the maximum building height from 27 feet to 53 feet.
3. Reduce the amount of private open space required under the RM/SH-O zoning, from 100 square feet to either 63 or 77 square feet, depending on the unit type.
Concessions related to height and story limits
The RM/SH-O zoning at this location includes a height limit of 27 to 35 feet and a story limit of 2.5 stories. The applicant proposes that part of the building in the lower level of the property will have a height of 53 feet and transition from three to five stories. Thus, the applicant has requested two concessions—one to exceed the height limit and one to exceed the story limit. The applicant has supported its conclusion that the requested concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. Reducing the Project’s height while retaining the same number of units would, according to the applicant, require a larger footprint and would be more expensive than a taller building on a smaller footprint. The builder retained by the applicant described how the larger footprint would require an additional 13,000 square feet of ground floor, and this expansion would add $3,835,000 to the Project budget due to increased grading. Reducing construction costs reduces the overall cost per unit and provides for affordable housing costs or rents. Thus, there is substantial evidence that the requested concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents.
G.1
Packet Pg. 108
Concession related to private open space
The RM/SH-O zoning requires 100 square feet of private open space per unit. The applicant requests a concession to reduce the amount of required private open space to provide just 77 square feet with decks/balconies for the 32 one-bedroom units and just 63 square feet with decks/balconies for the 20 two-bedroom units. The applicant has supported its conclusion that the requested concession results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs. The builder retained by the applicant described how the costs to expand the decks and balconies to meet the City’s standard would result in additional costs in the range of $350,000-$450,000 based on the cost of materials. The applicant’s builder also described that increasing the size of the decks and balconies would result in additional costs due to structural impacts of increasing the size of the cantilever to support the balconies. Thus, there is substantial evidence that the requested concession results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs due to the reduced construction costs.
Findings Required to Deny Concessions
If a concession is justified because it would result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, the decision-making body may deny the concession only if it makes one of the following written findings, supported by substantial evidence:
1. That the concession would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources.
2. That the concession would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
3. That the concession is contrary to State or Federal law.
In accordance with Government Code section 65915(d)(1), Staff has not identified substantial evidence to support the denial of the requested concessions or to support any of the denial findings listed above. Presented with this information, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. The findings for approval of the Density Bonus concessions are detailed in Resolution 41-22 (Attachment C).
Section 8: Housing Accountability Act. Because this Project would not be allowed under current General Plan and zoning designations, it requires amendments to both the General Plan and zoning maps. The City has discretion to deny these changes, which would then preclude the Project. Once the City has approved the changes to the General Plan and zoning, however, its discretion will be significantly limited by the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section 65589.5, which limits the ability of a city to deny or impose certain conditions on a housing development project.
Two sections of the HAA would apply to this project if the City approves the requested amendments to the General Plan and zoning.
Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households G.1
Packet Pg. 109
First, the Project qualifies as a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d), (h) because it includes at least 20 percent of total units as affordable to low-income households. The City could only deny a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or condition its approval in a manner that rendered it infeasible if it were to make specific written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record. Staff’s current understanding is that none of those findings would apply in this situation. As such, it is critical that the City only approve the requested amendments to the General Plan and zoning if it is satisfied with the Project as proposed and confident it will proceed as proposed.
Housing development project
This Project is also a “housing development project” under the HAA because it contains residential units. As discussed above, and conditioned on the City Council’s approval of the changes to the General Plan and zoning, the project is either consistent with the City’s objective standards or has applied for concessions under the State Density Bonus Law.
When a housing development (regardless of its inclusion of affordable units) complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, the HAA allows a city to disapprove the project or impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density only if the city makes specific findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. Staff’s current understanding is that those findings would not apply in this situation. As such, it is critical that the City only approve the requested amendments to the General Plan and zoning if it is satisfied with the Project as proposed and confident it will proceed as proposed.
As discussed elsewhere in this staff report, once the City approves the requested amendments to the General Plan and zoning, certain discretionary standards will apply to the Project, including design review. Under the HAA, however, the City would not be able to apply these standards in a manner that would result in the project being developed at a lower density. For example, when considering the design review findings in OMC Section 17.30.11, the City could not condition the project on reducing the height of the proposed building to meet the following finding “The proposed development is designed to respect the scale and tranquility of nearby properties,” if that condition would reduce the project’s density.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the project and released for public review and comment on June 22, 2022 (Attachment I). A Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND was published with the Contra Costa County Clerk on June 22, 2022. The IS/MND detailed the environmental impacts of the proposed project and it contained technical studies on Geotechnical Feasibility, an Arborist’s Report on tree removal and preservation, a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, and a Local Traffic Analysis. After the IS/MND was published, an Errata was published to correct errors in the IS/MND related to fire district facilities (Attachment J). The errors were nonG.1 Packet Pg. 110
substantive in nature and did not impact any of the technical aspects of the analysis or the conclusions.
The IS/MND concluded that the environmental impacts of the project would be less than significant with adoption of the mitigation measures identified in the document related to air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources. The mitigation measures are identified in the IS/MND and are also summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is included as Attachment A to Resolution 41-22 (Attachment A to this Staff Report).
At the Planning Commission public hearing on July 12, 2022, a member of the public expressed concerns about pedestrian safety at the intersection of Irwin Way and Orinda Way. Specifically, the concern was that pedestrians approaching and in the crosswalk across Irwin Way were not sufficiently visible to vehicles descending the hill on Irwin Way approaching the stop at Orinda Way. As a result of this concern being expressed, the Applicant hired their traffic engineer to conduct a field evaluation of the conditions and provide an opinion on the safety of the existing conditions. The field observation found that existing conditions did not appear to be deficient or unsafe, and no change to the conditions were warranted. The field observation memo is included as an Addendum to the IS/MND and is Attachment K to this Staff Report.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
During the previous Conceptual Development Review process and the current entitlement process for this project, staff encouraged the Applicant to reach out to affected neighbors and present the project. The Applicant connected with surrounding property owners and met one-on-one with neighbors who have expressed concerns.
The City received 15 written public comments on the project and CEQA documentation during the IS/MND public review period leading up to the Planning Commission public hearing on July 12, 2022. Oral comments were also provided at the public hearing.
Since the Planning Commission meeting (as of the writing of this report), 22 additional written comments have been received.
All written public correspondence received to date is attached to this report (Attachments L & M) and the oral comments received at the Planning Commission meeting are in the Planning Commission’s Draft Action Minutes (Attachment F).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
G.1
Packet Pg. 111
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Council adopts Resolutions 39-22, 40-22, and 41-22 and introduces Ordinance 22-03, Ordinance 22-03 will appear on the City Council’s agenda under Consent Calendar for adoption at the September 6, 2022 Council meeting. Resolutions 40-22 and 41-22 will not be effective unless/until Ordinance 22-03 takes effect.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
B. Proposed Resolution 40-22 Amending General Plan Land Use Designation C. Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements D. Proposed Ordinance 22-03 City Council Ordinance Amending Zoning Map E. Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments
F. Approved Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2022 G. Project Plans dated March 22, 2022
H. July 12, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report [WEBLINK] I. June 22, 2022 Notice of Intent and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices [WEBLINK]
J. Eratta to IS/MND
K. IS/MND Addendum
L. Written Public Comments Received Prior to Planning Commission Meeting [WEBLINK]
M. Written Public Correspondence After July 12 Planning Commission Meeting Respectfully Submitted by:
Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
Prepared By: Drummond Buckley, Director of Planning
Approved by:
G.1
Packet Pg. 112
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
IN THE MATTER OF:
Adopting a Mitigated Negative ) RESOLUTION NO. 39-22
Declaration and approving a )
Mitigation Monitoring and )
Reporting Program (MMRP) )
Pursuant to the California )
Environmental Quality Act )
(CEQA) for the Vista Verde )
Development Proposal for an )
Affordable Senior Housing project)
and associated General Plan )
and Zoning Code Amendments )
___________________________)
WHEREAS, the Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (“OSHF”) has submitted its application for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project, which includes associated requests for design review, amendments of the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map, and other associated entitlements to develop affordable housing for seniors at on a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the City complied with all applicable procedural, notice, and tribal consultation requirements in state law; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project, which was available for public comment from June 22, 2022, to July 12, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND evaluates the development application and considers the construction and operation of the housing project; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND also evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Map amendments associated with the Project; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND concludes that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the general public was advised of the availability of the IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15072(b)(3) and copies of the IS/MND were made available at the City of Orinda Planning Department, on the City’s website at G.1.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (2879 : City Council Report 2 https://www.cityoforinda.org/533/Vista-Verde-Senior-Housing-Project-10-Ir, and were provided to interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the City received public comments on the IS/MND related to pedestrian safety at the intersection of Irwin Way and Orinda Way, subsequently analyzed these comments, prepared a technical response (IS/MND addendum) included as an attachment to the City Council Staff Report, and found that there are no significant impacts requiring further analysis under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City also prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, for the Project, which sets forth the measures required to mitigate or avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts on the environment; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously, with a vote of 7-0, approved resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the IS/MND, approve the MMRP, approve General Plan and Zoning amendments for the Project, and approve the design review and other associated entitlements for the Project; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND and all associated errata and IS/MND addenda, MMRP, and recommendations of the Planning Commission were considered at a regular, duly noticed meeting of the City Council on August 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND is complete, correct, and adequate, and satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Orinda located at 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA is the custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Orinda; and
WHEREAS, based on the evidence before the City Council, including the IS/MND and MMRP, the City Council finds that the Project as proposed, mitigated, and conditioned will not have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby adopt the IS/MND and approve the MMRP for the Project pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA.
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (2879 : City Council Report 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on ______________, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri M. Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1546280.1
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (2879 : City Council Report
ATTACHMENT A
VISTA VERDE COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) is for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project at 10 Irwin Way. The Vista Verde project is analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated June 2022, the Errata to the IS/MND, and the IS/MND Addendum.
This MMRP was formulated based on the findings of the IS/MND for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project. This MMRP is in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, which requires that the Lead Agency (the City of Orinda) “adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Table 1 of this MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project. Each mitigation measure is named and numbered according to the topical section to which it pertains. As an example, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is the first mitigation measure identified in the Biological Resources section of the IS/MND.
The column entitled “Mitigation Responsibility” identifies the party responsible for carrying out the required actions. The columns entitled “Monitoring/Reporting Agency and “Monitoring Schedule” identify the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented and the approximate timeframe for the oversight agency to ensure implementation of the mitigation measure.
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (2879 : City Council Report Vista Verde Community Housing Project MND
JULY 12, 2022 Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
4. Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Monitoring
Schedule
AIR QUALITY
MM-AQ-1: Fugitive dust control. To adequately control dust, the project applicant shall ensure construction contracts contain requirements for implementing the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures from BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered as deemed necessary for controlling dust during varying weather conditions to conserve water while California is in a drought.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
4. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)
5. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
6. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
7. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
8. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
9. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
Project
applicant
City of Orinda
Department of
Public Works
On-going,
during site
preparation and
project
construction
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Vista Verde Community Housing Project MND
July 12, 2022 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program page 3
Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Monitoring
Schedule
10. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
MM-AQ-2: Minimize Emissions. The project applicant shall select equipment during construction to minimize emissions, including:
1. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.
2. All equipment shall include California Air Resources Board (CARB)-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel).
3. All equipment shall use added exhaust muffling and filtering devices.
Project
applicant
City of Orinda
Department of
Public Works
On-going,
during site
preparation and
project
construction
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM-BIO-1: Pre-Tree Removal or Pruning Raptor Survey. Prior to the removal or significant pruning of any trees during any season, a qualified biologist shall inspect the trees for the presence of raptor nests. If a suspected raptor nest is discovered, the biologist shall notify the CDFW. Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, raptor nests, whether or not they are occupied, may not be removed until approval is granted by the CDFW. If no raptor nests are detected, no further measures are needed for work to occur outside the nesting bird season (February 1–August 31). For work to occur during the nesting season, additional preconstruction surveys are required as outlined in MM-BIO-2.
Project
applicant and
their qualified
biologist
City of Orinda
Planning
Department
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit;
issuance of tree
removal permit,
or vegetation
removal
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Vista Verde Community Housing Project MND
July 12, 2022 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program page 4
Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Monitoring
Schedule
MM-BIO-2: Nesting Bird Preconstruction Surveys.
