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, November 15, 2022
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 11.15.22
How to follow or participate in the meeting:
• Members of the public may observe and participate in the meeting at the teleconference location highlighted above. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by following instructions below:
Send your e-mail to [email protected] by 3pm on the day of the meeting.
Those e-mails will be forwarded to the City Council. They will also be made a part of the public record and be available to view 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 11.15.22
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 Declaring November as Homelessness Awareness Month
E. PUBLIC FORUM
The public forum provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of the City Council that is not on the agenda.
Additionally, a speaker has the option of addressing the Council on an item listed on the agenda, if the speaker will not be present when that agenda item is taken up. When an item is not listed on the agenda, State law prohibits Council discussion or action. Councilmembers may only “briefly respond” to statements made and questions posed. For example, State law allows Councilmembers to ask questions for clarification and provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. Additionally, consistent with the “Matters Initiated” rule contained in its Policies and Procedures Manual, the Council may also direct staff to report back and/or place a matter on a future agenda for discussion.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. November 1, 2022 - Closed Session Meeting
2. November 1, 2022 - Regular Meeting
F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:
City Council
Agenda Page 3 11.15.22
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of November 16, 2022 to December 15, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
F.3. Approval of Lease between the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the City of Orinda for Use of Property for the Orinda Sports Fields.
Recommendation:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2023 “Ballfields Lease” with the East Bay Municipal Utility District
F.4. Authorize Purchase of Replacement Street Sweeper for Public Works Department
Recommendation:
Approve Resolution 59-22, waiving the formal bid process pursuant to Chapter 2.55.100 of the Orinda Municipal Code, and approving issuing a purchase order to TYMCO, Inc. to replace the city street sweeper at a cost of $270,731.30; and approve a Budget Change in the amount of $45,731 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund.
G. PUBLIC HEARING
G.1. Wilder Development Agreement Annual Review and Public Hearing Regarding OGLLC Default
Recommendation:
Conduct a continued public hearing regarding noncompliance by OG Property Owners, LLC (“OGLLC”) with the terms of the Second Amendment and Restatement of the Development and Pre-Annexation Agreement for Gateway Valley (“DA”) and related approvals, including the 2009 Reimbursement Agreement, the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”) Plan of Control, and the 2008 Subdivision Improvement Agreement, all as amended. Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution No. 58-22 to conclude the 2002 annual review process and find that OGLLC remains out of compliance with the terms of the DA.
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, and provide feedback on the draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis.
H.2. Consider Recommendation for Brookwood Rd mitigation measures as a result of vegetation removal to meet current Fire Fuel reduction requirements.
Recommendation:
City Council
Agenda Page 4 11.15.22
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report on various mitigation options being considered for Brookwood Road and provide direction to Staff to move forward with the recommended option.
H.3. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 56-22 Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement between the City of Orinda and David Biggs, City Manager
Recommendation:
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 56-22 approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement between City of Orinda and David Biggs
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, December 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
~ Notices ~
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in Court to certain City decisions that 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 file a challenge in Court, you may be limited by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to those issues raised in connection with 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. For information on the next City Council meeting, please call 925.253.4221 or visit the City Council
Agenda Page 5 11.15.22
website at www.cityoforinda.org. Unless otherwise noted, City Council actions include a determination that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply. ~ 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
Recognizing November as Homelessness Awareness Month
WHEREAS the month of November is recognized as Homelessness Awareness Month in the United States; and
WHEREAS the purpose of the proclamation is to educate the public and advocate with and on behalf of people experiencing homelessness about the many reasons people are homeless, including the shortage of affordable housing in Contra Costa County; and to encourage support for homeless assistance service providers as well as community service opportunities for students and school service organizations; and WHEREAS there are over twenty organizations in Contra Costa County committed to sheltering, providing supportive services, and/or basic resources to people experiencing homelessness; and
WHEREAS Contra Costa County recognizes that homelessness continues to be a serious problem for many individuals and families in Contra Costa; and WHEREAS 9,119 individuals accessed homeless services in Contra Costa in 2021, making up 6,816 unique households; and
WHEREAS between 2019 and 2021, there was a 47% increase in people experiencing homelessness identified by the coroner’s office after passing away in a non-hospital setting; and
WHEREAS In Contra Costa County, renters need to earn $41.77 per hour - 2.7 times the minimum wage - to afford the average monthly asking rent of $2,172.12; and WHEREAS asking rents increased by 5.3% between Q4 2020 and Q4 2021; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Orinda hereby proclaims November as Homelessness Awareness Month.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Orinda encourages all residents to recognize that thousands of people in Contra Costa do not have housing and need support from the government, citizens, and private/public nonprofit service entities to address the myriad challenges of homelessness.
_____________________
Dennis Fay, Mayor
City of Orinda
D.1
Packet Pg. 6
Communication: Proclamation Declaring November as Homelessness Awareness Month (ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY) AGENDA TITLE: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. November 1, 2022 - Closed Session Meeting
2. November 1, 2022 - Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City Council Closed Session Minutes of November 1, 2022 B. City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022
Respectfully Submitted by:
Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
F.1
Packet Pg. 7
NOVEMBER 1, 2022
CITY OF ORINDA
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
5:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
Due to technical difficulties, Mayor Fay asked Vice Mayor Miller to call the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. and City Manager Biggs called the roll. All Councilmembers were present after Mayor Fay rejoined the meeting
OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
City Manager Biggs identified the Closed Session Matters.
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
There were no members of the public wishing to speak.
D. CLOSED SESSION
1. CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, Annual Performance Evaluation of City Manager David Biggs
2. CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, Annual Performance Evaluation of City Attorney Osa Wolff
3. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED 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 Manager Biggs announced that there was no reportable action.
F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 P.M.
_______________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City Council Closed Session Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 23 11.01.22
November 1, 2022
CITY OF ORINDA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Note: Written communications received from the public prior to the start of this meeting can be viewed at: http://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2102.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 7:17 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Nick Kosla, Amy Worth Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Councilmember Kosla.
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller 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. -Proclamation Declaring October 24 World Polio Day in the City of Orinda
Mayor Fay introduced the Proclamation declaring October 24 World Polio Day in the City of Orinda and encourage all citizens and the City to join Rotary International in the fight for a polio-free world.
Councilmembers thanked the Rotary International for their work, recognized the disease and those suffering from polio.
City Manager Biggs acknowledged Rotary’s contributions, stating he was involved with Rotary as a Silicon Valley representative and spoke of his trip with others to China which allowed getting Polio Plus into China.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 23 11.01.22
Rodney Lal, President of Rotary Club of Orinda, thanked the Council, staff, and particularly Councilmember Worth’s for her attendance at their October 24th Rotary Day Breakfast and walk to the theater to spread awareness to eradicate polio, which he described and invited the Council to join their meeting on Wednesdays at the Community Center.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.
D.2. Proclamation In Support of Human Rights in Iran
Mayor Fay introduced the proclamation in support of human rights in Iran, and described those struggling with Iranian people’s non-violent struggle for justice, dignity, and equality, and he strongly condemns the brutal murder of Mahsa Amini for allegedly violating strict hijab rules and asked for the immediate cessation of human rights abuses against the Iranian people.
Mayor Fay and Councilmembers thanked Bijon Sartipi for his engagement, activism, and caring and for being here, referring to the New York Times Square billboard, said it is important that communities throughout the world speak out against these terrible human rights abuses,
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
Bijon Sartipi, Retired District Director of Caltrans, thanked the Mayor and Council for agendizing the proclamation in support of human rights in Iran and for standing with 22 year old Mahsa Amini for her courageous fight for basic human rights. This will inspire, empower, and breed warmth to the hearts of those unarmed demonstrators, some as young as 8, fighting on the streets and putting their lives in danger.
E. PUBLIC FORUM
City Clerk Smith read a communication from Nick Waranoff: “For reasons that some of you know but that do not need to be publicly discussed, health reasons prevent me from participating or even listening to tonight’s meeting. Please consider my three written submissions. The take-a-ways are 1) that the 35 foot height limit can be preserved by increasing density at the Caltrans site; and 2) Do not fall into the BART trap. It is a too risky short-term amendment.”
Chris Kniel said the perspective has been wrong with Orinda Watch, which is a prodevelopment organization as demonstrated by many things done in the past. Orinda should accept the General Plan and try to improve it, but stay within the confines of it.
Orinda Watch took an active role with the Fair’s Building and the Montessori project which was a wonderful proposal and approved by the PC through a rigorous analysis. It was opposed by the Orinda Vision group and some Councilmembers, appealed and three Councilmembers killed it 10 years ago, so he thinks Orinda has lost its focus and thinks it should be a City with local control.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 23 11.01.22
F. 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. October 11, 2022 - Regular Meeting
2. October 18, 2022 - Regular Meeting
F.2. 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 November 2, 2022 to December 1, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
MOTION by Councilmember Kosla moved and seconded by Councilmember Worth to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.1.2, and F.2. Said motion carried by (5-0) roll call vote.
G. PUBLIC HEARING – None.
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Consideration of Revised Draft Housing Element & Overview Regarding Key Housing Laws
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, provide feedback, and direct staff to submit the revised draft Housing Element to HCD.
City Manager David Biggs introduced the revised Draft Housing Element and overview regarding key housing laws. The City is seeing many State mandates and loss of local control and this is the environment the City is faced with a new Housing Element. Staff has been engaged with the element for a while. It has been integrated into the development of the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) and this decision took place last year in 2021, and tonight’s focus on the Housing Element should be considered in the context of the DPP.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 23 11.01.22
He then described the City’s RHNA and methodology, mandates to provide the units, economic impacts regarding sales tax leakage, adding residential in the downtown, community outreach and involvement with the DPP and Housing Element, new State laws relating to the scale and feel of development in the downtown, mandates, and the balance of demands to comply with State laws and mandates.
He then provided an overview of what was presented to the Downtown and Housing Element Committee in response to HCD comments, work to plan a road forward, work seeking clarity from HCD as well as flexibility with alternatives, inclusion of sites, densities, height limits, objective design, and consequences of not complying with State law.
City Attorney Osa Wolff called on Councilmembers to provide potential conflicts relating to specific elements and sites, and staff can structure its discussion accordingly. She asked Mayor Fay and Vice Mayor Miller to provide brief summaries regarding their intended recusal this evening.
Vice Mayor Miller disclosed she is on a Board at St. Mark’s Church of Moraga which runs the nursery school now and previously ran the church, which closed a couple of months ago to which the other church entity, St. Mark’s Methodist Church of Orinda, which she has helped in the past, will transfer the property to the California-Nevada Annual Conference at some point. Therefore, she is recusing herself from any discussion related to the St. Mark’s property site.
Mayor Fay disclosed that he lives within 1,000 feet of the Downtown Office area and he will recuse himself from any discussion regarding properties in that area.
Ms. Wolff then described how the Council will proceed by using the segmentation rule as required by the FPPC. She said the Council will first receive a staff report, will ask questions, but avoid deliberation during this time, then take public testimony, and then Council discussion and deliberation.
Two questions will be asked as to whether there is discussion or feedback about the St.
Mark’s Church site and if so, Vice Mayor Miller will leave. The second question will be asked of the Downtown Office, and if so, Mayor Fay will leave. Once discussion has occurred, both can return and complete deliberation about the remaining aspects of the Housing Element and DPP.