If clearing and/or construction activities will occur during the raptor or migratory bird nesting season (February 1–August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds up to 14 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall survey the construction zone and a 250-foot buffer surrounding the construction zone to determine whether construction has the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds. Raptor nests will be identified within 250 feet and passerine nests within 50 feet of the construction limits. Surveys shall be repeated if project activities are suspended or delayed for more than 15 days during the nesting season.
If active nest(s) are identified during the preconstruction survey, the biologist shall make a determination as to whether construction activities are likely to disrupt reproductive behavior. If it is determined that construction is unlikely to disrupt behavior, construction may proceed. If construction will disrupt breeding, the biologist will establish a no-activity setback for migratory bird nests and a 250-foot setback for raptor nests. The ultimate size of the buffer zone may be adjusted by the biologist based on the species involved, topography, sight lines between the work area and the nest, physical barriers, and the ambient level of human activity, but must be made in consultation with the CDFW. No ground disturbance shall occur within the no-activity setback until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist.
Project
applicant and
their qualified
biologist
City of Orinda
Planning
Department
Prior to
issuance of tree
removal permit,
vegetation
removal, or
grading permit
MM-BIO-3: Tree Protection.
1. To prevent intrusion into root zones by material storage or construction equipment around trees to remain on site, temporary protective fencing will be required. Location of the fencing will provide sufficient room for construction activity while protecting root zones, and will define the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). All such fencing will protect trees on neighboring properties. An exhibit showing the precise location of the Tree Protection Zone shall be approved by the Project Arborist prior to installation on site.
2. There must be no disposal of waste or equipment washout that could drain off site into the protected zone.
3. The fencing should be minimum five foot chain link securely fastened to the ground or on driven posts, to prevent casual displacement by site workers who may not understand its purpose.
4. The location shown on the drawing should be reviewed on-site to the satisfaction of both the arborist and the general contractor or site supervisor.
Project
applicant and
their certified
arborist
City of Orinda
Planning
Department
Prior to
issuance of tree
removal permit
or grading
permit.
Tree protection
measures shall
remain in place
throughout the
duration of
construction
unless otherwise
noted in the text
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Vista Verde Community Housing Project MND
July 12, 2022 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program page 5
Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Monitoring
Schedule
5. Each fence section must have 8 ½ by 11 inch plasticized signs fastened every 50 feet, reading, “THIS FENCE MAY BE MOVED ONLY WITH PERMISSION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST”.
6. Fencing to protect retained trees should be in place as shown before any grading, construction or other site work begins.
7. Fencing should remain in place during the entire demolition, grading or construction phases and should not be moved by any subcontractor for any reason, without approval of the project arborist.
8. Fencing and other protection measures for retained trees must be in place as shown before any demolition, grading, construction or other site work past layout begins.
9. The project arborist will meet on-site with the contractor prior to commencement of site layout to confirm location of temporary tree protection measures to contractor and project arborist satisfaction.
10. The project arborist will meet with the contractor or any sub-contractors if the temporary fencing is to be moved or removed for any reason during the project. This includes meeting with the landscape contractor during plant or irrigation installation.
11. The project arborist will site for critical inspection events, such as trenching around trees #866 through #868, #897 through #900, #903, #908, #909, #912, and #916 through #918 and any other construction and demolition within Tree Protection Zones.
12. Carpenters may make pruning cuts up to two inches in diameter if essential for clearance. Final pruning will be done at project completion by an ISA Certified Arborist4 or Certified Treeworker under Project Arborist supervision.
13. The project arborist shall be notified of any pruning required for contractor access.
14. The project arborist shall notified immediately of any plan changes, regardless of potential for impact to trees.
15. The project arborist shall be notified immediately of any damages to trees on-site, or adjacent, during construction, in which case I will make recommendations to minimize impact due to injury.
16. All landscape plantings and irrigation installation shall be abandoned within a 10 foot radius of the stems of trees #866 through #868, #897 through #900, #903, #908 and #909.
of the mitigation
measure.
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Vista Verde Community Housing Project MND
July 12, 2022 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program page 6
Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Monitoring
Schedule
MM-BIO-4: Tree Protection for Individual Trees.
1. Valley Oaks #866 and #867 and Coast Live Oak #868. Adhere to tree protection guidelines identified in Arborist’s Report (Appendix B - pages 6-7).
2. Coast Live Oaks #897-900 and Valley Oak #903. Adhere to tree protection guidelines identified in Arborist’s Report (Appendix B - pages 7-8).
3. Coast Live Oak #908, Valley Oak #909, and Coast Redwood #912. Adhere to tree protection guidelines identified in Arborist’s Report (Appendix B - page 8).
4. Monterey Pine #916, Coast Live Oak #917, and Red Ironbark Eucalyptus #918. Adhere to tree protection guidelines identified in Arborist’s Report (Appendix B - page 9).
Project
applicant and
their certified
arborist
City of Orinda
Planning
Department
Prior to
issuance of
grading permit.
Tree protection
measures shall
remain in place
throughout the
duration of
construction
unless
otherwise noted
in Arborists
report.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM-CUL-1: Treatment of Previously Unidentified Archaeological Deposits.
During project construction, if any archaeological or paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found, the project applicant and/or its contractor shall cease all work within 25 feet of the discovery and notify the City of Orinda Planning Department immediately. The project applicant and/or its contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the inadvertently discovered archaeological or paleontological resources. The City shall approve the applicant’s archaeologist or paleontologist. The City and the project applicant shall consider the mitigation recommendations and agree on implementation of the measure(s) that are feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, or other appropriate measures.
Project
applicant and
their qualified
archaeologist or
paleontologist
City of Orinda
Planning
Department
Ongoing
throughout
construction
involving
ground
disturbance.
MM-CUL-2: Discovery of Human Remains.
Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines the remains to Project
applicant and
their qualified
archaeologist
City of Orinda
Planning
Department
Ongoing
throughout
construction
involving
ground
disturbance.
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Vista Verde Community Housing Project MND
July 12, 2022 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program page 7
Mitigation Measure Mitigation
Responsibility
Monitoring/
Reporting
Agency
Monitoring
Schedule
be Native America or has reason to believe that they are Native American, the coroner shall contact by telephone within 24-hours of the Native American Heritage Commission to determine the Most Likely Descendent (MLD).
695355.1
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 39-22 Adopting Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
IN THE MATTER OF:
Amending the General Plan ) RESOLUTION NO. 40-22
land use designation of a portion )
of the property at 10 Irwin )
Way from “Public and Semipublic”)
to “Residential: Multifamily” )
___________________________)
WHEREAS, the Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (“OSHF”) has submitted its application for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project, which includes requests for amendments of the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to develop affordable housing for seniors on a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City is concurrently considering a proposed subdivision that would split the property currently designated 10 Irwin Way and create a new parcel that will contain the Project (“Site”); and
WHEREAS, the parcel created through the proposed subdivision is depicted in Exhibit A hereto and is the subject to the General Plan land use designation amendment described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City is concurrently considering a proposed update to its Zoning Map that would change zoning on the Site to “Residential Medium Density” with a “Senior Housing Overlay District”; and
WHEREAS, development on the Site would assist the City of Orinda in meeting its “fair share” of the regional housing need consistent with state housing law; and WHEREAS, the Site is currently designated “Public and Semi-Public” in the City’s General Plan and is zoned “Public, Semipublic and Utility”; and WHEREAS, the Site could not be developed with an affordable senior housing project under the current General Plan and Zoning designations; and WHEREAS, state law requires consistency between the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the City complied with all applicable procedural, notice, and tribal consultation requirements in state law; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously, with a G.1.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 40-22 Amending General Plan Land Use Designation (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 2 vote of 7-0, recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan land use designation of the Site from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential:
Multifamily”, as proposed by OSHF; and
WHEREAS, amending the General Plan land use designation of the Site as proposed will not create inconsistencies with other policies in the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, amending the General Plan land use designation of the Site as proposed will not have significant impacts on the environment as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2022. Adoption of this Resolution is based on the City’s adoption of that Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, at a public hearing noticed consistent with Government Code section 65355, the City Council took testimony, discussed the issues and considered all the written and oral evidence presented at the public hearing in making its decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve the amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map, which changes the land use designation of a portion of 10 Irwin Way (the Site) from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential: Multifamily,” as shown on Exhibit A. This change shall take effect only when and if City Council Ordinance No. __-22 (An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Designate a Portion of the Property at 10 Irwin Way “Residential Medium Density” and Applying the “Senior Housing Overlay District) takes effect. The Council finds that the amendment is in the public’s interest as set forth below:
1. There is a need for more affordable senior housing near transit and the commercial and institutional services available in downtown Orinda and amending the land use designation of the Site to allow for residential development will help meet this need;
2. The amendment is consistent with, and implements several policies and actions of the Housing Element of the General Plan, including the following:
a. Continue to implement the City’s affordable housing incentive program (density bonus ordinance), which grants up to a 35 percent increase in the number of permitted units for developments which set aside 20 percent or more of their units as affordable, as defined by state law. (Action 1.F)
b. Provide outreach and assistance to nonprofit organizations and builders whose expertise can inure to the benefit of low- and moderate-income Orinda residents, particularly seniors and those with special needs. (Action 1.G)
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 40-22 Amending General Plan Land Use Designation (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 3 c. Implement the City’s Affordable Housing Incentive Program to reduce production costs in projects containing affordable units such as adjusting design standards on a case-by-case basis, which could include adjusting standards for setbacks, lot coverage, street width, unit size, and parking, for all affordable housing projects. (Action 3.B) d. Encourage the development of housing designed to meet the unique needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. (Policy 5.2)
3. Development of affordable senior housing on the Site will assist the City in meeting its “fair share” of the regional housing need.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on August 16, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri M. Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Revised General Plan Land Use Map
1546259.1
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 40-22 Amending General Plan Land Use Designation (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 40-22 Amending General Plan Land Use Designation (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
IN THE MATTER OF:
Approving a Minor Subdivision, ) RESOLUTION NO. 41-22
Design Review, Tree )
Removal Permit, Elevated Deck )
Permit, Density Bonus )
Application for a Portion of the )
Property at 10 Irwin Way (Vista )
Verde Community Housing )
Project) )
___________________________)
WHEREAS, the Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (OSHF) has submitted its application for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project, which includes requests for General Plan Map Amendment (GPA-2021-001), Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA-2021- 001), Minor Subdivision (MNS-2021-001), Design Review (DRA-2021-023), Elevated Deck Permit (EDP-2021-019), Tree Removal (TRP-2021-025), and Density Bonus to develop affordable housing for seniors on a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way (Project); and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), along with an associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program, have been prepared for this Project; and
WHEREAS, the City is considering a proposed subdivision that would split the property currently designated 10 Irwin Way (APN 260-200-015) and create a two new parcels that will contain the 60,058 square foot Project (“Site”) and a 152,941 square foot remainder site; and
WHEREAS, access to the Site is provided via Irwin Way; and WHEREAS, the entire Site is currently zoned Public, Semipublic, and Utility (PS), and residential uses, other than Congregate Care, are not allowed in this zoning district; and
WHEREAS, senior housing residential uses are allowed with a Senior Housing Overlay (SH-O) in the zoning district Residential Multifamily (RM); and WHEREAS, if the Zoning Map is amended, the General Plan Map must also be amended to maintain consistency between the two documents; and WHEREAS, because approval, conditional approval, or denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Density Bonus must ultimately be decided by the City Council under Sections 17.48 and 17.4.31 of the Orinda Municipal Code, the City Council makes the ultimate decision on the Project and its associated entitlements, including the Minor Subdivision, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, and G.1.c
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 2 Elevated Deck Permit taking into account the Planning Commission recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City complied with all applicable procedural and notice requirements in state law; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously, with a vote of 7-0, recommended that the City Council approve, the following applications: Minor Subdivision (MNS-2021-001), Design Review (DRA-2021-023), Elevated Deck Permit (EDP-2021-019), Tree Removal (TRP-2021-025), and Density Bonus application for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project.; and
WHEREAS, during its August 16, 2022 meeting, the City Council has taken testimony and reviewed and considered the following applications: Minor Subdivision (MNS-2021-001), Design Review (DRA-2021-023), Elevated Deck Permit (EDP-2021- 019), Tree Removal (TRP-2021-025), and Density Bonus application for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project, along with all supporting documents, comments, and other evidence offered and presented in connection with a duly noticed public hearing.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution in Section 6 and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the following applications: Minor Subdivision (MNS-2021-001), Design Review (DRA-2021- 023), Elevated Deck Permit (EDP-2021-019), Tree Removal (TRP-2021-025), and Density Bonus application for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project. These approvals shall take effect only when and if the City Council Ordinance No. __-22 (An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Designate a Portion of the Property at 10 Irwin Way “Residential Medium Density” and Applying the “Senior Housing Overlay District) takes effect. The Council finds that these approvals are consistent with all required findings and resolves as follows:
Section 1. That the proposed Minor Subdivision to create two parcels, one 60,068 square feet and one 152,941 square feet from project site (current APN 260-200-015), MNS-2021-001, is consistent with Section 16 and Section 17 of the Orinda Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act and is consistent with the required findings:
1) The proposed Project complies with the City of Orinda Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and General Plan. In addition, it complies with the State of California Subdivision Map Act.
a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law.
Orinda Municipal Code, Title 17 – Zoning:
Quantitative Criteria
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 3 The proposed subdivision complies with the quantitative criteria, or has requested concessions under the Density Bonus Law to change the quantitative criteria, of Title 17.
Discretionary Criteria
As noted below in the findings for the senior housing facility design review, tree removal permit, and elevated deck permit, the project meets the discretionary standards and criteria.
Orinda Municipal Code, Title 16 – Subdivisions:
Chapters 16.32, 16.36, 16.40 and 16.48 of the Orinda Municipal Code contain provisions regarding street improvements, street lights, sidewalks, and curbs and gutters that do not apply to the access easements connecting this subdivision as all the improvements are preexisting.
The proposed access would maintain the semi-rural character of Orinda by not changing the existing access and providing additional pedestrian connectivity to the Downtown.
General Plan Consistency:
The General Plan land use map, if amended, will identify the site as Residential: Multifamily, which includes housing units limited to senior occupancy at a base density exceeding 10 units per acre.
Based on the proposed lot size, proposed density, and proposed uses on the proposed parcel combine to result in a subdivision design that is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan.
b. The tentative map is consistent with construction requirements.
The proposed building will connect to public utilities, which include East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa Central Sanitary District, AT&T Telephone and Pacific Gas and Electric.
Prior to issuance of permits for any of the infrastructure improvements, the Project applicant will be required to obtain review and approval of all construction documents.
Subdivision Map Act
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 4 Section 66474 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) specifies that the City must deny a tentative map if it makes any of the following findings:
1) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
As discussed above, the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan.
2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
As discussed above, the proposed design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan. 3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
The Project site is located on a moderately sloped hillside surrounded by compatible uses including single family residences to the north, institutional uses, and higher density senior housing. There is adequate public access to the site, utilities are available nearby, and the size and shape of the site is suitable for the type of development proposed. For these reasons, the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Per OMC Section 17.4.2, the minimum lot size for a parcel zoned RM with a senior housing overlay is 20,000 square feet. The proposed lot (project site) will be 60,068 square feet and the remaining lot would be 152,941 sq. ft. As discussed above, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Both construction and operation of the Project have been designed to minimize potential adverse impacts to the environment. Based on the analysis in the IS/MND and the mitigation measures identified therein, the Project as designed would not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 5 Based on the Project design and the conclusions of the technical reports completed for the proposed subdivision, the proposed improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
There are no conflicts with the easements on the site.
8) No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1.
As discussed above, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan.
The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66473.1) also requires that subdivisions provide for energy conservation, as follows:
The design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required pursuant to Section 66426 shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
Examples of passive or natural heating opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure in an east-west alignment for southern exposure.
Examples of passive or natural cooling opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure to take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 6 In providing for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the design of a subdivision, consideration shall be given to local climate, to contour, to configuration of the parcel to be divided, and to other design and improvement requirements, and such provision shall not result in reducing allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure under applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the tentative map is filed.
The location and size of the proposed parcel allows flexibility in the site design to take advantage of passive heating and cooling opportunities. The specific proposed structure on the site includes solar panels that provide for electrical generation on the site.
Section 2. That the proposed Project is consistent with the Senior Housing Facility, Multifamily, and High-Density Design Review, DRA-2021-023, in Section 17.30.11 of the Orinda Municipal Code and with the required findings:
1) The proposed development is designed to respect the scale and tranquility of nearby properties and does not impair the existing views, block access to light and air or infringe on the privacy of neighbors in a substantial fashion. In considering this factor, decisionmakers shall balance the importance of minimizing impacts on neighboring properties and the applicant's ability to develop the property. The term "view" shall be defined in Section 17.22.4.
The proposed building is located downslope from the Watchwood neighbors to the east. The building roofline is designed to be lower than the Watchwood neighborhood homes. The existing trees and foliage assist in naturally screening sightlines for the Mira Loma neighbors to the north and west, see View Studies on sheets A8.0-A8.8 of the Project Plans.
2) The development is pedestrian-oriented with pedestrian connections to adjoining public streets and parks and vehicular parking does not overwhelm the character of development.
The proposed building does not change the existing parking lot and vehicular circulation. The proposed building provides a second level garage, mostly below grade, for the new residents and improves the existing pedestrian connections by creating additional sidewalk along the building frontage and new crosswalk.
3) The visible mass of the building is minimized and facades highly visible from nearby off-site vantage points are designed to reduce the blocky or massive features of building surfaces and provide articulation and visual interest.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 7 The proposed building has been thoughtfully designed to engage the toe of the slope by stepping downward to minimize the massing while maximizing the development’s footprint. Proposed residential commons, recreational programming, and deck areas are located on the west side of the building at upper levels to create a stepped profile assisting to reduce bulk and massing. The existing trees to remain and proposed landscaping shall also create a natural visual buffer to soften the building, see sheets A7.0 – A7.5.
4) Primary landscaping elements consist mainly of locally native species.
Landscaping shall provide substantial screening from off-site vantage points and, as appropriate, side and rear yard landscaping. Landscaping shall blend with the design of the development, enhance the visual quality of the streetscape, and help achieve design consistency with the character of the neighborhood.
The proposed landscape design achieves design consistency with the character of the existing neighborhood, see sheets L-5 & L-6 of the Project Plans for planting plan and locations.
5) The development is designed to relate to the natural and man-made context of the site including on- and off-site views of the hills and open space areas; solar access for on-site common areas and adjacent properties; creek preservation, restoration and orientation; and preservation of street trees. The proposed development is designed to protect undeveloped ridgelines and hillsides and preserve significant or unique scenic vistas.
The proposed building has been designed to use the existing topography at the toe of the slope to reduce the development footprint and preserve as much of the existing trees & foliage as possible. Solar photovoltaic panels will be located at the roof of the building to stay out of the trees shadows and maximize the roof deck area.
6) Development on parcels in excess of one acre is designed to avoid monolithic undifferentiated building masses.
The proposed building is thoughtfully designed to step down the existing slope/topography to reduce the development footprint. The vertical walls have been well-articulated with architectural elements and features such as breaks along the exterior wall plane, balconies & decks and trellis, see sheets T.1, A3.0 & A4.0-A4.3.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 8 Section 3. That the proposed Tree-Removal Permit (Category II), TRP-2021-025, is consistent with Section 17.21.5 of the Orinda Municipal Code in consideration of the following factors:
1) The effect of tree removal or destruction on shade, views, privacy, fire safety, soil erosion and flow of surface water.
Existing vegetation offsite will continue to screen the project site from the north and east, and the grade change and distance to adjacent structures ensure that the tree removal will not reduce existing shading on, or create privacy issues for, adjacent properties. Furthermore, tree replacement and other tree plantings will provide additional screening as well as shade opportunities for residents and guests of the proposed project. 2) The number, species, size and location of other protected trees to remain in the area.
The arborist report indicates that 35 of the existing 66 trees on site will remain. These trees range in size from 6 inches to 29 inches in diameter and include 21 Coast Live Oaks, four Valley oaks, one Coast Redwood, and one Plum SPP. They are located to the north, east, and west of the proposed building.
3) The necessity for destruction or removal in order to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property.
The proposed improvements cannot be completed without removal of trees as listed in the Arborist’s Report dated November 17, 2021 (Appendix B to the IS/MND).
4) The extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and protect a protected tree.
The Applicant modified a number of the proposed improvements to preserve and protect protected trees on site, including building footprint, walkway, and C3 basin locations. Refer to the section “Individual Trees” on pages 6 through 9 within the Arborist’s Report dated November 17, 2021 for specific protections, construction and demolition techniques, and monitoring requirements to help ensure the safe retention of protected trees on site.
5) The extent to which a change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to maintain and preserve a protected or heritage tree.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 9 The grade changes for the site should not significantly impact the trees on site that will be retained.
Section 4. That the proposed Elevated Deck Permit, EDP-2021-019, is consistent with Section 17.35.3 of the Orinda Municipal Code and the required findings:
1) The elevated deck does not substantially diminish the privacy of neighbors.
The proposed deck locations along the Mira Loma & Watchwood neighborhood do not substantially diminish their privacy in terms of sightlines and noise. Only private unit decks are proposed at these locations. All common and larger deck areas are located at a much higher vertical elevation and facing towards the downtown area to the west and the Orinda Community Church.
2) The elevated deck does not substantially block desired views from neighboring residences.
The existing trees and foliage on and off-site assist to maintain natural screening and buffer. Proposed deck locations don’t adversely impact neighboring residence views as the decks are at a lower elevation than the neighboring residences.
3) The elevated deck does not result in the removal of trees which screen undesirable views.
The trees proposed to be removed are to make way for the project building footprint, not an elevated deck.
4) Reasonable use of the deck will not cause a material increase in ambient noise for neighboring properties.
The proposed common and larger deck locations are focused towards the Orinda Community Church along the west side of the building. On-site management shall ensure large group gatherings will not occur afterhours.
Section 5. That the proposed density bonus application pursuant to Section 17.4.31 of the Orinda Municipal Code is approved. The City Council finds the Project is eligible for a density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law because it will provide 25 percent of units to seniors at a moderate income (13 units), 58 percent at low income (30 units), 15 percent at very low-income (8 units), and a non income-restricted caretaker unit. The Project qualifies for a density bonus under Government Code section 65915 and OMC section 17.4.31 based on the percentage of affordable units it will provide. As a qualifying Project which provides at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, it is eligible for three concessions. The application proposes three concessions to exceed G.1.c
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 10 the otherwise applicable height and story limits and to reduce the amount of otherwise required private open space. The City Council finds that all three of the requested concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. The application includes evidence that, without the concessions related to height and story limits, project costs would increase by $3,835,000 due to increased grading and that without the concession related to private open space, the project costs would increase between $350,000-$450,000 based on the cost of materials to construct larger decks. Reducing construction costs reduces the overall cost per unit and provides for affordable housing costs or rents. Thus, there is substantial evidence that the requested concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents.
Section 6. That Minor Subdivision, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, Elevated Deck Permit, and Density Bonus application are all approved subject to the findings above and these conditions of approval:
PLANNING CONDITIONS
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the building plans, with the project conditions of approval printed on them, to the Planning Department for review and approval.
2) The applicant shall submit the Building-Permit Application, to the City of Orinda for review and approval, and shall be responsible to implement and pay all costs associated with the preparation of the Building-Permit Application. 3) All development shall conform to plans presented at the August 16, 2022 City Council meeting, or the most recent version on file in the Planning Department, unless otherwise specified by conditions of approval provided in this exhibit. 4) Per §17.44.1 of the OMC, project approval terminates according to its terms, if any, or upon the expiration of one year from the date of approval. The duration of the approval may be extended for a maximum of one additional year by the Planning Director upon written request by the property owner, agent or applicant, filed within the effective period of approval A fee, consistent with the most recently-adopted fee schedule by the City Council, is required for the processing of an extension. Thereafter, any additional extension(s) must be considered by the Planning Commission, following a noticed public hearing. 5) Minor changes to the approved building plan(s) shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director prior to implementation. Major changes to the approved building plan(s) shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Council.
6) The applicant shall submit a plan for recycling building and construction materials that are generated from the demolition of existing buildings, and for recycling G.1.c
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 11 waste materials from construction, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and/or building permit. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department documentation that the materials have been recycled.
7) Construction, alteration, demolition, grading, excavation, or repair activity ("construction activities") may occur during times specified in OMC §17.39.3 as follows:
a. Weekdays: Monday through Friday, construction activities may occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
b. Weekends: On Saturdays and Sundays, construction activities may occur between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., except that on Sundays only a resident of the site and one additional person may work on the site.
c. Heavy Construction Equipment: Use of heavy construction equipment is prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays.
d. Holidays: On the following holidays, construction activities are prohibited:
• New Year’s Day
• Memorial Day
• Independence Day
• Labor Day
• Thanksgiving Day
• Christmas Day
No exceptions from this rule may be granted.