Planning Director Drummond Buckley introduced Cynthia Walsh and Jennifer Gastelum.
Jennifer Gastelum, PlaceWorks, said she and Ms. Walsh will give the presentation. She provided a brief background of the Housing Element update, planning period requirements, and timelines.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 23 11.01.22
Cynthia Walsh, PlaceWorks, said to address the August 12th findings letter from HCD, several minor revisions, program revisions, FFHA changes, and actions have been made, which she described. She spoke about analysis conducted, RHNA percentage breakdowns, reduction of site list from 43 to 21 sites that had the most potential for redevelopment, increased densities, and increased heights, certain exceptions on 4 sites, site specific information, the City’s progress, site capacity and the City’s RHNA, projection of ADUs, total capacity, and proposed actions to address any shortfalls.
City Attorney Wolff then gave a legal context PowerPoint presentation on how the City staff and consultants have been working to get the City to a place of compliance with State Housing Element law. She gave an overview on broader State housing law context, state laws and requirements, key 2022 laws/updates, State density bonus law and relevant implications for the City.
Mr. Buckley then discussed and presented AB 2097 parking requirements and mapping of areas within one-half mile of BART, preliminary hypotheticals for new housing, commercial construction and tenant improvements, AB 2011 and SB 6 eligible project requirements and process. He noted that ABAG will provide a presentation in a couple of days he and Ms. Wolff will attend this which will provide information on new laws from this last legislative season.
Ms. Wolff concluded the presentation and provided an overview of AB 2011 and SB 6; two new State laws that allow residential development in areas previously zoned just for commercial, office, retail, shopping malls, office parks, and what this means as a practical and legal matter for the City. She referred to packet pages 78 through 85 showing ABAG’s summary of the laws and spoke about SB 6 and ministerial approval in residentially zoned areas in areas that would otherwise be zoned commercial, AB 2011 provisions and eligibility, its effective day of July 1, 2023, and staff’s work to better understand and clarify these detailed development standards and laws.
Vice Mayor Miller referred to AB 2011 which allows reduction of the commercial element of a mixed use project and asked for more details about which projects it applies to.
Ms. Wolff explained that if you have a mixed income project and a developer is attempting to have a concession to reduce the amount of ground floor commercial required, the maximum waiver can be applied for 50% of the ground floor for the AB 2011 project.
Councilmember Gee asked if projects under AB 2011 must conform to objective design standards. Ms. Wolff said mixed income projects are subject to the rules the State has set up and they have a list of objective rules and densities based on all variables.
Additionally, the City may be able to impose its objective standards; however, this is an area yet to be determined and somewhat unclear. For 100% affordable projects, the City’s rules apply.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 23 11.01.22
Councilmember Gee asked if there is a definition of commercial corridor different than commercial zoning. Ms. Wolff said yes, and the most important aspect a commercial corridor is a street and not a freeway in a commercial area. The City would look to its width which is what will drive some of these development standards, and she noted Mr.
Buckley has been working on mapping the widths of the downtown commercial corridors.
Councilmember Worth asked if the 500 feet distance for housing from the freeway is from its edge. Ms. Wolff said unfortunately the legislature was not clear on how to measure, but Mr. Buckley has made a reasonable mapping which he will present.
Councilmember Worth said it seems there are exclusions where this does not apply and her understanding was that if there was a planned area. They use the term, “neighborhood plan.” She asked if this provides some protection or clarity in terms of Orinda’s future in terms of how AB 2011 would apply in the community.
Ms. Wolff said staff has done some preliminary research, and the legislature called out the “neighborhood plan” which includes Precise Plans. It has certain eligibility requirements she was not sure the City has met but was very close to meeting. The Notice of Preparation for the CEQA document the City is doing for the DPP and Housing Element was issued in early January 2022 and the cut-off was January 1, 2022 so the City has missed this by days. They had no idea the deadline would exist but right now are struggling with that technical and seemingly arbitrary cut-off. The draft objective design standards are going to be part of the DPP that comes to the Council and these would take effect when rezonings occur.
Mr. Buckley then presented a map illustrating AB 2011, the half-mile radius which entitles higher densities and right-of-way width, and he described various streets less than and above 100 feet. The large Caltrans right-of-way is excluded and he pointed to the area which is based at the edge of the freeway and not the right-of-way. Staff will need to see what the accepted interpretation of that rule is. It does not apply to very high fire severity zones which do not apply to downtown, contains some minimum setbacks that could exclude a few sites with high transmission power lines at the fronts of the parcels, and he then presented various hypothetical sites and development scenarios.
Ms. Wolff said effective next summer fully market rate housing is allowed in commercial areas and is not limited to commercial corridors. There is, however, no streamlined or ministerial processing. Staff needs to do detailed site specific analysis to determine what the eligibility would be, the maximum density, and other development allowed.
The legislature says the City’s own zoning for default density will get imported and applied to these projects which, for Orinda, the zoning for default density is the zoning on the Santa Maria site which is 20 units/acre. Under that, there would be design review and objective standards. Density bonus law would be available here and, in thinking about implications for the DPP and Housing Element, the take-away is that much of the downtown could be eligible for this SB 6 development.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 23 11.01.22
Mr. Buckley then presented a map showing downtown commercial and office areas that qualify for SB 6, and he then presented a few hypothetical examples.
Ms. Wolff stated between now and July 2023, the City could rezone to allow 20 units/acre with different rules from those here. The DPP envisions outside of the RHNA sites with higher densities between 25 to 30 units/acre which is close to SB 6.
Ms. Walsh concluded with an overview of the project schedule and next steps leading up to the due date of January 31st, noting the Housing Element will be submitted for a certification review with HCD.
Councilmember Gee asked to explain what happens after the 60-day review period if HCD does not agree or accept the City’s submittal.
Ms. Wolff said the consultant team and staff needs to recommend the Council adopt a substantially compliant Housing Element before the January deadline. Hopefully, if remaining comments are received from HCD they will be minor enough that the City can make some adjustments and bring the Council an element they believe HCD will certify.
If HCD does not certify it, they will need to discuss alternatives. She believes there is enough time in the grace period to make changes, resubmit, and still have a certified Housing Element within this period.
Vice Mayor Miller asked whether it might make sense for the Council to consider whether they want to look at whether the City would meet the parking requirement exception in AB 2097 in a case where they have an AB 2011 project come up that is reducing retail on the Bev Mo site, for example. She cited ADA constraints and pedestrians given it is a long walk from Safeway to the Bev Mo site. If they will not have retail anyone who lives there will have to get in a car to get to and from schools. So, the idea that people are not going to have a car because they live next to BART is not a rational nexus.
Mr. Buckley said he thinks the question is whether to do an implementing ordinance.
Ms. Wolff referred to parking and said there is the opportunity for the City to make a finding supported by preponderance of evidence that there be substantial impact on parking in the area if it is not required for a given project. Findings cannot be made until a proposal comes in, but they could do some homework before the 30 day clock starts running and look at all parking studies done to date in thinking about where there are already shortages, and what impacts a potential project might have on that condition.
Mr. Biggs commented he would be surprised if a developer proposed no parking or at least one space per units. Also, they will be looking at a parking district and shared parking, so these would provide additional information as to the best way to approach this.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 23 11.01.22
Councilmember Gee said under AB 2011 and SB 6 projects she asked if there is any control over the mix or type of units that are built even if they are all affordable, such as studio apartments.
Ms. Wolff added that she recalled that there be equity in the distribution of affordable units and their size such as the ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms.
Mr. Biggs noted that staff is bringing back an inclusionary ordinance that would probably be more impactful on market rate development which would probably have a proportionality provision.
Councilmember Gee said the City has an upcoming meeting with the Caltrans site. She voiced frustration with AB 1485 for surplus land and the Governor’s Executive Order requiring State agencies to declare surplus land and cannot imagine why Orinda would have to be involved in incurring costs for the Caltrans property. She suggested the City push Caltrans to declare it as such for affordable housing.
Mr. Biggs stated this is something the City will be exploring. He agreed, stating there are others at HCD working to identify sites like this site that would be freed up through a different process as well.
Councilmember Worth asked if they should also include questions on Appendix A for the details on HCD feedback and changes made now or later.
Mr. Biggs said it is at the pleasure of the Council. He suggested hearing from the public, talk about whether the Council wants to lower buffer that might allow reductions in heights and density in the downtown area, and emphasized the City must hit a certain target with the buffer that would pass HCD muster.
Councilmember Worth referred to the growth management element requirements for Contra Costa County. They are the only county in the state that has such an element embedded in its transportation sales tax measure, and the compliance of it is a requirement of receiving streets and roads money. She thinks they might benefit from more amplification of the policy on page 191 which includes the ability to waive fees for affordable housing projects. Also, the Authority is engaged in the process of making sure the rules in place are compliant with State housing laws as they change.
Ms. Walsh stated they can include more detail and revisions for this. Councilmember Worth thanked her and said this it is intended to be an incentive for affordable housing production as opposed to a barrier.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 23 11.01.22
Vice Mayor Miller referred to the growth management element requirements and said this was one of the reasons it was so important for the City to bring this topic to the City Council tonight. She and Councilmember Kosla felt it was incredibly important, and make those corrections now and not when they already submitted to HCD where HCD would be confused about Measure J. She think it shows their good faith and hopes to bring that out.
Councilmember Kosla said that the Downtown Subcommittee talked about this for 3 hours and they had good public input. He said 2 or 3 weeks ago at the subcommittee meeting there was a letter from the owner or owner’s representative from Pine Grove saying they did not want their site to be included, and he asked if this has changed.
Mr. Buckley said he and the City Manager met with the property owner representative and his leasing agent. They learned their main concern was becoming a legal nonconforming use and the plan was not to prohibit office use on their parcel but to allow residential in addition to office use. The City Manager summarized their conversation in a written email to the owner and this is part of the staff report, clarifying he is not in opposition of that site being in the inventory.
Councilmember Kosla said they are talking about spot zoning 65 or 70 du/acre on a few parcels, but he asked if they would have to do a land use designation as well for the General Plan. He asked if there is a General Plan designation that anticipates 65 to 70 du/acre.
Mr. Buckley said no, there are a few land use designations they would need to create for purposes of the Housing Element more than the DPP. The City does not even have 20 du/acre in the downtown now or mixed use, so the answer is ‘yes.’ Councilmember Kosla noted that he saw the 20 to 40 du/acre was called out to clean up that land use designation so future zoning would conform to it, but he just did not see it for the up to 65 or 70 du/acre. Mr. Buckley said this is a good point.
Councilmember Kosla said he disagrees with HCD on most everything, but on their point that half of the City’s sites do not work for them he thinks all of them could work. If they rezoned all this land and they are conforming, if a 1-acre site they have not identified as being part of the Housing Element not zoned they need and they want to build development, he asked if the City could go back and change the element so now the site can be considered. For all these State laws that have come out recently which he calls “the builder’s delight”, he asked what happens if they are non-conforming in the middle of the cycle, he asked if they could swap densities and still be in conformance.