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and obtain Planning Department approval of a Construction-Management Plan (CMP) that mitigates temporary-traffic impacts.
a. The CMP shall detail how and where adequate off-street parking for construction-related equipment/vehicles will be located such that the road, mailboxes, driveways, and other private property are not impacted (i.e., blocked);
b. The CMP shall detail how and where adequate storage for constructionrelated materials will be located such that the road, mailboxes, driveways, and other private property are not impacted (i.e., blocked) or result in nuisance; and
c. The CMP shall include adequate provisions for the construction crew (i.e., portable-sanitary facility).
9. The site shall be properly maintained during construction or a Stop-Work Order will be issued by the Planning Director (i.e. refuse shall be discarded promptly, construction materials shall be neatly stored, and the public right-of-way shall not be encroached upon).
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 12 10.All rubbish and dead vegetation shall be removed from the site prior to final inspection by staff.
11.All projects are subject to the model water efficiency landscape ordinance (MWELO) if they meet the following landscaping area size thresholds:
a. New landscapes: 500 square feet
b. Existing landscapes: 2500 square feet
For MWELO-qualifying projects, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) will conduct a review of the landscape documentation package, which must include: project information; water efficient landscape worksheet; soil management report; landscape, irrigation and grading design plans. After landscape installation, the applicant must submit a completed, signed certificate of completion and associated documentation to EBMUD for approval.
12.Failure to comply with any of these Conditions may result in a Stop-Work Order and/or a rescinding of the approval.
13.The pedestrian cross walk located at the south side of the church property be relocated so as to provide a wheel chair accessible access to the side walk on the southside of Irwin Way, avoiding the stairs.
TREE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS. In addition to the tree preservation measures identified in the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the following conditions apply:
1. If a protected tree proposed for removal can be relocated, the applicant shall move the tree to a suitable location on a site shown on the approved plans.
2. The applicant shall guarantee the health and vigor of each protected tree required to be preserved during the construction process and for two years after construction is certified as complete.
3. The applicant shall replace a protected tree that dies during the guarantee period in accordance with the tree-replacement provisions, provided below, of §17.21 of the OMC.
a. Protected-Tree Replacement
i. For each 6-inches, or fraction thereof, of the aggregate diameter of trees approved for removal, the applicant shall plant 1 native tree with a diameter no less than 0.75 inches. One-third of the replacement tree requirement may be fulfilled by planting native shrubs that mature at a height no less than 5 feet. The applicant may substitute a larger number of smaller trees or a smaller number of larger trees if approved by the Planning Director based G.1.c
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 13 on a finding that tree replacement will be more beneficial to the health and vigor of all trees on the property.
ii. If the development site cannot accommodate the replacement trees, the applicant may, with the written approval of the Planning Director and the property owner, plant the replacement trees on public or private property located in Orinda. Alternatively, the applicant may make an in-lieu payment of one hundred and twentyfive dollars ($125.00) for each replacement tree otherwise required.
All in-lieu payments shall be used for the City’s landscape-related projects.
b. Care of Protected Trees
i. Before starting, the applicant shall securely fence off every protected tree at the protected perimeter. The fence shall remain continuously in place for the duration of work undertaken in connection with the building or grading permit. The fenced area may not be used as a storage area or altered or disturbed except as may be permitted by the Planning Director.
4. If the proposed development or work encroaches upon the protected perimeter of a protected tree, the applicant shall take special measures, as approved by the Planning Director, to allow tree roots to obtain oxygen, water, and nutrients as needed.
5. An authorized excavation, filling or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter of a tree shall be minimized and subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the Planning Director.
6. No significant change in existing ground level may be made within the dripline of a protected or heritage tree.
7. No burning or use of equipment with an open flame may occur near or within the protected perimeter.
8. All brush, earth and debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.
9. No oil, gas, chemical or other substance that may be harmful to a tree may be stored or dumped within the protected perimeter of a protected tree or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the protected perimeter of a tree.
10.Trenching for utilities shall avoid interfering with roots of protected trees wherever possible. If complete avoidance of the root zone is impractical, a tunnel shall be made below the roots. A trench shall be consolidated to serve as many units as possible. Trenching and tunneling within the protected perimeter shall be avoided G.1.c
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 14 to the extent possible and shall be done only under the on-site supervision of a professional arborist.
11.No concrete, asphalt or other impervious paving shall be placed within the protected perimeter of a protected tree. No supplementary irrigation shall occur within the protected perimeter of a native oak.
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS
Project Specific Conditions:
1. Provide an erosion control plan.
2. Provide information on the proposed V-ditch regarding the design capacity and where it ties into or connects into the storm system, also note if there is capacity for this additional runoff in the downstream system.
3. Revise location of area drains to not be in middle of the walkway for safety and drainage reasons.
4. On the SWCP drawing, L2 looks like it’s going into BR3. The drawings will need to be revised.
5. SWCP needs to note 50% rule is applicable.
6. Revise the Hydrology Report references regarding flow through planters not bioretention.
7. Revise hydrology report to show treatment and HMP for a 10-year event.
8. Revise hydrology report to separately show detention for 25-year storm event.
Standard Conditions:
1. When permitted in the public right-of-way, the following activities shall only be allowed directly in front of the subject property, unless prior written consent of the City and affected property owner(s) is obtained.
a. Delivery, unloading, and staging of construction materials and equipment
b. Installation of above or underground utilities.
c. Installation of any drainage facilities, including but not limited to, drainage pipes, drain inlets, drain outfall, culverts, swales, etc. d. Installation of retaining walls, mailboxes, curbs.
e. Installation of temporary or permanent driveways.
f. Installation of landscaping.
g. To the greatest extent possible, parking of workers’ vehicles.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 15 2. Damage to public roads caused by construction of applicant's project shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department at the applicant's expense prior to final building inspection. The owner shall post a bond to secure payment for damage to a city street caused by construction activity in connection with work authorized by the permit. The Public Works Department may waive this requirement when the construction activity will not foreseeably damage the street.
3. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all work proposed to be constructed in the public right-of-way.
This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of any permits.
4. An applicant may not place, maintain or operate steel-tracked grading or construction equipment with cleats on a public or private street without placing protective material beneath the equipment to protect the surface of the street.
5. Trash, scrap and debris shall be stored in a container with a lid on the construction site.
6. No person shall place or maintain a container in the public right-of way without an Encroachment Permit.
7. No person shall place, install, or maintain a portable-sanitary facility on a construction site closer to the property line than the building setback line.
8. The City may temporarily prohibit or restrict stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles along a street abutting a construction project where necessary for public safety. The restriction does not apply until the City places a sign or marking at the site. The special restriction shall be limited to the duration of the project.
9. Upon issuance of any permits for the project, the City may request carpooling to a construction site.
10.The City may designate a truck route for ingress and egress from the property during the term of the building permit upon findings that:
a. The designation of the truck route will minimize the impact of the construction such as noise, dust, traffic safety hazards and potential damage to pavement on a residential street; and
b. Designation of the truck route will not unreasonably impair the contractor's access to the site or cause undue economic hardship.
11.The City shall require an applicant for a building or grading permit for a major improvement to rehabilitate the street pavement along the frontage of the property from the edge of the street to the center of the right-of-way.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 16 12.When required for: (1) continuity of existing curb and gutter; (2) street drainage; or (3) to ensure structural support for the edge of the street pavement, the City shall require that an applicant for a building permit install appropriate roadway improvements to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Department.
13.At the time of building permit, the applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of OMC §15.32, “Building Permit Conditions;” as such conditions apply to "Major Improvements." The applicant may be required to improve the frontage along the project site. The City shall determine these improvements and the applicant shall be informed of these improvements prior to building permit issuance.
14.The City shall require that a street extension to the property meet the applicable city-road standard set forth in §15.32.180. The City may modify this standard based upon unique topography which makes current city standards impractical or impossible.
15.The City shall require, as a condition, of a building permit for a major improvement that the applicant widen the public or private street along the property frontage so that it either (1) meets current standards for pavement width; or (2) matches the width of the existing street in the vicinity of the property if widening to current standards is unreasonable. The City shall impose this condition upon finding that:
a. The existing street is so narrow that it creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles;
b. The existing street fronting the subject property is narrower than other sections of the street in the same vicinity; and
c. Increasing the width of the street is not an unreasonable burden given the topography of the area and the cost of the work.
Grading and Drainage Conditions. In addition to the measures identified in the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that need to be addressed in advance of site disturbance and/or issuance of a grading permit, the following conditions apply:
1. A grading permit is required for all proposed earthwork in excess of 50 cubic yards of cut or 200 cubic yards of fill. Excavation, grading, or construction of fills may be prohibited by the City Building Official during the months in which it finds that rainfall will likely preclude compliance with these requirements. As such, no grading shall be allowed from October 1st through April 1st, unless adequate erosion control measures are in place. A grading plan and an erosion-control plan shall be approved by the Building Inspection Department prior to issuance of building permits if proposed earthwork exceeds 50 cubic yards. The erosioncontrol plan shall specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the following six categories:
a. Erosion control,
b. Run-on and run-off control,
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 17 c. Sediment control,
d. Active treatment system (as necessary),
e. Good site management, and
f. Non-stormwater management.
2. If the Building Official determines that the permittee has violated or failed to fully and adequately implement an approved erosion-control plan, no grading shall occur under the permit from October through April.
3. Approval of grading permits by the Building Inspection Department shall be made subject to the following appropriate conditions or reservations required to protect public health, safety, and general welfare:
a. Completion of the work within a period approved by the City Building Official,
b. Cleaning of the area and planting in accordance with approved plans, c. Designation of the area in which work may be done,
d. Designation of the slope of excavation or filling, or the grade and elevation of excavation or filling,
e. Reasonable provisions for controlling excessive dust, f. Hours of operation,
g. Safety precautions to guide pedestrian and vehicular traffic, in around, and by the operation,
h. Posting of a good and sufficient bond to assure compliance with the conditions, and
i. Other conditions deemed necessary by the City Building Official and based on accepted engineering practices.
4. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits.
Attachments. The plan shall show all on-site and nearby off-site drainage details necessary to locate, delineate, illustrate, identify, justify and substantiate the proposed work, and the right and necessity of the applicant to perform the work, the adequacy of which shall be verified by the applicant's engineer.
Additional Information. The City may require soil investigation, tests of materials, environmental documents, engineering plans and investigations, technical reports and other permits as the enforcement officer considers necessary and proper.
Conditions of Approval. In approving the permit, the City may impose one or more conditions which are reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to riparian habitat restoration under OMC §18.04, daylighting, stormwater runoff controls, pre-construction inspections and performance security.
5. The drainage-permit application shall include the written consent and waiver of liability given by each person having an interest in the property where work is to be performed (excluding a security interest) and who may be affected by it.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 18 6. Upon a finding that the existing drainage improvements are inadequate or need repair, the City shall require an applicant for a building permit for a major improvement to make to make drainage improvements along the frontage.
7. The owner/applicant should consult the project geotechnical engineer to provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the construction of a pool.
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any site work that will result in a land disturbance of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City/County Building Official that a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State Construction General Permit has been filed and submit a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to verify compliance with the City’s grading ordinance.
Watercourse Alteration Conditions
1. Each watercourse shall be maintained so that water will flow adequately and unimpeded through the watercourse. An existing watercourse shall be left unaltered unless (1) improvement is necessary to protect life, health, and property; or (2) riparian restoration is required under Title 18 of the OMC.
Maintenance, repairs, and new construction shall be accomplished in an environmentally-sensitive manner as provided in Title 18 of the OMC.
2. A watercourse alteration permit, per §18.03 of the OMC, shall be obtained from the City prior to the issuance of any other permits. The following acts or situations shall require a drainage permit:
a. Impair, impede, redirect or otherwise affect the existing flow (permanent or intermittent) of stormwater or other water in a watercourse or allow on the property or cause or permit the obstruction of the watercourse; b. Construct, alter or repair a watercourse;
c. Excavate, grade, or otherwise alter the surface of the land so as to affect the capacity of a watercourse;
d. Destroy or significantly alter vegetation at or near a watercourse, including without limitation cutting, clearing, grubbing, burning, removing, excavating or grading, except as is necessary to maintain or restore the hydraulic capacity of the watercourse or in compliance with riparian restoration requirements under Title 18 of the OMC;
e. Impair the use of an easement for drainage purposes; f. Install or construct a new structure or improve or expand an existing structure within a watercourse. The term structure shall include, but is not limited to, pipes, culverts, buildings, swimming pools, bridges, patios, paving, fences, retaining walls, poles and similar improvements.
3. The watercourse alteration permit application shall include the written consent and waiver of liability given by each person having an interest in the property G.1.c
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 19 where work is to be performed (excluding a security interest) and who may be affected by it.
4. The applicant shall apply for a permit through Bay Area Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for any proposed drainage modifications to be located within the creek setback. This application includes, but is not limited to, the Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers’ Section 404 permit, and the Clean Water Act Section 401A Permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. JARPA consolidates federal, state, and local permits and simplifies the permit process for applicants proposing any of the following activities:
a. Any work in, on or over a stream (perennial, season, or intermittent), and b. Projects that are not directly in or on the stream but may cause impacts (particularly in hillside areas).
5. The applicant shall obtain permits deemed necessary through JARPA prior to issuance of any City permits.
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
1. The applicant for projects subject to the development runoff requirements in the City’s NPDES Permit (a “C.3. regulated project”) shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3. Guidebook (“C.3 Guidebook”). The SCP shall be submitted as part of the initial project submittal and shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits.
2. The following shall apply to C.3-regulated projects:
a. Projects that create between 10,000 square feet and 1-acre of impervious surface shall prepare and submit a SCP, including features and facilities to ensure runoff is treated before leaving the site and an evaluation of the feasibility of storage for later use. Excluded from this requirement are detached, single-family homes that are not part of a larger plan of development.
b. Auto service facilities, gas stations, restaurants, and uncovered parking lots that create over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface shall prepare and submit a SCP, including features and facilities to ensure runoff is treated before leaving the site and an evaluation of the feasibility of storage for later use.
c. Projects that create 1-acre or greater of impervious surface shall include in the SCP, documentation demonstrating compliance with
hydromodofication management by selecting one of four flow-control compliance options in Appendix C of the C.3 Guidebook. Where required, design project features and facilities for hydrograph modification management (flow-control) as well as stormwater treatment.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 20 3. Prior to issuance of permits for building, site improvements, or landscaping, the permit application shall be consistent with the applicant’s approved SCP and shall include drawings and specifications necessary to implement all measures in the approved SCP. The permit application shall include a completed Construction Plan C.3 Checklist and a draft Operations and Maintenance Plan as described in the C.3 Guidebook.
4. Drawings submitted with the SCP and Grading-Permit Application (including structural, mechanical, architectural, grading, drainage, site, landscape, and other drawings) shall show drainage management areas as well as the details and methods of construction for pervious pavements, self-retaining areas, selftreating areas, areas draining to self-retaining areas, treatment and flow-control facilities, permanent source control BMPs, and other features that control stormwater flow and potential stormwater pollutants.
5. Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a final Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and execute any agreements identified in the SCP that pertain to the transfer of ownership and/or long-term maintenance of stormwater treatment or hydrograph modification BMPs (Operation and Maintenance Agreements, CC&Rs, etc).
6. Projects creating or replacing between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, including detached, single-family home projects, shall include one or more of the following:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse; b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas;
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios on to vegetated areas;
d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots on to vegetated areas;
e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces; or f. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.
7. The applicant shall submit the Project Data Form which is included in the December 1, 2012 Addendum to the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook.
MORAGA-ORINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CONDITIONS
1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant must submit to the Planning Department proof of plan approval by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 21 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on August 16, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri M. Smith, City Clerk
1546279.1
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Proposed Resolution 41-22 Granting Project Entitlements (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde)
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of: Ordinance 22-03
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map )
to Designate a Portion of the Property at )
10 Irwin Way “Residential Medium Density” and)
Applying the “Senior Housing Overlay District” )
to a Portion of the Property at 10 Irwin Way )
____________________________________ )
WHEREAS, the Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (“OSHF”) has submitted its application for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project, which includes requests for amendments of the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to develop affordable housing for seniors on a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City is concurrently considering a proposed subdivision that would split the property currently designated 10 Irwin Way and create a new parcel that will contain the Project (“Site”); and
WHEREAS, the parcel created through the proposed subdivision is depicted in Attachment 1 hereto and is the subject to the zoning map amendment described in this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City is concurrently considering amending the General Plan land use designation of the Site from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential:
Multifamily”; and
WHEREAS, development on the Site would assist the City of Orinda in meeting its “fair share” of the regional housing need consistent with state housing law; and WHEREAS, the Site is currently designated “Public and Semi-Public” in the City’s General Plan and is zoned “Public, Semipublic and Utility”; and WHEREAS, the Site could not be developed with an affordable senior housing project under the current General Plan and Zoning designations; and WHEREAS, state law requires consistency between the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the City complied with all applicable procedural, notice, and tribal consultation requirements in state law; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously, with a G.1.d
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 22-03 City Council Ordinance Amending Zoning Map (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) Ordinance 22-03
2 vote of 7-0, recommended that the City Council approve an ordinance amending the zoning map to designate the Site as “Residential Medium Density” and to apply the “Senior Housing Overlay District”, as proposed by OSHF; and WHEREAS, amending the zoning of the Site as proposed will not create inconsistencies with the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, amending the zoning of the Site as proposed will not have significant impacts on the environment as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2022. Adoption of this ordinance is based on the City’s adoption of that Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, at a public hearing noticed consistent with state law, the City Council took testimony, discussed the issues and considered all the written and oral evidence presented at the public hearing in making its decision.
In consideration of the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Orinda does ordain as follows:
Section 1. The Zoning Map is amended to designate the Site “Residential Medium Density” and to apply the “Senior Housing Overlay” to the Site as shown in Attachment 1 to this ordinance.
Section 2. This ordinance will not have a significant impact on the environment as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2022. Adoption of this ordinance is based on the City’s adoption of that Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Section 3. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after adoption.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall either (a) have this ordinance published once within 15 days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once 5 days before its adoption and again within 15 days after adoption.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on August 16, 2022 and was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting held on ____________, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
G.1.d
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 22-03 City Council Ordinance Amending Zoning Map (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) Ordinance 22-03
3 ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________________
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Sheri M. Smith, City Clerk
Attachment 1: Revised Zoning Map
1545845.1
G.1.d
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 22-03 City Council Ordinance Amending Zoning Map (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.d
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 22-03 City Council Ordinance Amending Zoning Map (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORINDA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP
AMEDMENTS, MINOR SUBDIVISION, DENSITY BONUS, DESIGN REVIEW, TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT, AND ELEVATED DECK PERMIT FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 10 IRWIN WAY (VISTA VERDE COMMUNITY HOUSING
PROJECT)
WHEREAS, the Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (OSHF) has submitted its application for the Vista Verde Community Housing Project, which includes requests for amendments of the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map, Minor Subdivision, Density Bonus, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Elevated Deck Permit to develop affordable housing for seniors on a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way (Project); and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), along with an associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program, have been prepared for this Project.
WHEREAS, the City is considering a proposed subdivision that would split the property currently designated 10 Irwin Way (APN 260-200-015) and create a two new parcels that will contain the 60,058 square foot Project (“Site”) and a 152,941 square foot remaindersite; and WHEREAS, access to the Site is provided via Irwin Way; and WHEREAS, the entire Site is currently zoned Public, Semipublic, and Utility (PS), and residential uses, other than Congregate Care, are not allowed in this zoning district; and WHEREAS, senior housing residential uses are allowed with a Senior Housing Overlay (SH-O) in the zoning district Residential Multifamily (RM); and WHEREAS, if the Zoning Map is amended, the General Plan Map must also be amended to maintain consistency between the two documents; and
WHEREAS, because approval, conditional approval, or denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Density Bonus must ultimately be decided by the City Council under Sections 17.48 and 17.4.31 of the Orinda Municipal Code, the Planning Commission recommends approval of, but leaves to the City Council, the ultimate decision on the Project and its associated entitlements, including design review, the tree removal permit, and the elevated deck permit; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was provided consistent with Government Code 65090 and 65091; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has taken testimony and reviewed and considered G.1.e
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 2 the Zoning Map Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Minor Subdivision, Density Bonus, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Elevated Deck Permit, all supporting documents, comments, and other evidence offered and presented in connection with a duly noticed public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission finds and resolves as follows:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the IS/MND and approve a mitigation monitoring and reporting program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Section 2. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the General Plan land use designation of a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way from “Public and Semipublic” to “Residential: Multifamily,” in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit 2. And that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed amendment to the General Plan is consistent with Planning and Zoning Law, California Government Code section 65000 et seq.
Section 3. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend the zoning map to designate a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way “Residential Medium Density” and to apply the “Senior Housing Overlay District” to a portion of the property at 10 Irwin Way, in substantially similar form to the Draft Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Pursuant to Section 17.48.3 of the Orinda Municipal Code, which requires that the Planning Commission provide a written recommendation to the City Council including reasons for its recommendation and a determination whether the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the purposes of Orinda Municipal Code Title 17, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning map amendment as submitted. The Planning Commission makes this recommendation for the reasons described in the recitals included in the Draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit 3 and finds that the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the General Plan, including the General Plan Policies included in the Draft Resolution attached as Exhibit 2, as well as the purposes of Title 17 of the Orinda Municipal Code because it protects and promotes the public health, safety and general welfare by providing affordable senior housing near public transit and services.
Section 4. That all recommendations and findings discussed in Sections 5-11, below, are conditioned on the approval of the changes to the General Plan and Zoning Code described above and in the Draft Resolution and Ordinance attached as Exhibits 2 and 3.
Section 5. That the proposed Minor Subdivision to create two parcels, one 60,068 square feet and one 152,941 square feet from project site (current APN 260-200-015) is consistent with Section 16 and Section 17 of the Orinda Municipal Code, which requires that the Planning Commission provide a written recommendation to the City Council including reasons for its recommendation and a determination whether the proposed subdivision map amendment is consistent with the policies of the General Plan, Orinda Municipal Code Title 16 & Title 17, and G.1.e
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 3 the Subdivision Map Act. Specifically that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed Subdivision Map is consistent with the required findings:
1) The proposed Project complies with the City of Orinda Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and General Plan. In addition, it complies with the State of California Subdivision Map Act.
a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law.
Orinda Municipal Code, Title 17 – Zoning:
Quantitative Criteria
As discussed in the Development Review Table included in the staff report, the proposed subdivision complies with the quantitative criteria, or has requested concessions under the Density Bonus Law to change the quantitative criteria, of Title 17.
Discretionary Criteria
As noted below in the findings for the senior housing facility design review, tree removal permit, and elevated deck permit, the project meets the discretionary criteria.
Orinda Municipal Code, Title 16 – Subdivisions:
Chapters 16.32, 16.36, 16.40 and 16.48 of the Orinda Municipal Code contain provisions regarding street improvements, street lights, sidewalks, and curbs and gutters that do not apply to the access easements connecting this subdivision as all the improvements are preexisting.
The proposed access would maintain the semi-rural character of Orinda by not changing the existing access and providing additional pedestrian connectivity to the Downtown.
General Plan Consistency:
The General Plan land use map, if amended, will identify the site as Residential: Multifamily, which includes housing units limited to senior occupancy at a base density exceeding 10 units per acre.
Based on the proposed lot size, proposed density, and proposed uses on the proposed parcel combine to result in a subdivision design that is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 4 b. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the tentative map is consistent with construction requirements.
The proposed building will connect to public utilities, which include East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa Central Sanitary District, AT&T Telephone and Pacific Gas and Electric.
Prior to issuance of permits for any of the infrastructure improvements, the Project applicant will be required to obtain review and approval of all construction documents.
Subdivision Map Act
Section 66474 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) specifies that the City must deny a tentative map if it makes any of the following findings:
1) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
As discussed above, the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan.
2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
As discussed above, the proposed design orimprovement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan. 3) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
The Projectsite is located on a moderately sloped hillside surrounded by compatible uses including single family residences to the north, institutional uses, and higher density senior housing. There is adequate public access to the site, utilities are available nearby, and the size and shape of the site is suitable for the type of development proposed. For these reasons, the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Per OMC Section 17.4.2, the minimum lot size for a parcel zoned RM with a senior housing overlay is 20,000 square feet. The proposed lot (project site) will be 60,068 square feet and the remaining lot would be 152,941 sq. ft. As discussed above, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 5 5) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Both construction and operation of the Project have been designed to minimize potential adverse impacts to the environment. Based on the analysis in the IS/MND, the Project as designed would not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
Based on the Project design and the conclusions of the technical reports completed for the proposed subdivision, the proposed improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing bodymay approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
There are no conflicts with the easements on the site.