Mr. Buckley said they do get credit for projects as well as the rezoning so if there is a project that requires a rezone that was not part of the Housing Element and then you lose a site somewhere else because they built market rate or something else, he confirmed they will get credit for the project built. This is how the City got credit for the 52 units in the Vista Verde project.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 23 11.01.22
Vice Mayor Miller asked if Vista Verde get counted in this cycle. Mr. Buckley said yes, in the one before the Council for the 6th cycle.
Mayor Fay asked if staff can explain what are the downsides of a larger buffer or a smaller buffer. Mr. Buckley said the downside of a smaller buffer is that the City could be in a position midway through the next 8 year cycle where it needs to rezone in order to make up for units lost. The downside of having a big buffer is the City must find some place to put those units and this is part of how they ended up with the higher densities which many folks have concerns about in the two locations downtown. It is a comfort level as well.
Mayor Fay asked if it is fair to assume that the size of the buffer is a balancing act and that is why the size of the buffer is being proposed at this time.
Ms. Walsh stated what Mr. Buckley is referring to is the no net loss provision which is SB 166, which states that if the City got into a situation where some of these things did not come to fruition and some projects got approved with less units, the City could be in a shortfall of the very low income category, which would mean the City would have 180 days to find another site to rezone.
Mayor Fay if they must upzone in order to come up with a larger buffer he asked if there is any positive effect from having a larger buffer now rather than after the 8 years. Mr.
Buckley said he thinks it helps the City because the City can reuse the sites that are not built upon.
Mayor Fay asked what HCD told staff about the BART site. Mr. Buckley said the City’s consultants have been reaching out and they have a report based upon finally having a direct verbal conversation today.
Ms. Walsh said she reached out to HCD to get a better understanding of what they would look at for the City to include the BART site. They want to know the probability of the site being ready for development, that zoning is in place, Caltrans has sold the property, and they want all of this to be done within the middle of the planning period. The timing of it does not line up with the timing BART has identified so this would be their biggest concern. The timing BART identified a mid-term phasing which is 2025 to 2030 when they would start their process. She confirmed this is separate from the Caltrans property by Wilder.
Councilmember Gee said it seems plausible given the scenario just described that the BART site could be part of a buffer which she thinks could have value.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 23 11.01.22
Ms. Wolff said for HCD to count it as the City’s buffer it would have to meet the same eligibility requirements as the rest of the RHNA sites. There is skepticism from HCD. The Council could think of it as a buffer in another way which is they have done the environmental analysis for use of the BART site already so if the City was to end up in a no net loss problem, the City could turn to that BART site at year 3 or 4 of this Housing Element and use it then. That might better align with BART’s timing and be able to convince HCD it is a site they should allow the City to count.
Councilmember Gee said she was not sure she understands the difference between that.
The reality is that BART has identified it as plausible in the tail end of this housing cycle.
All these processes could be sped up or slowed down in various sites for many different reasons. So, she does not understand the logic that if nothing happens to move it along for 3 more years and then the City wants to go back, it just does not make sense to her.
Ms. Wolff said she cannot explain HCD logic but in the scenario she was envisioning, if the City were to end up with no net loss problem in 3 or 4 years, if progress had been made at BART and they were ready to move ahead with planning, the City might be able to convince HCD it is a viable site and they should let the City amend its Housing Element to have that be a viable RHNA site.
Ms. Walsh nodded and agreed with these statements. Mr. Buckley said it would still be incredibly challenging to try to do something like that in 180 days. If there is still a downside to punting in that way.
Mr. Biggs said if the City were to include the BART site now and increase the buffer, he questioned whether HCD would allow that in the plan, and he is hearing they would not.
In Lafayette’s BART site which is covered by an Assembly Bill that BART plan for those for housing, HCD has indicated to the City that the site is not ripe. Orinda’s site is more complicated and therefore they are proposing what they have.
Councilmember Kosla said if they went back to proposing the lowest buffer they can for the State which is 15%, instead of having to go up to 65 du/acre or more with the 40 to 50 foot heights, he asked if this brings it down to 50 du/acre or he asked what happens.
Mr. Buckley said they have looked at that issue and Ms. Walsh has an active spreadsheet in case the Council wants to make changes tonight. So, he asked her to work on what the numbers would look like at 15% or 20% while the Council takes public comment.
Councilmember Kosla asked and confirmed that HCD does not have a minimum buffer, and Mr. Buckley said they talked about it being 15% because they were concerned about the no net loss issue if there was development that was market rate and they needed to make up for it. They were trying to prevent having to open things up mid-stream. The reason it got bigger was because they realized the timeline for the Gateway site could result in a very large no net loss issue.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 23 11.01.22
Mr. Biggs asked and confirmed with Ms. Walsh that the Gateway is relying on 200 units, and if that site went away, the City would have to find 200 units out of 1,400 as opposed to if a smaller site developed 100% market rate and they had to make up 200 or so affordable units somewhere. Mr. Buckley said therefore it has a bigger implication for the overall numbers. It is not just 200 out of 1,600.
Mr. Buckley said the other thing they can do is that if they are hearing people concerned about overall height and density and the 2 or 3 sites that are at 55 feet and 65 or 75 du/acre, if those were lowered to 45 feet and 50 du/acre, they could get that density in certain circumstances on those sites but he would ask how much the buffer would drop.
Councilmember Kosla said he thinks they will need to open this up anyway, buffer or no buffer, and he asked if the City submitted 15% buffer in the last cycle.
Ms. Walsh said the reason the buffer is 200 units is because of the Caltrans Gateway property. They were covering that property in case the decertification does not happen.
They are still in a positive. If they lower that buffer and if that site does not decertify, the City is immediately 180 days later having to find another site.
Councilmember Kosla said in 4 years from now State law will mandate no zoning in the City if things keep going in the direction they are going. He was not sure if bringing the densities and height down is significant enough to make the City be able to lower the buffer, but he was not sure.
Councilmember Gee said she does not understand why they only have 200 units at the Caltrans site and asked staff to explain why that number is so low.
Ms. Walsh said it is kind of a safety zone that HCD sees. If the City relies on the minimum density and you multiply that by the acreage, they do not ask any questions. If the City increases the density, they will ask if there are examples of projects like this, are there large sites developing that produced more than 200 units, and will want to see project examples from the City of Orinda and neighboring communities.
Mayor Fay said if they were to say 30 du/acre at the Caltrans site which equals 300 units, they are well past the buffer, they would immediately be forced to find housing elsewhere to make up another 90 units somewhere. Ms. Walsh confirmed this is correct, and confirmed this has implications for other parts of the community.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
City Clerk Smith stated staff received 16 public comments in writing prior to the meeting which the Council received and are available on the website.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 13 of 23 11.01.22
Owen Murphy said he is speaking for himself and Nick Waranoff and those Orinda residents who seek timely compliance with the City’s Housing Element schedule while still being prudent to avoid unintended consequences. The topic for tonight is not the DPP which is a locally controlled vision for Orinda’s future and he asked only to focus on what is delivered to HCD. He referred to Mr. Waranoff’s letters indicating the City cannot comply with its RHNA quota while maintaining a height limit of 35 feet, increasing density to 20 units/acre while increasing the density of the 10-acre Caltrans Gateway site. They ask not to allow HCD to interrupt the City’s downtown character and own plans.
He said the builder’s alternative defined in recent State legislation is a truly scary threat to the City’s village character, 8 years is a long cycle and the wrong path can lead the City far astray, and Mr. Waranoff’s research is thorough and his work complements the consultant’s work giving the City another alternative—keeping the City on schedule for certification. He asked the Council to minimize the potential impact of unintended consequences to Orinda citizens.
Dan DeBusschere echoed Mr. Murphy’s statements, thinks there is a lot of scuttlebutts at the legislature that they are setting cities up to fail on Housing Elements because they want the City to get to the halfway point and it is pot luck for anybody. The City should work to get a letter from HCD on January 3rd that says the City is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element. He said they have 3 years to do some of the zoning, thinks units per acre is one thing, but if the City can reduce the height requirement across the board he would pursue this so it could leave them with one negotiating angle.
Rusty Snow of Orinda Watch stated Cynthia and Dennis Weismott and Ann Marie Neal were ceding their time to him. Mayor Fay said he would allow a little more time to Mr.
Snow.
Rusty Snow, Orinda Watch, said they are not criticizing anyone. This is a difficult situation and he would not want to be in any of the Council’s shoes. Orinda Watch is fighting to maintain local control and HCD has created a problem of mandating that the City rezone for an excessive amount of housing. There is no desirable solution to accommodate these units and all they can do is minimize damage. Over the past few years, Orinda has developed the Orinda Plan which asks the questions of what qualities people like about the downtown. 59.1% responded “small town feel,” 56.7% responded “availability of parking,” 42.1% not too crowded. Orinda Watch believes that a small town feel means development for commercial and housing is appropriate in scope and size with a small town. They believe this means a maximum of 35 foot building heights, a density of not more than 20 du/acre, and under the current proposal, staff is attempting to place the 1359 housing units mandated by HCD. The staff proposal has not been created through careful planning. It is attempting to jam the excess of mandated housing units in the downtown which is not acceptable.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 14 of 23 11.01.22
He then spoke about the initial submittal to HCD where many sites were rejected. For the DPP, staff removed 23 sites, left 8 group sites, and increased units/acre from 10 to 65 du/acre and building heights from 35 to 55 feet. With density bonuses and concessions, building heights could reach 75 feet or 6 stories. The manner which sites were removed and others increased was crudely done. This is not how a planning process should work.
Regarding parking, under multiple State laws, reasonable parking for these housing units may not be allowed. Orinda Watch believes the proposed rezoning could create major problems for the downtown without proper parking. In general, the current proposal for HCD is highly out of proportion and scope for the downtown. Six story or more of housing units is not something most residents want, and the proposal would forever ruin the small town, semi-rural environment.
Regarding BART parking lots, Orinda Watch believes staff should make a formal request in writing to allow the rezoning on BART parking lots. AB 2011 has changed everything.
It rezones office, retail, and parking lots. Staff needs to analyze if the bill limits or if the City can limit the units per acre and height limits in the DPP area. In any case, staff needs to determine how many housing units are rezoned by AB 2011 and apply those units against the total Housing Element. It is possible that the entire RHNA requirement could be absorbed in the downtown area alone due to AB 2011. Obviously, the ramifications of this are huge; however, Orinda Watch recommends the Council not move forward with the Housing Element until they know the AB 2011 numbers.
Regarding recommendations, Orinda Watch believes the City should keep all building heights to a maximum of 35 feet, keep units per acre the lowest possible but in no event greater than 20 units per acre, analyze AB 2011 and SB 6, and if after making changes to the DPP area it is determined the City is short housing units to satisfy RHNA, the shorted units should be placed on the BART parking lots and the Caltrans 10-acre site.
Finally, Orinda Watch recommends the City not make a final decision tonight. There are too many items presented that need to be carefully considered and worked out over the next few weeks. He suggested the Council discuss possible issues and solutions, such as minimizing the downtown rezoning, using the Caltrans 10 acres, and BART parking lots. However, staff should be allowed a few weeks to develop a carefully thought out plan to be presented for approval in a few weeks.
Brian Alcorn, David Baker Architects, said they are the company referred to earlier that has been consulting with the Urban Land Institute on housing feasibility for Housing Elements. He described their extensive experience, said he wanted to speak to the Housing Element and register concern in terms of the feasibility of what was proposed.