8) No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, unlessthe legislative body findsthat the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1.
As discussed above, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan.
The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66473.1) also requires that subdivisions provide for energy conservation, as follows:
The design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required pursuant to Section 66426 shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 6 Examples of passive or natural heating opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure in an east-west alignment for southern exposure.
Examples of passive or natural cooling opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure to take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes.
In providing for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunitiesin the design of a subdivision, consideration shall be given to local climate, to contour, to configuration of the parcel to be divided, and to other design and improvement requirements, and such provision shall not result in reducing allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure under applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the tentative map is filed.
The location and size of the proposed parcel allows flexibility in the site design to take advantage of passive heating and cooling opportunities. The specific proposed structure on the site includessolar panelsthat provide for electrical generation on the site.
Section 6. That the proposed Project is consistent with the Senior Housing Facility, Multifamily, and High-Density Design Review in Section 17.30.11 of the Orinda Municipal Code.
Specifically, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed design review is consistent with the required findings:
1) The proposed development is designed to respect the scale and tranquility of nearby properties and does not impair the existing views, block access to light and air or infringe on the privacy of neighbors in a substantial fashion. In considering this factor, decisionmakers shall balance the importance of minimizing impacts on neighboring properties and the applicant's ability to develop the property. The term "view" shall be defined in Section 17.22.4.
The proposed building is located downslope from the Watchwood neighbors to the east. The building roofline is designed to be lower than the Watchwood neighborhood homes. The existing trees and foliage assist in naturally screening sightlines for the Mira Loma neighbors to the north and west, see View Studies on sheets A8.0-A8.8.
2) The development is pedestrian-oriented with pedestrian connections to adjoining public streets and parks and vehicular parking does not overwhelm the character of development.
The proposed building does not change the existing parking lot and vehicular circulation. The proposed building provides a second level garage, mostly below grade, for the new residents and improves the existing pedestrian connections by creating additional sidewalk along the building frontage and new crosswalk.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 7 3) The visible mass of the building is minimized and facades highly visible from nearby off-site vantage points are designed to reduce the blocky or massive features of building surfaces and provide articulation and visual interest.
The proposed building has been thoughtfully designed to engage the toe of the slope by stepping downward to minimize the massing while maximizing the development’s footprint. Proposed residential commons, recreational programming, and deck areas are located on the west side of the building at upper levels to create a stepped profile assisting to reduce bulk and massing. The existing trees to remain and proposed landscaping shall also create a natural visual buffer to soften the building, see sheets A7.0 – A7.5. 4) Primary landscaping elements consist mainly of locally native species.
Landscaping shall provide substantial screening from off-site vantage points and, as appropriate, side and rear yard landscaping. Landscaping shall blend with the design of the development, enhance the visual quality of the streetscape, and help achieve design consistency with the character of the neighborhood.
The proposed landscape design achieves design consistency with the character of the existing neighborhood, see sheets L-5 & L-6 for planting plan and locations. 5) The development is designed to relate to the natural and man-made context of the site including on- and off-site views of the hills and open space areas; solar access for on-site common areas and adjacent properties; creek preservation, restoration and orientation; and preservation of street trees. The proposed development is designed to protect undeveloped ridgelines and hillsides and preserve significant or unique scenic vistas.
The proposed building has been designed to use the existing topography at the toe of the slope to reduce the development footprint and preserve as much of the existing trees & foliage as possible. Solar photovoltaic panels will be located at the roof of the building to stay out of the trees shadows and maximize the roof deck area.
6) Development on parcels in excess of one acre is designed to avoid monolithic undifferentiated building masses.
The proposed building is thoughtfully designed to step down the existing slope/topography to reduce the development footprint. The vertical walls have been well-articulated with architectural elements and features such as breaks along the exterior wall plane, balconies & decks and trellis, see sheets T.1, A3.0 & A4.0-A4.3.
Section 7. That the proposed Tree-Removal Permit (Category II) is consistent with Section
17.21.5 of the Orinda Municipal Code, which requires that the tree removal permit application be G.1.e
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 8 reviewed with the development project application. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed tree removal permit in consideration of the following factors:
1) The effect of tree removal or destruction on shade, views, privacy, fire safety,soil erosion and flow of surface water.
Existing vegetation offsite will continue to screen the project site from the north and east, and the grade change and distance to adjacent structures ensure that the tree removal will not reduce existing shading on, or create privacy issues for, adjacent properties. Furthermore, tree replacement and other tree plantings will provide additional screening as well as shade opportunities for residents and guests of the proposed project.
2) The number, species, size and location of other protected trees to remain in the area.
The arborist report indicates that 35 of the existing 66 trees on site will remain.
These trees range in size from 6 inches to 29 inches in diameter and include 21 Coast Live Oaks, four Valley oaks, one Coast Redwood, and one Plum SPP. They are located to the north, east, and west of the proposed building. 3) The necessity for destruction or removal in order to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property.
The proposed improvements cannot be completed without removal of trees as listed in the tree report dated November 17, 2021.
4) The extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and protect a protected tree.
The Applicant modified a number of the proposed improvements to preserve and protect protected trees on site, including building footprint, walkway, and C3 basin locations. Refer to the section “Individual Trees” on pages 6 through 9 within the tree report dated November 17, 2021 for specific protections, construction and demolition techniques, and monitoring requirements to help ensure the safe retention of protected trees on site.
5) The extent to which a change in the existing grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to maintain and preserve a protected or heritage tree.
The grade changes for the site should not significantly impact the trees on site that will be retained.
Section 8. That the proposed Elevated Deck Permit is consistent with Section 17.35.3 of the Orinda Municipal Code. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the proposed elevated deck permit is consistent with the required findings:
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 9 1) The elevated deck does not substantially diminish the privacy of neighbors.
The proposed deck locations along the Mira Loma & Watchwood neighborhood do not substantially diminish their privacy in terms of sightlines and noise. Only private unit decks are proposed at these locations. All common and usable deck areas are located at a much higher vertical elevation and facing towards the downtown area to the west and the Orinda Community Church. 2) The elevated deck does not substantially block desired views from neighboring residences.
The existing trees and foliage on and off-site assist to maintain natural screening and buffer. Proposed deck locations don’t adversely impact neighboring residence views.
3) The elevated deck does not result in the removal of trees which screen undesirable views.
The trees proposed to be removed are to make way for the project footprint, not an elevated deck.
4) Reasonable use of the deck will not cause a material increase in ambient noise for neighboring properties.
The proposed common and usable deck locations are focused towards the Orinda Community Church along the west side of the building. On-site management shall ensure large group gatherings will not occur afterhours.
Section 9. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed density bonus application pursuant to Section 17.4.31 of the Orinda Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find the Project is eligible for a density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law because it will provide 25 percent of units to seniors at a moderate income (13 units), 58 percent at low income (30 units), 15 percent at very low-income (8 units), and a caretaker unit. The Project qualifies for a density bonus under Government Code section 65915 and OMC section 17.4.31 based on the percentage of affordable units it will provide. As a qualifying Project which provides at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, it is eligible for three concessions. The application proposes three concessions to exceed the otherwise applicable height and story limits and to reduce the amount of otherwise required private open space. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that all three of the requested concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. The application includes evidence that without the concessions related to height and story limits project costs would increase by $3,835,000 due to increased grading and that without the concession related to private open space the project costs would increase between $350,000- $450,000 based on the cost of materials to construct larger decks. Reducing construction costs G.1.e
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 10 reduces the overall cost per unit and provides for affordable housing costs or rents. Thus, there is substantial evidence that the requested concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents.
Section 10. That the City Council approve the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, Senior Housing Overlay, Minor Subdivision, Design Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Elevated Deck Permit; subject to the findings above and these conditions of approval:
PLANNING CONDITIONS
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the building plans, with the project conditions of approval printed on them, to the Planning Department for review and approval.
2) The applicant shall submit the Building-Permit Application, to the City of Orinda for review and approval, and shall be responsible to implement and pay all costs associated with the preparation of the Building-Permit Application. 3) All development shall conform to plans presented at the July 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, or the most recent version on file in the PlanningDepartment, unless otherwise specified by conditions of approval provided in this exhibit. 4) Per §17.44.1 of the OMC, project approval terminates according to its terms, if any, or upon the expiration of one year from the date of approval, unless a building permit plans have been submitted to the City/County for plan-check or a building permit has been issued. The duration of the approval may be extended for a maximum of one additional year by the Zoning Administrator upon written request by the property owner, agent or applicant, filed within the effective period of approval if the proposed project as approved conforms to the regulations in effect at the time of the extension. The request shall specify the reason for the extension. A fee, consistent with the most recentlyadopted fee schedule by the City Council, is required for the processing of an extension. 5) Minor changes to the approved building plan(s) shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director prior to implementation. Major changes to the approved building plan(s) shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 6) The applicant shall submit a plan for recycling building and construction materials that are generated from the demolition of existing buildings, and for recycling waste materials from construction, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and/or building permit.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department documentation that the materials have been recycled. 7) Construction, alteration, demolition, grading, excavation, or repair activity ("construction activities") may occur during times specified in OMC §17.39.3 as follows:
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 11 a. Weekdays: Monday through Friday, construction activities may occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
b. Weekends: On Saturdays and Sundays, construction activities may occur between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., except that on Sundays only a resident of the site and one additional person may work on the site. c. Heavy Construction Equipment: Use of heavy construction equipment is prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays.
d. Holidays: On the following holidays, construction activities are prohibited:
• New Year’s Day
• Memorial Day
• Independence Day
• Labor Day
• Thanksgiving Day
• Christmas Day
No exceptions from this rule may be granted.
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and obtain Planning Department approval of a Construction-Management Plan (CMP) that mitigates temporary-traffic impacts.
a. The CMP shall detail how and where adequate off-street parking for constructionrelated equipment/vehicles will be located such that the road, mailboxes, driveways, and other private property are not impacted (i.e., blocked); b. The CMP shall detail how and where adequate storage for construction-related materials will be located such that the road, mailboxes, driveways, and other private property are not impacted (i.e., blocked) or result in nuisance; and c. The CMP shall include adequate provisions for the construction crew (i.e., portable-sanitary facility).
9. The site shall be properly maintained during construction or a Stop-Work Order will be issued by the Planning Director (i.e. refuse shall be discarded promptly, construction materials shall be neatly stored, and the public right-of-way shall not be encroached upon).
10. All rubbish and dead vegetation shall be removed from the site prior to final inspection by staff.
11. All projects are subject to the model water efficiency landscape ordinance (MWELO) if they meet the following landscaping area size thresholds:
a. New landscapes: 500 square feet
b. Existing landscapes: 2500 square feet
For MWELO-qualifying projects, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) will conduct a review of the landscape documentation package, which must include: project information; water efficient landscape worksheet; soil management report; landscape, irrigation and grading design plans. After G.1.e
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 12 landscape installation, the applicant must submit a completed, signed certificate of completion and associated documentation to EBMUD for approval.
12. Failure to comply with any of these Conditions may result in a Stop-Work Order and/or a rescinding of the Design-Review Approval.
13. The pedestrian cross walk located at the south side of the church property be relocated so as to provide a wheel chair accessible access to the side walk on the southside of Irwin Way, avoiding the stairs.
TREE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
1. If a protected tree proposed for removal can be relocated, the applicant shall move the tree to a suitable location on a site shown on the approved plans.
2. The applicant shall guarantee the health and vigor of each protected tree required to be preserved during the construction process and for two years after construction is certified as complete.
3. The applicant shall replace a protected tree that dies during the guarantee period in accordance with the tree-replacement provisions, provided below, of §17.21 of the OMC. a. Protected-Tree Replacement
i. For each 6-inches, or fraction thereof, of the aggregate diameter of trees approved for removal, the applicant shall plant 1 native tree with a diameter no less than 0.75 inches. One-third of the replacement tree requirement may be fulfilled by planting native shrubs that mature at a height no less than 5 feet. The applicant may substitute a larger number of smaller trees or a smaller number of larger trees if approved by the Planning Director based on a finding that tree replacement will be more beneficial to the health and vigor of all trees on the property. ii. If the development site cannot accommodate the replacement trees, the applicant may, with the written approval of the Planning Director and the property owner, plant the replacement trees on public or private property located in Orinda. Alternatively, the applicant may make an in-lieu payment of one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125.00) for each replacement tree otherwise required. All in-lieu payments shall be used for the City’s landscape-related projects.
b. Care of Protected Trees
i. Before starting, the applicant shall securely fence off every protected tree at the protected perimeter. The fence shall remain continuously in place for the duration of work undertaken in connection with the building or grading permit. The fenced area may not be used as a storage area or altered or disturbed except as may be permitted by the Planning Director.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 13 4. If the proposed development or work encroaches upon the protected perimeter of a protected tree, the applicant shall take special measures, as approved by the Planning Director, to allow tree roots to obtain oxygen, water, and nutrients as needed.