There are many sites that show 65 units/acre with proposed heights of 55 feet. This seems very optimistic in terms of what unit density can be achieved within 55 feet, especially when considering parking requirements, setbacks, and restrictions for ground floor residential.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 15 of 23 11.01.22
He has reviewed a catalog of different projects they have completed in the Bay Area and only found one project that had less than 55 feet of overall height and met the 65 unit/acre metric. That building had no parking and ground floor residential.
Michelle Jacobson said she wanted to address the issue of lowering the buffer which seems to be very healthy at 35%. She understands the issue of the Caltrans property but there are so many assumptions in all calculations that it seems overly cautious to always assume the worst. It compounds things and she is not certain it is necessary. She said if the City can reduce the buffer, it can lower heights and densities which were added in at the end. One way to lower the buffer is just lower it or to increase the realistic capacity being assumed. The realistic capacity of 60% is very low in comparison to all cities that the Housing Element had identified as neighboring jurisdictions that were studied in order to learn from. Lafayette assumed 90% and 95%, Walnut Creek assumed 95% and 100%, Moraga between 84% and 100% realistic capacity.
If the Council assumes the higher capacity, they get much more out of the land identified as available. Therefore, the City does not need as many sites, does not need as many floors or a higher density per site. Also, If the Council increases the buffer up to 85% they gain 150 or so units. Given all these new laws, if HCD does not have faith in these having an impact on affordability she thinks the City must fight this. They cannot just accept all of this and not get anything for it. She urged the Council to ask the consultants to do a sensitivity analysis, making those two changes. Lastly, on the non-residential issue or mixed use, if the City zoned for residential only in certain areas, then the City would not have to worry about it. This could also soften or push back on HCD’s complaints.
Vice Mayor Miller asked Brian Acorn if he was representing himself, his architectural firm or a developer. Mr. Acorn said he is just here as a resident of the Bay Area commenting.
He was made aware of the recent Draft Housing Element and reviewed it in terms of determining the feasibility of what had been proposed based on the experience he has.
He also does not know anyone necessarily looking at Orinda for development.
Vice Mayor Miller commented that at one point the Governor made a call out for his staff to attend these meetings to watch what was going on, so this is the reason she asked.
Mr. Biggs spoke about how Mr. Acorn had become aware of this, noting that he and Mr.
Buckley had reached out to the ULI earlier because of the housing feasibility consultations they do. Mr. Acorn’s firm was instrumental in developing some of the alternatives and engaged as a volunteer for the ULI. ULI coordinated the original technical assistance panel in 2016 that made suggestions for the DPP.
Mr. Acorn added that they would be happy to return and show what density looks like as it is helpful to see neighborhoods and specific buildings and what units per acre represent.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 16 of 23 11.01.22
Vice Mayor Miller asked Mr. Acorn what height limit would build out to what is being shown. Mr. Acorn said without looking at sites, it is hard to say and he did not want to overstep what he has been asked to convey at this time. They could look at it in detail in the future if helpful.
Councilmember Kosla said they can build a 65 du/acre project at 55 feet if the first floor commercial was not 16 or 14 feet, but 12 feet, and if ceiling heights were 8 feet and not 9 feet. He knows for a fact you can achieve 55 units at 59 feet or .95 acres, so if Mr. Acorn came back it would be helpful to be able to show real sound analysis in projects built that work.
Joshua Han said he had concerns whether the Draft Housing Element meets requirements for AFFH. He vaguely remember that being one of the major points in the letter from HCD a couple of months ago. He thought some modest rezoning to that base density of 20 du/acre in other parts of the City could go a long way here, such as Lombardi Lane or Glorietta Boulevard for some low, mid-rise mixed use zoning at the 20 du/acre.
He also said while the increased density for some of the DPP sites is a welcome change, he is concerned as well about the height limits not practically allowing those densities, especially with any parking that needs to be built or with open space requirements. He suggested spreading it out to more sites outside the DPP area but still away from Hwy
24. Lastly, regarding parking requirements, while AB 2097 may preclude parking minimums close to the BART station, future residents will still need some parking and builders are likely to plan one parking space per unit. Construction lenders may also require it in order to get a construction loan.
Chris Kniel said he thinks this whole topic is insane and does not think the Council should agree to any of this. He is amazed that the City has gone as far as they have gone and they have not tried to organize the other cities that this whole thing is complete nonsense and challenge HCD. He wrote a quote from the City Attorney who said, “There is no HCD logic.” He questioned why the Council is looking at alternatives when they know there is no logic. The State has an agenda that the Council is afraid to admit.
His next point is one place in the presentation refers to affordable housing. The implication is projects can be built fast, without quality, no environmental review, and have workers that do not know what they are doing. This is ridiculous. Lastly, a good point was made by Councilmember Gee who said what happens if HCD does not approve the City’s Housing Element. He thinks the Council should withdraw its submittal, say they are reevaluating everything and have no time limit, and work with the other cities to rebut that makes sense.
Vice Mayor Miller said she has heard staff invited Mr. Acorn from ULI to comment on the Housing Element.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 17 of 23 11.01.22
Mr. Biggs said they reached out to see if they had illustrations of what kind of products could be completed within the height limit at certain density. They made a referral to the firm Mr. Acorn is with. ULI has a committee that is Housing the Bay Committee so it is part of their general mission to work with cities to help. Staff was therefore looking for examples to share with the Council.
Vice Mayor Miller said this is the Council’s last meeting to make changes before this submittal to HCD and she wants to ensure they capture and understand everyone’s concerns. The Governor has been clear. They are watching these meetings and are making sure cities comply with their rules. She knows everyone on this call other than Joshua Han who is involved with Supervisors in San Francisco. He spoke quickly about concerns with the Housing Element and she wants to be sure they have been captured and considered. She asked staff to reiterate his concerns.
Mr. Buckley said he did not take notes regarding Joshua Han’s comments so he personally does not have any response to that.
Mr. Biggs said what they are hearing is that while their consultants have experience, the question is what HCD will consider and approve. He said there are places where projects can be seen, such as in Hercules. It was built with 4 stories with subterranean parking that is 70 units/acre. It is very attractive, is not far from where he lives, and this is what they were trying to test. They heard community concerns about what that looks like. So, could 65 units/acre still be built with a 55 foot height limit or 5 stories. The answer is “yes” because there are other groups monitoring cities’ Housing Element processes, some of which are pro-housing groups.
The City’s DPP and objective design standards result in step backs which reduce the number of units a city can develop in 5 stories and maybe eats away at them being 70 units/acre. However, if there is flexibility, they might not have to maximize all the sites so they have a downtown that has a better feel to it. When making these decisions, if parking is required, certain levels of open space is required, setbacks and step backs, the Council is nibbling away at the maximum capacity. This is where he heard from both Brian and Joshua saying to be mindful of that.
Vice Mayor Miller questioned the comments about Glorietta Boulevard and AFFH, and Mr. Biggs said he was suggesting the City should shift some of the density downtown into other parts of the City.
Ms. Wolff said if the Council wishes to reopen public comment to ask a question of Mr.
Han without full reopening for everyone. She thinks Mr. Han made comments relating to the AFFH issue and if there are questions about that, this would be an appropriate thing to do.
Mayor Fay reopened the Public Forum for Joshua Han.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 18 of 23 11.01.22
Joshua Han clarified that his earlier question was whether there was a comment in the letter from HCD regarding concerns about AFFH with a concentration of the low-income sites being downtown rather than spread further out.
Vice Mayor Miller thanked Mr. Han and said this answered her question.
Mayor Fay returned to the Council for discussion. Ms. Wolff asked if anyone wanted deliberation about St. Mark’s Church, and there was none. She asked if any Councilmember wanted deliberation about the Downtown Office District, and there was none.
Councilmember Gee referred to what Mr. Han raised and what the Vice Mayor was asking about and said it seems like the City has pulled a lot of concentration into the downtown area. She asked what leads the City to believe HCD will be satisfied with that.
Ms. Walsh said they are looking at relying on the DPP sites more on a mixed-income lens rather than concentrating specific sites for lower, specific for moderate and above moderate, so they are more dividing those individually between each site. So, each site has an assumption for lower, an assumption for moderate and above moderate built into the property. They are dispersing it more throughout the downtown. They also have the church sites that are outside of the downtown where they are relying on meeting their lower income RHNA as well as the Caltrans Gateway site and the Miramonte school site as well. There is additional discussion in the Housing Element about that, as well.
Vice Mayor Miller recognized a big part of the conversation over the last month or so has been about whether to put the BART site into the Housing Element. As a Council, they starting discussing that three years ago as to what they were taking on with the downtown planning. They concluded that they could not take on the BART site at the time of taking on the DPP because they only had so much staff and could only do so much which was prior to the pandemic.
She cited the challenge of doing anything during the pandemic years and was happy they made the decision not to plan the BART site during that time. She reiterated that the City has not only included downtown sites but is trying to spread units around the City, as well as a variety of areas with mixed income levels. She also did not think planning for BART now is what the State is looking for, nor does it comport with the City’s direction to move forward with careful planning with a lot of thought and public input.
Councilmember Gee said she appreciates everything they have done thus far and remains supportive of goals and objectives in trying to get to this point. She still believes it is important to have a compliant Housing Element, not that she agrees with the myriad of on-going State legislation. The City began several years ago with a very good set of objectives of what they wanted in the DPP. One of her deepest worries is that is being hijacked by the Housing Element. She thinks they will need to push the objective design standards all the way to the limit, and they tend to be a community that does not do that.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 19 of 23 11.01.22
She appreciates Ms. Jacobson’s comments that she grew up always following the rules and she thinks Orinda is bending over backwards to put belts and suspenders on and will not argue about anything, and she thinks they need to be more assertive in a couple of areas. They wanted to revitalize the downtown and always expected that would incorporate housing. What she is fearful is that because of the Housing Element, they are turning the downtown into multi-family housing and that is all that will be there. She thinks they need to include retail, that there are bonuses and benefits to maintain existing businesses, and she is scared that what they are doing will significantly affect the City as they cannot grasp what the worst case scenario is, and thought they might get an 8 story studio apartment complex which is not what anyone wants.
Right now, she would advocate lowering the buffer, bringing down the height in proportion to lowering the buffer because the height will go up anyway. If they put 55 feet in, they will get 75 feet given all concessions and waivers and on-going State laws. She also does not agree they are pushing hard enough on the Caltrans site. She can pull up 7,200 articles of Governor Newsom saying every public land in the State ought to be built for affordable housing.
She thinks 200 units on that site is ridiculous and they could put way more than that on it.
She does not want to push everything there but she thinks they are trying to follow the rules and everything they wanted for their downtown will turn into a series of not so great multi-family housing units. She is willing to forego the BART lots at this point because that will bring in an incredible hiccup that will probably not help anything, but she is frustrated with that, as well. It is the perfect place for development, BART wants it developed, the City wants to help it connect their City, but she would like to see the other things happen as she described.
Councilmember Kosla said he agrees with many comments, agrees with some of the speakers, said he thinks they should try their hardest to make the January 31st date and recommended getting something into HCD as soon as possible. He thinks they have a plan before them that works, thinks the previous plan with lower heights, less buffer worked well too, and he is in favor of lessening the buffer to a number more reasonable.
If this is played out with density bonus, they had talked about a 45 height limit earlier, knowing that someone would come in and use density bonus and SB 330 to get that higher 55 foot, then 65 or 70 feet. So, he was in favor of reducing heights if it works by just reducing the buffer. They talked about 15% and he would not mind going back to it if it has the effect of lowering the dwelling units per acre and the height in those few places.
There will obviously be more back and forth with HCD, hopes they look at the work done, and certify the City. They can just keep saying “no” to every city and eventually, it will open the doors up completely to builders. He would like Ms. Walsh to see if lowering the buffer lowers the height and still make the City conform.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 20 of 23 11.01.22
He thinks if they can get this wrapped up by January 31st, they could make sure rezoning is done in an orderly fashion. Once land is rezoned, someone quickly can use density bonus law and SB 330 to blow up many of the City’s standards, so timing will be important.
No matter what, they will not be able to figure it out now and the City will have to revisit this in a few years and use the 180 days to spot zone different sites. All of this requires property owners somehow be incentivized by someone coming forward and offering them money on their property that someone has financing for and that can build with so many variables.
Councilmember Worth echoed comments and thanked the public who have been engaged in the process with Connect Orinda, the DPP and now the Housing Element, the consulting team, and staff. Orinda is constrained by geography. They have developed the Element in good faith in truly identifying sites with potential for redevelopment. Most land is already developed in the Bay Area, with the emphasis on infill development, so the challenge is to convince HCD that the sites are viable.
She is optimistic based on conversations with Caltrans with the site because it truly is surplus and it is an appropriate site for housing. She is mindful that if they stick with the default density, they get the credit for the number of units but they will not identify this as an exceptional site that may require additional documentation to support that. She is also mindful of the aesthetics of the Hwy 24 corridor and they do not have to go back with further explanations and justifications with HCD if they go to a higher density.
Also, the explanations added on the growth management element section will enhance their application to explain it promotes housing construction so HCD has more of an insight on what it is. She also thinks what Mr. Waranoff has written is that it is possible to bring down the height using the buffer while still making the numbers. She also agrees that BART should be in the next cycle and is not ripe for this cycle. She thinks it is imperative to get the Housing Element approved under this timeframe. She also agrees the objective design standards are important and should be utilized to the greatest extent.
EXTEND MEETING
MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller moved and seconded by Councilmember Kosla to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m. Said motion carried unanimously by (5-0) roll call vote.
Vice Mayor Miller suggested the Council also think about whether they want to ask that Councilmember Worth work with staff and the consultants regarding the wording regarding Measure J. All Councilmembers agreed.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 21 of 23 11.01.22
Mayor Fay said he has agreed with what all Councilmembers said thus far, thinks they must tailor their DPP and Housing Element to what they want in the City. He thinks the height limits are too much on a couple of properties and he does believe they can succeed in getting the Caltrans property available for use as housing and within HCD’s timeframe.
If they see any delay in that happening, there are ample numbers of people the City can hire to help them get through the Caltrans process. He and Councilmember Worth both know of a consulting firm that has done this precisely with Caltrans on many issues. So, he has confidence they can get the site qualified and thinks they need to keep it in at 20 units/acre if it will not compromise their ability to bring down height limits in other parts of the City.
He asked staff what is the buffer in number of units right now. Ms. Walsh said the current buffer for the lower income category of very low and low is 210 units, moderate buffer is 23 units and above moderate is 81 units which totals 314 units.
Mayor Fay said this would mean they are spreading various income category units around the City and he asked if it would also apply to the Caltrans property. Ms. Walsh said the Caltrans property is allocated solely to meet a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA, so the 200 units are built in there.
Mayor Fay said arguments have been made about what they want to see in the downtown. He suggested giving specific direction to staff if there are changes. He has heard people talk about a 45 foot height limit and not more than that. He asked if there is consensus for this.
Councilmember Worth said the one thing she is back to is to understand if they can make the numbers. If they start talking about heights and suddenly they cannot make the numbers, it would be a problem.
Mr. Biggs said they can calculate that such that if the downtown sites with the higher levels were programmed at 45 feet at 50 du/acre, he asked and confirmed with Ms. Walsh that it brings the buffer for lower income from 210 to 187 units. It is not a big change and they are still able to meet their numbers with reducing to 50 du/acre which is a maximum unless there is a density bonus which they cannot count for credit.
Mayor Fay asked if this is something the Council would support to submit to HCD. He asked and confirmed that 45 feet would not necessarily result in 45 feet right at the street frontage, and Mr. Buckley said the more significant factor are the City’s objective design standards and the vision for a step back at 35 feet so the 4th floor would be stepped back from the street.
Vice Mayor Miller said if they were to go to 45 feet versus 50 feet, she asked if they were jeopardizing their step backs at all. Mr. Buckley said staff thinks 50 du/acre could be adequately met with the 45 foot height, retail on the ground floor, and a step back.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 22 of 23 11.01.22
Councilmember Worth asked if staff believed there was any risk if they dropped the buffer.
Mr. Buckley said the risk is more about having to reopen things mid-cycle, but by still having a relatively healthy buffer, they will search for fewer sites if that does happen.
Councilmember Worth asked staff if the recommendation received as presented would be a viable option for submission. Ms. Walsh said she believes that 50 du/acre and 45 foot height would work.
Mayor Fay asked and confirmed the Council was comfortable with 50 du/acre and 45 foot height, voiced the desire to be able to have many more units for the Caltrans site, voiced the need to maintain their small town,
Mr. Biggs summarized direction from the Council which is to revise the Draft Housing Element for resubmittal to HCD with language that addresses the Measure J issue regarding funding, reduce the height limit to 45 feet and density to 50 du/acre in the downtown to the two sites (Country Club Plaza area and the Bev Mo site) where the current draft of the Housing Element shows 65 to 70 du/acre, the desire to review the objective design standards to consider adding something to require a certain percentage of ground floor retail which will come to the Council in January.
MOTION by Councilmember Worth moved and seconded by Councilmember Kosla to authorize staff to submit the Draft Housing Element to HCD, with amendments as discussed. Said motion carried unanimously by (5-0) roll call vote.
I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Councilmember Kosla reported he and Councilmember Worth attended a Wilder Subcommittee meeting and there are immediate fire concerns on the property with an oil drum and a bale of vegetation which need to be removed. The Wilder residents also want to be sure they are heard and at the table while working things out with OGGLLC because they are most affected.
Vice Mayor Miller reported the Orinda Tabor Sister City organization is sponsoring the first ever Gingerbread House contest for all Orindans. Entries will be accepted at the Community Center on Thursday, December 1st starting at 5:30 p.m. They will be displayed for the next two days. They have children’s categories and a category for those 18 years and over.
Mayor Fay reported the California Independent Film Festival starts off on November 10th at the Orinda Theater. Tickets are available on-line.
J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – City Manager Biggs reported tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. there will be a Council Public Safety Committee meeting to hear a presentation by the County’s 3-A Initiative (Anytime, Anywhere, Anyone) to better link mental health services with policing. The Police Chief will also provide a midyear update on policing.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 23 of 23 11.01.22
When receiving the monthly Orinda News, the City’s printed newsletter is included this year and highlights the City’s acceptance of applications for the fuel reduction incentives in key areas which is a matching grant of up to $599.
Tuesday, November 8th is Election Day and he encouraged everyone to vote.
Because three Councilmembers will be leaving the Council soon, he reminded everyone that on Sunday, December 4th from 3 to 5 p.m., the City will be hosting a reception honoring 24 years of service of Councilmember Worth. The City will hold the new Council induction and recognizing departing Councilmembers on December 13th.
K. MATTERS INITIATED – None.
L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:23 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (2945 : City Council Minutes) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: November 15, 2022
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of November 16, 2022 to December 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 On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023. 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 October 4, 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. Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings
F.2
Packet Pg. 32
Respectfully Submitted by:
Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
F.2
Packet Pg. 33
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 October 4, 2022 in Covid-19 case rate, test positivity, Covid-19 hospitalizations, and COVID-19 wastewater surveillance are decreasing, but community transmission, as noted in CDC community transmission map, remains high. 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 10-4-2022
Sefanit Mekuria, MD, MPH
Deputy Health Officer, Contra Costa County
F.2.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings (2958 : Ratify Continued Teleconference Resolution) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: November 15, 2022
Department: Parks and Recreation
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of Lease between the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the City of Orinda for Use of Property for the Orinda Sports Fields.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2023 “Ballfields Lease” with the East Bay Municipal Utility District
BACKGROUND:
The City of Orinda and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on June 30, 2005 regarding temporary recreational use of property owned by the EBMUD. The purpose of the MOU was to allow the City to continue its temporary use of the ball fields at Orinda Sports Fields (OSF), located on Camino Pablo, until the fields at Orinda Wilder Park were complete.
In June 2010, the City and EBMUD executed a First Amendment to the MOU which extended the period of use to June 30, 2015. Because Wilder Fields 4 and 5 were delayed until an anticipated opening in June 2018, the City requested EBMUD consider extending the MOU to align with the anticipated delivery of the Orinda Wilder Park final phase. As such, EBMUD agreed to execute a Second Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding, going into effect on July 1, 2015 and expiring on June 30, 2018.
In early 2018, it was apparent that Wilder Fields 4 and 5 would be delayed further. In addition, City staff knew that even once completed and opened, the two new Wilder fields will only partially accommodate the needs that would be lost without the availability of OSF. As such, City staff requested continued use of the Orinda Sports Fields and EBMUD and the City agreed to a lease that included an initial term, followed by two one-year extensions options, and that ended on December 31, 2021.
Because the Orinda Sports Fields remain a very important resource for both City programs and local sports organizations and the groups have come to rely on this amenity, staff proposed to continue its use of the fields. In mid-2021, Staff requested a new lease with renewing extensions. However, EBMUD indicated they were currently evaluating the property for their own (or other) use and expected to make a decision within a few months; because they believed they were so close to making a decision, they were not comfortable considering renewing extensions at that time. As this was the basis with which EBMUD was willing to proceed, Staff recommended proceeding this way for 2022. As such, EBMUD offered continued use of the fields on a year-to-year basis and proposed a modest 3% rate increase for 2022; other details of the lease would remain the same. They also agreed to indicate, with at least six-month’s notice, if the lease would not be renewed and specified if the pending decision was to not take over the land in the near future, they would consider a lease with automatic renewals in F.3
Packet Pg. 35
the future. The Council authorized the City Manager to execute the 2022 “Ballfields Lease” with EBMUD on November 16, 2021.
DISCUSSION:
City staff would like to continue its use of the Orinda Sports Fields even though all the ballfields at Wilder have been completed. The revenue the City typically realizes from field rentals and program income related to OSF exceeds operating expenses (landscaping, irrigation, lease) and, as long as that remains the case, staff would like to continue leasing OSF. City staff have begun preparing a transition plan, knowing that, eventually, the site will no longer be available.
EBMUD has agreed to execute a new lease (Attachment A) which will allow the City to continue to operate Orinda Sports Fields for community use until at least December 31, 2023.
Staff again requested a lease with renewing extensions, however, EBMUD indicated they are still in the process of evaluating the property for their own (or other) use. They expect to make a decision in the first half of the coming year that would likely determine the facility’s future for the next several years; because they feel they are so close to a decision, they are not comfortable considering renewing extensions at this time. As this is the basis with which they are willing to proceed again this year, staff, likewise, recommend proceeding this way for the coming year. EMBUD reiterated if the pending decision is to not take over the land in the near future, they would consider a lease with automatic renewals following 2023 and they would provide ample notice if this lease cannot be renewed.