5. An authorized excavation, filling or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter of a tree shall be minimized and subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the Planning Director.
6. No significant change in existing ground level may be made within the dripline of a protected or heritage tree.
7. No burning or use of equipment with an open flame may occur near or within the protected perimeter.
8. All brush, earth and debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.
9. No oil, gas, chemical or other substance that may be harmful to a tree may be stored or dumped within the protected perimeter of a protected tree or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the protected perimeter of a tree.
10. Trenching for utilities shall avoid interfering with roots of protected trees wherever possible. If complete avoidance of the root zone is impractical, a tunnel shall be made below the roots. A trench shall be consolidated to serve as many units as possible.
Trenching and tunneling within the protected perimeter shall be avoided to the extent possible and shall be done only under the on-site supervision of a professional arborist.
11. No concrete, asphalt or other impervious paving shall be placed within the protected perimeter of a protected tree. No supplementary irrigation shall occur within the protected perimeter of a native oak.
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS
Project Specific Conditions:
1. Provide an erosion control plan.
2. Provide information on the proposed V-ditch regarding the design capacity and where it ties into or connects into the storm system, also note if there is capacity for this additional runoff in the downstream system.
3. Revise location of area drains to not be in middle of the walkway for safety and drainage reasons.
4. On the SWCP drawing, L2 looks like it’s going into BR3. The drawings will need to be revised.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 14 5. SWCP needs to note 50% rule is applicable.
6. Revise the Hydrology Report references regarding flow through planters not bioretention.
7. Revise hydrology report to show treatment and HMP for a 10-year event.
8. Revise hydrology report to separately show detention for 25-year storm event.
Standard Conditions:
1. When permitted in the public right-of-way, the following activities shall only be allowed directly in front of the subject property, unless prior written consent of the City and affected property owner(s) is obtained.
a. Delivery, unloading, and staging of construction materials and equipment b. Installation of above or underground utilities.
c. Installation of any drainage facilities, including but not limited to, drainage pipes, drain inlets, drain outfall, culverts, swales, etc. d. Installation of retaining walls, mailboxes, curbs.
e. Installation of temporary or permanent driveways.
f. Installation of landscaping.
g. To the greatest extent possible, parking of workers’ vehicles.
2. Damage to public roads caused by construction of applicant's project shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department at the applicant's expense prior to final building inspection. The owner shall post a bond to secure payment for damage to a city street caused by construction activity in connection with work authorized by the permit.
The Public Works Department may waive this requirement when the construction activity will not foreseeably damage the street.
3. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all work proposed to be constructed in the public right-of-way. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of any permits.
4. An applicant may not place, maintain or operate steel-tracked grading or construction equipment with cleats on a public or private street without placing protective material beneath the equipment to protect the surface of the street.
5. Trash, scrap and debris shall be stored in a container with a lid on the construction site.
6. No person shall place or maintain a container in the public right-of way without an Encroachment Permit.
7. No person shall place, install, or maintain a portable-sanitary facility on a construction site closer to the property line than the building setback line.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 15 8. The City may temporarily prohibit or restrict stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles along a street abutting a construction project where necessary for public safety. The restriction does not apply until the City places a sign or marking at the site. The special restriction shall be limited to the duration of the project.
9. Upon issuance of any permits for the project, the City may request carpooling to a construction site.
10. The City may designate a truck route for ingress and egress from the property during the term of the building permit upon findings that:
a. The designation of the truck route will minimize the impact of the construction such as noise, dust, traffic safety hazards and potential damage to pavement on a residential street; and
b. Designation of the truck route will not unreasonably impair the contractor's access to the site or cause undue economic hardship.
11. The City shall require an applicant for a building or grading permit for a major improvement to rehabilitate the street pavement along the frontage of the property from the edge of the street to the center of the right-of-way.
12. When required for: (1) continuity of existing curb and gutter; (2) street drainage; or (3) to ensure structural support for the edge of the street pavement, the City shall require that an applicant for a building permit install appropriate roadway improvements to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Department.
13. At the time of building permit, the applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of OMC §15.32, “Building Permit Conditions;” as such conditions apply to "Major Improvements." The applicant may be required to improve the frontage along the project site. The City shall determine these improvements and the applicant shall be informed of these improvements prior to building permit issuance.
14. The City shall require that a street extension to the property meet the applicable city-road standard set forth in §15.32.180. The City may modify this standard based upon unique topography which makes current city standards impractical or impossible.
15. The City shall require, as a condition, of a building permit for a major improvement that the applicant widen the public or private street along the property frontage so that it either (1) meets current standards for pavement width; or (2) matches the width of the existing street in the vicinity of the property if widening to current standards is unreasonable. The City shall impose this condition upon finding that:
a. The existing street is so narrow that it creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles;
b. The existing street fronting the subject property is narrower than other sections of the street in the same vicinity; and
c. Increasing the width of the street is not an unreasonable burden given the topography of the area and the cost of the work.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 16 Grading and Drainage Conditions
1. A grading permit is required for all proposed earthwork in excess of 50 cubic yards of cut or 200 cubic yards of fill. Excavation, grading, or construction of fills may be prohibited by the City Building Official during the months in which it finds that rainfall will likely preclude compliance with these requirements. As such, no grading shall be allowed from October 1st through April 1st, unless adequate erosion control measures are in place. A grading plan and an erosion-control plan shall be approved by the Building Inspection Department prior to issuance of building permits if proposed earthwork exceeds 50 cubic yards. The erosion-control plan shall specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the following six categories:
a. Erosion control,
b. Run-on and run-off control,
c. Sediment control,
d. Active treatment system (as necessary),
e. Good site management, and
f. Non-stormwater management.
2. If the Building Official determines that the permittee has violated or failed to fully and adequately implement an approved erosion-control plan, no grading shall occur under the permit from October through April.
3. Approval of grading permits by the Building Inspection Department shall be made subject to the following appropriate conditions or reservations required to protect public health, safety, and general welfare:
a. Completion of the work within a period approved by the City Building Official,
b. Cleaning of the area and planting in accordance with approved plans, c. Designation of the area in which work may be done,
d. Designation of the slope of excavation or filling, or the grade and elevation of excavation or filling,
e. Reasonable provisions for controlling excessive dust, f. Hours of operation,
g. Safety precautions to guide pedestrian and vehicular traffic, in around, and by the operation,
h. Posting of a good and sufficient bond to assure compliance with the conditions, and
i. Other conditions deemed necessary by the City Building Official and based on accepted engineering practices.
4. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits.
Attachments. The plan shall show all on-site and nearby off-site drainage details necessary to locate, delineate, illustrate, identify, justify and substantiate the proposed work, and the right and necessity of the applicant to perform the work, the adequacy of which shall be verified by the applicant's engineer.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 17 Additional Information. The City may require soil investigation, tests of materials, environmental documents, engineering plans and investigations, technical reports and other permits as the enforcement officer considers necessary and proper.
Conditions of Approval. In approving the permit, the City may impose one or more conditions which are reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to riparian habitat restoration under OMC §18.04, daylighting, stormwater runoff controls, pre-construction inspections and performance security.
5. The drainage-permit application shall include the written consent and waiver of liability given by each person having an interest in the property where work is to be performed (excluding a security interest) and who may be affected by it.
6. Upon a finding that the existing drainage improvements are inadequate or need repair, the City shall require an applicant for a building permit for a major improvement to make to make drainage improvements along the frontage.
7. The owner/applicant should consult the project geotechnical engineer to provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the construction of a pool.
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any site work that will result in a land disturbance of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City/County Building Official that a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State Construction General Permit has been filed and submit a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to verify compliance with the City’s grading ordinance.
Watercourse Alteration Conditions
1. Each watercourse shall be maintained so that water will flow adequately and unimpeded through the watercourse. An existing watercourse shall be left unaltered unless (1) improvement is necessary to protect life, health, and property; or (2) riparian restoration is required under Title 18 of the OMC. Maintenance, repairs, and new construction shall be accomplished in an environmentally-sensitive manner as provided in Title 18 of the OMC.
2. A watercourse alteration permit, per §18.03 of the OMC, shall be obtained from the City prior to the issuance of any other permits. The following acts or situations shall require a drainage permit:
a. Impair, impede, redirect or otherwise affect the existing flow (permanent or intermittent) of stormwater or other water in a watercourse or allow on the property or cause or permit the obstruction of the watercourse; b. Construct, alter or repair a watercourse;
c. Excavate, grade, or otherwise alter the surface of the land so as to affect the capacity of a watercourse;
d. Destroy or significantly alter vegetation at or near a watercourse, including without limitation cutting, clearing, grubbing, burning, removing, excavating or grading, except as is necessary to maintain or restore the hydraulic capacity of the G.1.e
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 18 watercourse or in compliance with riparian restoration requirements under Title 18 of the OMC;
e. Impair the use of an easement for drainage purposes; f. Install or construct a new structure or improve or expand an existing structure within a watercourse. The term structure shall include, but is not limited to, pipes, culverts, buildings, swimming pools, bridges, patios, paving, fences, retaining walls, poles and similar improvements.
3. The watercourse alteration permit application shall include the written consent and waiver of liability given by each person having an interest in the property where work is to be performed (excluding a security interest) and who may be affected by it.
4. The applicant shall apply for a permit through Bay Area Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for any proposed drainage modifications to be located within the creek setback. This application includes, but is not limited to, the Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers’ Section 404 permit, and the Clean Water Act Section 401A Permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. JARPA consolidates federal, state, and local permits and simplifies the permit process for applicants proposing any of the following activities:
a. Any work in, on or over a stream (perennial, season, or intermittent), and b. Projects that are not directly in or on the stream but may cause impacts (particularly in hillside areas).
5. The applicant shall obtain permits deemed necessary through JARPA prior to issuance of any City permits.
Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
1. The applicant for projects subject to the development runoff requirements in the City’s NPDES Permit (a “C.3. regulated project”) shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3. Guidebook (“C.3 Guidebook”). The SCP shall be submitted as part of the initial project submittal and shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits.
2. The following shall apply to C.3-regulated projects:
a. Projects that create between 10,000 square feet and 1-acre of impervious surface shall prepare and submit a SCP, including features and facilities to ensure runoff is treated before leaving the site and an evaluation of the feasibility of storage for later use. Excluded from this requirement are detached, single-family homes that are not part of a larger plan of development.
b. Auto service facilities, gas stations, restaurants, and uncovered parking lots that create over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface shall prepare and submit a SCP, including features and facilities to ensure runoff is treated before leaving the site and an evaluation of the feasibility of storage for later use.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council 19 c. Projects that create 1-acre or greater of impervious surface shall include in the SCP, documentation demonstrating compliance with hydromodofication management by selecting one of four flow-control compliance options in Appendix C of the C.3 Guidebook. Where required, design project features and facilities for hydrograph modification management (flow-control) as well as stormwater treatment.
3. Prior to issuance of permits for building, site improvements, or landscaping, the permit application shall be consistent with the applicant’s approved SCP and shall include drawings and specifications necessary to implement all measures in the approved SCP.
The permit application shall include a completed Construction Plan C.3 Checklist and a draft Operations and Maintenance Plan as described in the C.3 Guidebook.
4. Drawings submitted with the SCP and Grading-Permit Application (including structural, mechanical, architectural, grading, drainage, site, landscape, and other drawings) shall show drainage management areas as well as the details and methods of construction for pervious pavements, self-retaining areas, self-treating areas, areas draining to selfretaining areas, treatment and flow-control facilities, permanent source control BMPs, and other features that control stormwater flow and potential stormwater pollutants.
5. Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a final Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and execute any agreements identified in the SCP that pertain to the transfer of ownership and/or longterm maintenance of stormwater treatment or hydrograph modification BMPs(Operation and Maintenance Agreements, CC&Rs, etc).
6. Projects creating or replacing between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, including detached, single-family home projects, shall include one or more of the following:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse; b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas;
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios on to vegetated areas; d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots on to vegetated areas; e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces; or f. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.
7. The applicant shall submit the Project Data Form which is included in the December 1, 2012 Addendum to the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook.