The athletic fields at the site have been used for Parks and Recreation Department programs and by a variety of local youth sports organizations for nearing twenty years and the community has come to rely on this important amenity. Knowing that the site will eventually be repurposed by EBMUD, staff, as indicated earlier, have begun preparing a transition plan to relocate existing programs to other facilities. In the meantime, City staff recommend continuing use of the fields for as long as feasible.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the lease term is $11,845. Annual landscaping and irrigation costs amount to approximately $65,000 at the Orinda Sports Field complex. The Parks and Recreation Department typically generates about $50,000 in annual revenue from rental of the fields and receives approximately $30,000 annually in registration revenue for City-run programs occurring at OSF.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. 2023BallfeildLeaseAgreementDRAFT
B. Exhibit A
Respectfully Submitted by:
F.3
Packet Pg. 36
Todd Trimble
Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Todd Trimble, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by:
F.3
Packet Pg. 37
A18-06.01 1
LEASE
BALLFIELDS
THIS LEASE, made and entered into this _____ day of _________________, 2022, by and between EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, a public corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, hereinafter called “Lessor”, and CITY OF ORINDA, hereinafter called “Lessee”,
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the faithful performance and observance of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Premises. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee those certain premises situated in the City of Orinda, State of California, containing 7.11 acres, more or less, (also referred to as the “Fields”) as further depicted on the drawings marked EXHIBIT “A”, attached hereto (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Fields”).
2. Term. The term of this Lease shall be for one (1) year beginning on January 1, 2023 and ending on December 31, 2023.
3. Rent. Rent for the term of the lease shall be $11,845 paid by the Lessee to Lessor before January 1, 2023.
4. Use. The Fields shall be used by Lessee solely for public soccer, baseball, similar field sports, and related sports activities, and can’t be used for anything else other than what is specified herein. No Permanent structures shall be placed upon the Premises.
5. Maintenance.
A. Lessee shall have the right at its sole cost and expense to perform grading work, install irrigation and drainage structures, plant and maintain grass or other landscaping materials, place appropriate markings, fencing, goal posts, backstops, and similar temporary improvements directly related to the use of said Premises as permitted herein. Prior to the commencement of any of the work hereinabove mentioned or any other work or construction on said Premises by Lessee, Lessee must present its plans to Lessor for prior written approval, Lessee shall comply with all laws, regulations, and permit requirements (including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act) applicable to work performed or activities carried out on the property covered by this Lease. Lessee shall not allow any liens or encumbrances by reason thereof or otherwise, against the demised Premises, and will hold Lessor and the demised Premises free and harmless from any liability therefor.
B. Except in case of ordinary maintenance and emergency repairs, Lessee shall give to Lessor at least ten (10) days’ notice in writing before constructing, reconstructing, repairing, removing, or performing any work on or in connection with its uses of said Premises.
Lessor shall not be obligated to repair or maintain the demised Premises and will make no improvements or repairs except those deemed necessary in the opinion of Lessor. Furthermore, F.3.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: 2023BallfeildLeaseAgreementDRAFT (2962 : Lease between EBMUD and Orinda for Use of Orinda Sport Fields) A18-06.01 2
Lessee hereby waives all right to make repairs at the expense of Lessor as provided in Section 1942 of the Civil Code of the State of California, all rights provided for by Section 1941 of said Civil Code.
C. Lessee shall maintain signs (i) acknowledging Lessor’s cooperation in providing the Premises and (ii) containing appropriate information regarding unauthorized use of the Premises including appropriate signs designating permitted uses by the general public, regulations governing such uses, and specifically prohibiting operation of unauthorized motor vehicles. Lessee shall be responsible for all law enforcement activities in connection with its use of the Fields. Lessee shall maintain the existing, six feet in height, cyclone fences along the northerly, easterly and southerly line of the Fields.
D. Lessee shall not conduct or permit to be conducted upon the Premises any business, commercial activity or other enterprises for monetary profit, but Lessee may charge appropriate fees for the use of the Fields.
6. Condition of Premises. Lessee shall maintain said Premises in a clean and presentable condition, free from waste or nuisance, and further agrees to comply with all of the requirements of all municipal, county, state and federal authorities now in force or which may hereafter be in force pertaining to said Premises at Lessee’s sole cost and expense, and if Lessee fails so to keep said Premises then, after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice specifying the needed work, Lessor may perform the maintenance work and the reasonable cost thereof shall be paid by Lessee upon demand. This is in addition to or lieu of any other remedies hereinafter set forth. Lessee shall be responsible for weed control over the entire portion of the Lessor’s property covered by this Lease. Lessee hereunder accepts the demised Premises as being in good and sanitary order, condition and repair, and agrees on the last day of said term or sooner termination of this lease to surrender to Lessor all and singular the demised premises with the appurtenances in the same condition as when received, reasonable use and wear thereof and damage by fire, act of God or by the elements excepted.
7. Utilities. Lessor shall not be responsible for providing any utility services to the Fields and Lessee agrees to furnish at its own cost and expense and pay all charges for gas, electricity, water and other utility services used thereon prior to delinquency, and to hold Lessor and the demised Premises free and harmless from any liability therefor.
8. Indemnification. In the exercise of all rights hereunder, Lessee will have the entire responsibility for any and all injury to the public and to individuals. Lessee expressly agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessor, its directors, officers, and employees free and harmless from and against any and all loss, liability, expense, claims, costs, suits, and damages, including attorney’s fees, arising out of construction, maintenance, operation, and use of the Fields as provided under the terms of this Lease unless such loss and liability was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Lessor.
9. Liability Insurance. Lessee shall take out and maintain during the life of this Lease all the insurance required by this section, and shall submit unaltered and completed Certificates (attached) for review and approval by Lessor. The Lease shall not be executed by Lessor, and Lessee shall not enter the demised premises, until the Certificates have been approved F.3.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: 2023BallfeildLeaseAgreementDRAFT (2962 : Lease between EBMUD and Orinda for Use of Orinda Sport Fields) A18-06.01 3
by Lessor. The certificates shall be the forms supplied by the Lessor (except as noted below for the Workers Compensation Insurance).
Acceptance of the certificates shall not relieve Lessee of any of the insurance requirements, nor decrease the liability of Lessee. Lessor reserves the right to require Lessee to provide insurance policies for review.
a) Worker’s Compensation Insurance: Lessee shall take out and maintain during the life of the Lease Workers Compensation insurance for all of its employees on the Demised Premises. In lieu of evidence of Workers Compensation insurance, Lessor will accept a Self-Insured Certificate issued from the State of California. Lessee shall require any agent and/or consultant to provide it with evidence of Workers Compensation Insurance coverage.
b) Public Liability Insurance: Lessee shall take out and maintain during the life of the Lease Automobile, Commercial General, and Pollution Liability Insurance policies that provide protection from claims which may arise from operations or performance under this Lease. If Lessee elects to self-insure (self-fund) any liability exposure during the Lease period above $50,000, Lessee is required to notify the Lessor immediately. Any request to self-insure must first be approved by the Lessor before the changed terms are accepted. Lessee shall require any agent and/or consultant to provide evidence of Automobile, Commercial General, and Pollution Liability Insurance coverages.
The amounts of insurance shall be not less than the following:
$2,000,000/ Occurrence, Bodily Injury, Property Damage – General Liability. $2,000,000/Occurrence, Bodily Injury, Property Damage – Automobile Liability. $2,000,000/Occurrence, Bodily Injury, Property Damage – Pollution Liability The following coverages or endorsements must be included in the policy(ies):
i. Lessor and its directors, officers, and employees are additional insureds in the policy(ies) as to the work being performed under this Lease; ii. The coverage is primary and non-contributory to any other insurance carried by Lessor;
iii. The policy(ies) cover(s) contractual liability;
iv. The policy(ies) is (are) written on an occurrence basis; v. The policy(ies) cover(s) Lessor's property in the Lessee’s care, custody and control;
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: 2023BallfeildLeaseAgreementDRAFT (2962 : Lease between EBMUD and Orinda for Use of Orinda Sport Fields) A18-06.01 4
vi. The policy(ies) cover(s) personal injury (libel, slander, unlawful entry and eviction) liability;
vii. The policy(ies) cover(s) products and completed operations; viii. A policy to cover use of owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles and equipment;
ix. A policy shall cover pollution liability for claims related to the release or threatened release of pollutants into the environment arising out of or resulting from Lessee's performance under this Lease. A policy submitted on a “claims made” basis shall include a three-year tail with coverage limits remaining unchanged.
x. The policy(ies) shall not be canceled nor reduced unless 30 days' written notice is given to Lessor.
Failure of Coverage: Failure, inability or refusal of Lessee to take out and maintain during the entire term or terms of the Lease any or all of the insurance as aforesaid shall at the option of Lessor constitute an immediate breach of this Lease.
10. Prior Rights. All rights herein given to Lessee are subject to all existing rights, rights of way, reservations and easements by whomsoever held in and to said real property.
Lessor shall notify Lessee prior to the execution of this Lease of all existing rights, rights of way, reservations and easements, not of record, which affect said real property and are known by Lessor.
11. Successors and Assigns. Lessee’s right to assign this Lease shall be subject to the prior written consent of Lessor’s Real Estate Services Manager. Upon such condition, this Lease and each and all of the covenants herein contained shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto.
12. Assignment. Lessee further agrees not to sell, transfer or assign this lease or any part thereof or interest therein, nor to sublet the whole or any part of the demised Premises without first obtaining the written consent of Lessor thereto. It is understood that any assignment or transfer by law shall be deemed a violation of this covenant against the assignment of this lease. Either (a) the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of the assets of Lessee or (b) a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or (c) any action taken or suffered by Lessee under any insolvency or bankruptcy act shall likewise constitute a breach of this lease.
13. Default. It is understood and agreed that if Lessee fails to pay any installment of said rent as the same becomes due, or if default shall be made by Lessee in any of the covenants, agreements or terms herein contained on Lessee’s part to be performed other than the agreement to pay rent and if upon ten days’ written notice thereof to Lessee, Lessee shall fail or refuse to correct said last mentioned default, then Lessor at its option may re-enter the demised Premises and remove all persons therefrom, and in such event Lessor may at its option take possession of F.3.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: 2023BallfeildLeaseAgreementDRAFT (2962 : Lease between EBMUD and Orinda for Use of Orinda Sport Fields) A18-06.01 5
said premises as the agent for the account of Lessee, and if it so elects may lease or rent the whole, or any part of said Premises, for the balance or any part of the term of this lease and retain all rents thus received and apply the same in payment on account of the rents for the account of Lessee; but the performance of any or all of said acts by Lessor shall not release Lessee from the full and strict compliance with all of the terms, conditions and covenants of this lease on Lessee’s part to be performed or observed and Lessee in such event agrees to forthwith pay any deficiency that may exist in the amount due hereunder after deducting said rents received, if any.
14. Legal Action. If Lessor shall bring any action in a competent court against Lessee arising out of or in violation of the terms of this lease by Lessee and shall prevail in such action, then Lessee shall pay to Lessor such reasonable attorney’s fees as Lessor may incur in such suit or action, to be taxed as costs therein by the court.
15. Entry. Lessor reserves the right to enter the demised premises at all reasonable times by its agents, employees and representatives to see that said property is being care for, that no waste is being made and that all things are done in the manner best calculated to the best preservation of the property. It is further understood and agreed that Lessor may enter the demised premises at all times to make borings, soil tests, engineering and geological surveys without objection by Lessee in the event that Lessee finds such last mentioned investigations unduly burdensome, Lessee’s sole remedy shall be to terminate this lease by giving the notice as hereinabove provided.
16. Binding. It is understood and agreed that, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 11, this lease shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators and permitted assigns of the respective parties hereto.
17. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given or served hereunder shall be deemed properly given or served if sent by registered mail, postage paid, addressed to East Bay Municipal Utility District as Lessor at 375 Eleventh Street, Oakland, California 94607, or City of Orinda as Lessee at c/o Parks and Recreation Department, 28 Orinda Way, Orinda, California 94563 or at such other address as shall be last furnished in writing by one party to the other.
18. Waiver. The waiver by Lessor of any breach of any terms covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by Lessor shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Lessee of any term, covenant or condition of this lease, other than failure of Lessee to pay the particular rental so accepted, regardless of Lessor’s knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent.
19. Termination.
a. If the District intends to terminate this lease at the end of the Term, the District will give the Lessee one hundred and eight (180) days prior notice in writing.
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: 2023BallfeildLeaseAgreementDRAFT (2962 : Lease between EBMUD and Orinda for Use of Orinda Sport Fields) A18-06.01 6
b. At the termination of this Lease, the Lessee shall surrender to the District possession of the Premises in the same condition as it was at the beginning of the lease.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this lease, in duplicate, the day and year first above written.
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT CITY OF ORINDA
By: By:
Matt Elawady
Manager of Real Estate Services Title:
LESSOR LESSEE
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: 2023BallfeildLeaseAgreementDRAFT (2962 : Lease between EBMUD and Orinda for Use of Orinda Sport Fields) F.3.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Exhibit A (2962 : Lease between EBMUD and Orinda for Use of Orinda Sport Fields) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.4
Date: November 15, 2022
Department:
Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Authorize Purchase of Replacement Street Sweeper for Public Works Department
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution 59-22, waiving the formal bid process pursuant to Chapter
2.55.100 of the Orinda Municipal Code, and approving issuing a purchase order to TYMCO, Inc. to replace the city street sweeper at a cost of $270,731.30; and approve a Budget Change in the amount of $45,731 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund.
BACKGROUND:
The city currently owns a 2010 Tymco diesel powered street sweeper which utilizes an Isuzu truck chassis and a Tymco model 435 regenerative air vacuum sweeper assembly. This street sweeper also includes a vacuum hose attachment (vactor) which allows the public works maintenance crew to clean out storm drain catch basins, Vditches, street debris and other roadway tasks. The street sweeper has dual steering to allow driving the vehicle on the right hand side when performing normal sweeping along the street curb/gutter on the right hand side of the roadway, which allows precise and safe alignment of the brushing/vacuuming operation. In transit to or from a sweeping location, the driver would use the normal left hand side steering wheel.
Normal sweeping operations occur on average one day per week. The vehicle has approximately 45,000 miles on the odometer, and has registered approximately 3,000 hours of sweeper/vacuum auxiliary motor use as of this writing. This street sweeper is past the end of its service life, which was forecast to be eight to ten years. The maintenance of the equipment runs an average of $6,000 per year, which has been increasing as the equipment ages. As expected, more major repairs have been required as it ages, such as electronic components, engine injectors, and engine components. When the street sweeper requires these repairs, it generally must be driven to the authorized repair dealer, which requires two crew to deliver it and then pick it up after the repairs are made. Therefore, impacts to the operation of the crew become more significant as the equipment ages.
DISCUSSION:
Each year as part of the City Operating Budget, charges are made to departments that operate vehicles, with the funds set-aside in the Fleet/Vehicle Replacement Internal Service Fund (Fund #603). The concept is to avoid creating an impact on the General Fund for the full cost of a new vehicle in the year that it is replaced.
F.4
Packet Pg. 45
Included in the current Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Capital Improvement Program is Project #0020, Vehicle Replacement. The Project includes the replacement of city fleet vehicles including the subject street sweeper, for which $225,000 has been appropriated.
Staff researched suitable replacement sweeper options by consulting with other cities, such as Walnut Creek, and industrial equipment dealers. As a result, it was determined that the appropriate replacement is a Tymco diesel powered street sweeper which utilizes a Freightliner truck chassis and a Tymco model 435 regenerative air vacuum sweeper assembly. It is comparable to the current sweeper except that the chassis is heavier duty. Isuzu no longer manufactures a truck chassis with dual steering and therefore it was not a viable option for a replacement sweeper chassis.
As quoted, certain upgrades are included in the proposed replacement vehicle, such as a stainless steel hopper to avoid the corrosion problems (and repair costs associated with it) that we have experienced with the current equipment.
Purchasing Policy Requirements
Orinda Municipal Code Section 2.55.080 requires that purchases of equipment costing more than $60,000 must be approved by the City Council. In addition, Orinda Municipal Code Section 2.55.100.A.7 contains specific exception for the City to acquire goods and services without a first conducting a competitive bidding process when another public agency has already administered a competitive bidding process and has a current valid agreement for the same or substantially similar equipment in place.
City Staff has obtained proposals from Tymco via two separate cooperative purchasing agreements which qualify for the bidding exception described above for a replacement sweeper. Both of these cooperative purchasing agreements have been used over the years by Orinda. The prices obtained are as follows:
HGACBuy: $270,731.30
Sourcewell. $271,302.00
Note: the above pricing reflects a credit of $17,000 for the trade in value of the existing street sweeper.
The proposal (Attachment B) via the HGACBuy (Houston-Galveston Area Council) agreement is the lower cost option, and it is therefore recommended that a purchase order be issued to Tymco based on the HGACBuy agreement, for an amount of $270,731.30.
The benefit of the new equipment would also include a likely longer service life since the proposed replacement is a heavier duty truck. Furthermore, the diesel motor would comply with current exhaust treatment requirements, which will reduce air pollution compared to the current equipment, and will also allow the city to more readily meet annual smog certification requirements for the fleet.
NEXT STEPS:
F.4
Packet Pg. 46
Staff will issue a purchase order to Tymco for the subject purchase. Delivery is estimated to be March 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The purchase cost will exceed the amount of funds allocated for the Street Sweeper in CIP Project #0020 by $45,731. The higher than budgeted proposal cost is attributable to the current high-inflation environment and related supply chain issues. Staff have prepared a Budget change to increase the authorized budget (Attachment C). The funding for this purchase is in the Vehicle Replacement Fund (Fund #605). Given the higher costs incurred with replacement, this will likely impact future annual operating costs in terms of the required contributions for replacement.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 59-22 Approve Purchase of Street Sweeper
B. HGACBuy Proposal
C. Budget Change Form - Street Sweeper Purchase CIP Project # 0020 Respectfully Submitted by:
Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Scott Christie, Public Works Director
Approved by:
F.4
Packet Pg. 47
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:
Authorize Purchase of Replacement Street
Sweeper for Public Works Department
)
) Resolution No. 59-22
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget includes an appropriation of $225,000 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund for the purchase of one replacement street sweeper as identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Project #0020; and WHEREAS, Staff has received a proposal from Tymco for a replacement street sweeper that meets the service needs, via HGACBuy, based on a cooperative purchasing agreement which meets requirements for waiving competitive bidding requirements per Orinda Municipal Code Section 2.55.100.A.7, for $270,731.30; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby authorize staff to purchase one replacement street sweeper as herein described, and to appropriate additional funding of $45,731 as described in the Budget Change Form.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on November 15, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Resolution 59-22 Approve Purchase of Street Sweeper (2960 : purchase street sweeper) F.4.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: HGACBuy Proposal (2960 : purchase street sweeper)
CITY OF ORINDA
BUDGET CHANGE FORM FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Funds Appropriated Mid-Cycle Update Adopted 6/21/2022
CHANGE FORM # 006-2023
New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required): Budget Transfers:
X From Un-Appropriated Reserves From Budgeted Contingent Reserve (Approval Req’d) ____ Reduction To Adopted Budget
GENERAL FUND
New Revenue ONLY
Between Departments (City Council Approval Req’d)
Other:
BUDGET ACCOUNT
(Revenue / Expense)
INCREASE
AMOUNT
DECREASE
AMOUNT
Increase of Budgeted Expense in FY 2022‐2023
EXPENSE: 605‐35‐00‐7997‐0020
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND / PUBLIC WORKS / NO PROGRAM /
VEHICLE PURCHASED / VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS
$45,731
As Presented at the City Council Meeting on: October 11, 2022 #################(Finance Use Only)###################
Posted By: Date:
REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: At the City Council meeting on October 11, 2022, the City Council was presented with changes to the adopted Budget in order to complete construction of the Lavenida Culvert repair project by increasing the contingency on the Valentine Corporation Construction Contract value.
F.4.c
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Budget Change Form - Street Sweeper Purchase CIP Project # 0020 (2960 : purchase street sweeper) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: G.1
Date: November 15, 2022
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Wilder Development Agreement Annual Review and Public Hearing Regarding OGLLC Default
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a continued public hearing regarding noncompliance by OG Property Owners, LLC (“OGLLC”) with the terms of the Second Amendment and Restatement of the Development and Pre-Annexation Agreement for Gateway Valley (“DA”) and related approvals, including the 2009 Reimbursement Agreement, the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”) Plan of Control, and the 2008 Subdivision Improvement Agreement, all as amended. Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution No. 58-22 to conclude the 2002 annual review process and find that OGLLC remains out of compliance with the terms of the DA.
BACKGROUND
The City Council previously held public hearings on OGLLC’s noncompliance with the DA and related approvals on August 16, 2022, September 27, 2022, and October 11, 2022 and adopted Resolution No. 43-22, Resolution No. 46-22, and Resolution No. 54-
22. The Resolutions and public hearings detailed OGLLC’s failure to comply with certain requirements of the DA and related approvals.
Staff have continued to work with representatives of OGLLC to obtain information and secure compliance. Although OGLLC has provided some of the information requested, it has not commenced or completed significant actions needed cure events of default and come into compliance with the DA and related approvals.
As of the date of this staff report, Staff is able to provide these specific updates:
❖ A certificate of insurance has been provided, but with a lower limit than required, which is being evaluated by staff and our insurance provider.
❖ A $20,000 payment towards the Developer’s reimbursement obligations has been received, with commitment to make $10,000 payments monthly. A second payment of $10,000 was received on November 8, 2002, though the deposit balance continues to remain below what is contractually required.
❖ It has been identified that OGLLC is delinquent on 21-22 property taxes for all parcels remaining to be conveyed to the City, GHAD, EBRPD, and EBMUD. ❖ There are remaining subdivision improvements which will not be completed before the December 31, 2022, deadline in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. ❖ OGLLC has committed to repair the Brookside EVA Gate and that is pending. ❖ OGLLC is revising the grading plan for the Soils Disposal Area in order to reactivate their County permit with closure to take place in the spring after the rainy season. They have also agreed to put winterization elements in place, though that is still pending.