MORAGA-ORINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CONDITIONS
1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant must submit to the Planning Department proof of plan approval by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council G.1.e
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 22-02 Recommending Project Approval (Signed) - Without Attachments (2879 : City Council Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 1 of 4 7.12.2022
TUESDAY, July 12, 2022
CITY OF ORINDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair Parnigoni.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Robert Hubner, Brandyn Iverson, Marian Jelinek, Lina Lee, Willy Mautner, John Smith and
Ann Parnigoni
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Commissioner Parnigoni made a motion for adoption of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mautner. The motion passed by a unanimous (7-0) vote.
3. PUBLIC FORUM
Chair Parnigoni opened the floor to any member of the public wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. Seeing none and hearing none the public forum was closed.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR – No report.
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS – No report.
6. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. The proposed project at a portion of 10 Irwin Way consists of a lot split; General Plan Amendment from Public, Semipublic, and Utility to Residential: Multifamily; Rezoning from Public, Semipublic, and Utility to Residential Medium Density with a Senior Housing-Overlay (SH-O; and a Design Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and Elevated Deck Permit. Additionally, an application for Density Bonus will be considered to allow for concessions to the private open space requirement, height and story limits as well as a waiver of the floor area ratio development standard for the 100% affordable housing project. The City has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this100% affordable senior housing project.
PROJECT SITE: Portion of 10 Irwin Way
APN: 260-200-015
APPLICATIONS: General Plan Map Amendment (GPA-2021-001), Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA-2021-001), Minor Subdivision
(MNS-2021-001), Design Review (DRA-2021-023; Tree
Removal (TRP-2021-025; Elevated Deck Permit (EDPG.1.f
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Approved Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 2 of 4 7.12.2022
2021-019) and Density Bonus.
ZONING DESIGNATION: Public, Semipublic, and Utility (PS) OWNER/APPLICANT: Orinda Community Church / Orinda Senior Housing Foundation
PROJECT PLANNER: Richard Smeaton, Contract Planner
CEQA STATUS: Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2022-02 recommending Council adoption
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the applications for a General Plan Map
Amendment (GPA-2021-001), Zoning Map Amendment
(ZMA-2021-001), Minor Subdivision (MNS-2021-001),
Design Review (DRA-2021-023), Elevated Deck Permit
(EDP-2021-019), Tree Removal (TRP-2021-025), and
Density Bonus.
Chair Parnigoni introduced the project and asked about any ex-parte communications by Commissioners. Commissioners Hubner, Iverson, Jelinek, Lee, Smith, Mautner and Parnigoni had visited the site and spoke to no one.
Planning Director Drummond Buckley and Rick Smeaton provided the Commission with an overview of the project.
Chair Parnigoni asked for questions from the Commission to staff.
Chair Parnigoni invited applicants, Victoria Smith, Anne Bar and Padru Kang to speak, and present the project.
Chair Smith opened the floor for public comment. A summary of public comments (not verbatim) are as follows:
Alex Evans stated that he is an Orinda resident and a former member of the Moraga fire district as a director. I just want to thank you all for your service staff and commission members. And I just want to say that I support this project and I hope you will support the staff recommendation.
Ethan Elkind stated I live around the corner on La Plaza Drive and definitely supportive of more housing near downtown or senior housing. So I think this is a great project. My one question really is whether or not anyone has looked at the impacts to pedestrians at the corner of Irwin way and Orinda Way? There's a number of kids including my own in the neighborhood here who regularly walk on that intersection right now. There's just a stop sign down there. It's a three way intersection, and a lot of times cars are not paying attention when they're making a left hand turn coming on to Orinda Way. So, my request, if it's not already been looked at is just to figure out what can be done to protect pedestrians and that crosswalk right there, assuming there's going be a lot more vehicular traffic from this project from the residents and people who work there full time or, caretakers, etc. And if possible, if there's some kind of way to have an automated pedestrian signal or even a stoplight there, just again, just to protect pedestrians at that site. So if that's a condition of approval, or something the city can independently fund I would definitely support that. Otherwise, I think it's a great project but just wanted to make that comment.
G.1.f
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Approved Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 3 of 4 7.12.2022
Kingsley stated obviously, everybody is in support of a project for senior housing. My biggest concern is twofold. One, most of the people have said, oh it doesn't affect us. I'm afraid that it does affect us because we look right onto this project and quite frankly an eyesore from where we live. The other thing is that most of the diagrams that you have been given or have been presented show numerous trees. Those trees do not exist. PG&E have been going crazy cutting down trees. If you do plant trees, I'm 74 years old, I will be dead by the time the trees take place.
Thank you.
Chair Parnigoni closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. A summary of Commissioner Comments (not verbatim) are as follows:
Director Buckley said I don't think he mentioned that one of the things that the commission is recommending the draft resolution that we have for you is whether to adopt the initial study mitigated negative declaration, which is required to comply with CEQA. I just wanted to point that out.
Commissioner Iverson asked regarding the final speaker’s question regarding whether all those trees that are going to be planted would be an issue with fire safety. Has that been pre cleared as part of the application or is there a potential that that would need to get revisited.
Director Buckley responded by saying the cross section, for instance, seem to show trees going all the way up the hill. There's a double line and there's at least one area between the transmission lines above the site where you cannot plant trees underneath. If there are trees existing they need to be severely trimmed. I think there's plenty of area between where the line or lines are located And the project as well. So there's existing trees just below the watch wood homes. There's the PGE lines, and some areas to plant more trees. There's also some existing trees either adjacent to or on the church property and there's still plenty of room for vegetation. I understand the point about the cross section that was provided to us today to show trees that would clearly be underneath the power lines.
We have a finding in the tree removal permit. There's a few protected oak trees that that will still remain. And some proposed to be planted.
Commissioner Mautner commented, I want to compliment the Planning team. I think you have done a remarkable job. I was impressed with the effort that the applicant went to describe the relationship with this project to the neighboring hillside residents with 3d modeling. This project is needed.
Commissioner Hubner said I see no way to not recommend that the concessions be allowed or proceeded with counsel. The softening of the hillside description helped me to be comfortable with that side of the building. I think the combination of dark and light colors will model the facade style. I am a little concerned with what appears to be a white roof reflectivity on a hot sunny day.
But I imagined for energy conservation. There's not much we could do about that. Hopefully it will not be white marble facade that will really glare, also the size of trees that exist and will be planted, will be sufficient to soften that impact as well. I think it's a project the city will benefit greatly from and I look forward to recommending it to the council Do you have any other comments or do we want to propose a motion to that?
Commissioner Iverson said I further support the project also wanted to thank the applicant for the changes they made on those back balconies and those trellis details. I love that set of changes so fully support.
G.1.f
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Approved Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 4 of 4 7.12.2022
Commissioner Smith said, I also support the project that we looked at a year ago. I was supportive then but had concern about the height and some of the design that was done but I think that those changes have been made and very supportive of the project itself. Its design and the overall intended purpose. The affordable housing element is something we'd also benefit from, I am also in support of this project.
Director Buckley said to Commissioner Mautner you have a draft resolution and so if you concur with the staff recommendation, then you would be recommending approval of the draft resolution which is Resolution 2022-02.
ACTION: Commissioner Smith proposed a motion to adopt Resolution 2022-02 for the recommendation to City Council adoption for the applications for General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map, Minor Subdivision, Design Review, Elevated Deck, and Tree Removal permits permit tree removal.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hubner and the motion carried by unanimous (7-0) vote as follows:
Ayes: Iverson, Jelinek, Lee, Smith, Hubner, Mautner, Parnigoni Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None.
8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS – No report.
9. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S UPDATE – No report.
10. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Chair Parnigoni, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 7:00 pm by teleconference via zoom webinar.
G.1.f
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Approved Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 220
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) G.1.g
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Project Plans dated March 22, 2022 (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) Vista Verde IS/MND Errata Sheet
The text below appears on pates 39-40 of the Vista Verde Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
It is modified as shown:
Fire Protection:
The Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District (MOFD) is the primary fire protection agency in Orinda although small areas near the eastern boundary of the city are within the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District or the Moraga Fire Protection District. The Orinda Fire Protection District. MOFD operates three the following stations in Orinda and Moraga:
1) Station 45 in Downtown on Orinda Way where the crew is staffed with four to six fire fighters, and equipment includes a pumperfire engine, a four-wheel drive wildland fire truckengine, and a medical rescue unit; ALS ambulance. 1 Chief Officer
2) Station 44 on Orchard Road and Moraga Way is staffed with twothree fire fighters, and equipment includes a pumper and a Ladder Truck, Type 6 wildland fire truck;engine and a water tender. 3) Station 43 on Honey Hill Road and Via Las Cruces with twois staffed three fire fighters, and equipment includes a pumper and a type 3 wildland fire truck.engine.
The Orinda Fire Protection District is responsible, with other fire departments, for fighting fires in the Tilden Park area.
4) Station 42 on Moraga Road is staffed with three firefighters and equipment includes a fire engine and a type 3 wildland fire engine.
5) Station 41 on Moraga Way is staffed with five firefighters, equipment includes a fire engine and a type 3 wildland fire engine and ALS ambulance.
The District's annual budget for Orinda and Moraga is approximately $227.9 million, funded from 25 percent of the 14.2% percent property tax rate. Current crews and equipment are adequate although many areas are beyond a response time of six to eight minutes, and fires often commit all eight to 10 fire17 fighters on duty and Chief Officer.
Orinda is within the area of Critical Fire Weather Class II, with one to 9.5 days a year of critical fire weather.
Also contributing to the wildfire hazards are steep slopes and combustible vegetation. Most of the undeveloped slopes in Orinda would be "High Hazard" as defined by the Fire Hazard Severity Scale in the Contra Costa County Safety Element.
The project site is not located within, or within close proximity to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The closest VHFHSZ) but is immediately adjacent to VHFHSZ’s and, per MOFD, is in the Siesta Valley Recreation located in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area, approximately 2,000-feet southwest of the project site.. Furthermore, the project plans will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable fire codes, and the site will be constructed in compliance with applicable fire district design guidelines, including landscaping standards which include low ground cover up to 30 feet around a residential structure with fire-resistant planting up to 100 feet from the structure, and a minimum 100-foot buffer area on slopes. Therefore, there will be no impact.
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Eratta to IS/MND (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde) 431776.1
ADDENDUM to the
CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) VISTA VERDE COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECT AT 10 IRWIN WAY
ORINDA, CALIFORNIA
On June 22, 2022, the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published with the Contra Costa County Clerk and the Vista Verde Community Housing Project IS/MND was released for public review.
On July 12, 2022, the Orinda Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the Vista Verde project. Both written and oral public comments were provided on the project and the IS/MND. One of the commenters raised a concern about pedestrian safety at the intersection of Irwin Way and Orinda Way and suggested that the assessment of traffic impacts on pedestrian safety in the IS/MND Appendix D (Local Traffic Analysis) is deficient. Furthermore, the commenter suggested that drivers descending Irwin Way toward Orinda Way tend to look into the vehicle lanes for traffic but often fail to see pedestrians at the sidewalk, creating an unsafe environment.
In response to the concern raised, the Applicant hired a traffic engineer (Kimley-Horn, the same consultants that prepared the Local Traffic Analysis) to look into the issues raised by the commenter. The traffic engineer conducted a site visit to observe field conditions and assess the relative safety of the intersection as it exists today. No safety deficiencies were found in the existing conditions, and the proposed project will not result in vehicular traffic that will result in a deterioration of the existing conditions to create an unsafe environment. Kimley-Horn’s memorandum on the field observations is attached.
Appendix D to the IS/MND notes that “there is a steep grade along Irwin Way, which may be difficult for some residents of the project to traverse”. This statement suggests that future residents of the Vista Verde Community Housing Project may find it difficult to comfortably descend the Irwin Way hill, perhaps due to more limited mobility for some senior citizens.
However, this statement is not evidence that there is an unsafe pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the project. The conclusion to be drawn by the Kimley-Horn memorandum is that the existing IS/MND does not need to be modified to address the pedestrian safety concern raised at the July 12, 2022 Planning Commission public hearing and in the follow-up email dated July 13, 2022. The existing conditions at the Irwin Way/Orinda Way intersection are safe for pedestrians and there is no evidence to suggest that additional stop controls or pedestrian crossing enhancements are warranted.
Since there are no changes suggested to the IS/MND, none of the conditions requiring recirculation of the IS/MND or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND are present.
This Addendum serves to document this fact in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.
Attachment:
August 4, 2022 Kimley-Horn memorandum
G.1.k
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: IS/MND Addendum (2879 : City Council Report First Reading Vista Verde)