G.1
Packet Pg. 51
❖ The City had provided the OGLLC with a “punch-list” of remaining subdivision improvements covered under the Subdivision Bonds. OGLLC is reviewing those items. ❖ OGLLC proposes to eliminate the Trail Staging Area. This is being reviewed by the City and EBRPD.
❖ OGLLC proposes modifications to the required grazing plan and improvements. The future owners of the conservation easement areas will need evaluate specific proposals which are still forthcoming. These improvements may possibly be secured by a Bond held by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
❖ Resolution of the required environmental mitigation on the conservation areas remain outstanding and future endowment “true-up” is still required. ❖ Revised Signage and Striping Plan is still required.
❖ OGLLC is reviewing GHAD punch-list items including deferred maintenance on detention basins.
❖ Alleged LLC interests transfer completed in 2020 has been reviewed and the City has determined it was not properly completed.
Updates on other matters:
❖ OGLLC has provided original endowment establishment documentation to City to aid in the review of the endowments.
❖ OGLLC has provided satisfactory documentation of the HOA having been assigned rights and obligations under the Wilder Landscape Agreement and Easement. ❖ City has confirmed that the 8th Amendment of the Wilder Circulation Plan eliminated the trails at the detention ponds. No longer an OGLLC obligation or requirement. ❖ OGLLC has provided the updated Improvement Plans as “as-builts” for Wilder Road as required.
❖ City accepted Wilder Road on June 4, 2021 and the warranty period has expired. Any identified concrete repairs adjacent to City owned areas like the Sports Complex are the City’s responsibility. Areas adjacent to HOA or homeowner-owned parcels are now the HOA or homeowners responsibility.
❖ The BART Shuttle obligation has transitioned to the HOA via the recorded Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the development. City staff will be working with the HOA on revisions to that requirement given current lack of demand.
If additional updates become available, they will be provided in connection with the November 15, 2022 hearing.
NEXT STEPS
If the City Council adopts Resolution No. 58-22 it will confirm that OGLLC remains in default under the DA and related approvals. No further hearing will be held as part of the 2022 DA annual compliance review. The resolution confirms OGLLC remains obligated to immediately and fully come into compliance and notes that the City is entitled to pursue all available legal remedies under the DA and related approvals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
OGLLC is responsible for reimbursing the City for its costs, but is out of compliance with this obligation.
G.1
Packet Pg. 52
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 58-22 Wilder Compliance Hearing
Respectfully Submitted by:
Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
G.1
Packet Pg. 53
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
IN THE MATTER OF:
Determination that OG Property
Owners, LLC (‘OGLLC”) Remains out of
Compliance with the Terms of the
Development Agreement for Gateway
Valley and Related Approvals
RESOLUTION NO. 58-22
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on OGLLC’s noncompliance with the DA and related approvals on August 16, 2022, September 27, 2022, October 11, 2022, and November 15, 2022 (collectively “Public Hearings”) and adopted Resolution No. 43-22, Resolution No. 46-22, and Resolution No. 54-22 (collectively “Resolutions”);
WHEREAS, the Resolutions and Public Hearings detailed the failure of OG Property Owners, LLC (“OGLLC”) to comply with certain requirements of the Second Amendment and Restatement of the Development and Pre-Annexation Agreement for Gateway Valley (“DA”) and related approvals, including the 2009 Reimbursement Agreement, the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”) Plan of Control, and the 2008 Subdivision Improvement Agreement, all as amended;
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all the evidence in the record, including all written materials and testimony received in connection with the Public Hearings;
WHEREAS, City and GHAD staff have worked with representatives of OGLLC to try to resolve the outstanding issues and secure OGLLC’s compliance with the DA and related approvals; and
WHEREAS, the City has given OGLLC repeated and detailed written notices of its failure to comply with requirements of the DA and related approvals (“Events of Default”) and actions needed to come into compliance;
WHEREAS, the City has provided OGLLC with adequate time to commence and complete the actions need to come into compliance;
WHEREAS, OGLLC remains out of compliance with the numerous requirements of the DA and related approvals, as outlined in the Resolutions and G.1.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Resolution 58-22 Wilder Compliance Hearing (2957 : Wilder Compliance Public Hearing) 2 written materials prepared for the Public Hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby find, determine, and direct as follows:
1. The City’s 2022 annual review of OGLLC’s compliance with the DA and related approvals is now complete.
2. OGLLC has not brought its performance into good faith compliance with the DA and related approvals.
3. OGLLC has not cured the Events of Default or commenced substantial efforts to cure those Events of Default.
4. OGLLC remains obligated to immediately and fully comply with the DA and related approvals.
5. The City is entitled to pursue all available legal remedies under the DA and related approvals.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on November 15, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri M. Smith, City Clerk
1583277.1
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Resolution 58-22 Wilder Compliance Hearing (2957 : Wilder Compliance Public Hearing) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: November 15, 2022
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, and provide feedback on the draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis.
BACKGROUND:
On March 15, 2022, the City Council authorized a contract amendment with Placeworks for preparation of an Evacuation Route Analysis as part of the Safety Element.
The approved scope of work for the evacuation analysis included:
1. Identification of emergency scenarios, analysis of expected intersection and roadway constraints, and analysis of vulnerable locations; and
2. Reporting, mapping, and development of web-based map applications for public consumption and outreach.
The draft Safety Element was released for public review in June. While the draft Safety Element includes a general discussion of emergency evacuation, the evacuation analysis provides a deeper analysis of emergency scenarios and evacuation roadways.
The expanded evacuation analysis was added to the Safety Element based on community interest in emergency preparedness and evacuation.
DISCUSSION:
The draft evacuation analysis is conducted in compliance with AB 747 which requires jurisdictions to identify and evaluate the capacity, safety, and viability of evacuation routes under potential emergency scenarios. The analysis evaluates three wildfire scenarios as well as potential landslide risk along possible evacuation routes.
The three potential wildfire scenarios that are evaluated include:
1. A wildfire originating from the open spaces to the southwest of Orinda.
2. A wildfire originating from the open space areas surrounding Lafayette Reservoir immediately east of Orinda.
3. A wildfire originating in or near Briones Regional Park north of Orinda.
The analysis assumes all residents would be evacuating out of Orinda in all three scenarios as a worst-case scenario. Also, the scenarios consider that residents in Lafayette, Moraga, and unincorporated Contra Costa County may also use Orinda’s roads to evacuate.
H.1
Packet Pg. 56
PlaceWorks conducted a study analyzing segments and intersections along identified potential evacuation routes that are most likely to be congested during an evacuation event, as well as residential areas that are the most vulnerable to traffic congestion along the identified constrained routes. It also considers whether there are residents who may face other barriers to evacuation due to factors such as limited access to a vehicle, phone service, access and function needs, or language barriers.
A Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based approach was used to assign cumulative index scores ranking the level of evacuation constraint and demographic vulnerability for residential areas in each scenario. The factors that influenced the cumulative index scores include:
• How far residents must travel through Orinda to reach the nearest safe destination
• What intersections and roadway segments along evacuation routes are expected to be congested, and how many congested intersections each households must travel through to reach the nearest safe destination
• Demographic characteristics identifying households that may need extra time or that may have specific requirements to evacuate quickly The results of the evacuation analysis will help inform residents who will likely need the most time to evacuate or who may need specific evacuation notification or assistance.
The analysis also provides recommendations for establishing potential contra-flow lanes or other traffic control measures along constrained evacuation route segments and intersections during an evacuation event.
The draft evacuation analysis was provided to the Moraga Orinda Fire District (MOFD) for review and feedback last month. The initial comments received from MOFD have been incorporated into the draft evacuation analysis that is attached to this staff report.
Staff will continue to work with MOFD to ensure all their comments will be addressed prior to adoption of the Safety Element.
NEXT STEPS: Based on the feedback received at the November 15th City Council meeting, Placeworks will make edits to the draft Evacuation Analysis and incorporate it into the draft Safety Element. The Evacuation Analysis will become an appendix in the Safety Element.
A web-based mapping tool will be made available to the public based on the results of the evacuation analysis. Through the web-based tool, residents will be able to better understand how the different wildfire scenarios would potentially impact their evacuation route.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no material fiscal impact associated with staff’s recommendation to receive report, take public testimony, and provide feedback on the draft Safety Element AB747 evacuation analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis
H.1
Packet Pg. 57
B. Draft Safety Element [weblink]
Respectfully Submitted by:
Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
Prepared By: Winnie Mui, Associate Planner
Approved by:
H.1
Packet Pg. 58
City of Orinda
Evacuation Analysis
Draft
November 2022
Prepared for:
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, CA 94704
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 i
Table of Contents
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 1
3.2 Wildfire Evacuation Analysis Methodology.................................................................. 5 Assumptions.................................................................................................................... 5 Wildfire Analysis Methodology Inputs............................................................................ 7 Wildfire Evacuation Analysis Methodology Steps........................................................... 9 Cumulative Wildfire Evacuation Constraint Index Scoring Summary........................... 25
3.3 Landslide Evacuation Analysis Methodology.............................................................. 27
3.4 Wildfire Evacuation Analysis Results and Discussion.................................................. 27 Recommendations for Reducing Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ...................... 28
3.5 Demographic Analysis Results and Discussion............................................................ 33 Recommendations for Evacuating Potentially Vulnerable Populations....................... 37
3.6 Cumulative Constraint Analysis Results and Discussion.............................................. 37
3.7 Landslide Evacuation Analysis Results and Discussion................................................ 41 Recommendations for Reducing Landslide Risk along Possible Evacuation Routes .... 44 Tables
Table 1: Safety Gateways and Associated Capacities to Maintain LOS Level C ................ 9 Table 2: Level of Service and Associated Volume to Capacity Ratio and Description .... 14 Table 3: Potentially Constrained Minor Intersections: All Three Wildfire Scenarios...... 32 Figures
Figure 1: Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones And Locally Adopted Wildland Urban Interface – Fire Area............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Landslide Risk....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Orinda Wildfire Evacuation Analysis Input Data.................................................. 8 Figure 4: Wildfire Scenario 1, Step One: Residential Parcels Points and Closest Safety Gateways............................................................................................................ 10 Figure 5: Wildfire Scenario 2, Step One: Residential Parcels Points and Closest Safety Gateways............................................................................................................ 11 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 ii
Figure 6: Wildfire Scenario 3, Step One: Residential Parcels Points and Closest Safety Gateways............................................................................................................ 12 Figure 7: Wildfire Scenario 1, Step Two: Intersection Counts.......................................... 16 Figure 8: Wildfire Scenario 2, Step Two: Intersection Counts.......................................... 17 Figure 9: Wildfire Scenario 3, Step Two: Intersection Counts.......................................... 18 Figure 10: Wildfire Scenario 1, Step Three: Baseline and Constrained Travel Time Contours............................................................................................................. 21 Figure 11: Wildfire Scenario 2, Step Three: Baseline and Constrained Travel Time Contours............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 12: Wildfire Scenario 3, Step Three: Baseline and Constrained Travel Time Contours............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 13: Step Four (all Scenarios): Residential Areas with a Single Point of Ingress or Egress................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 14: Orinda Census Tracts......................................................................................... 34 Figure 15: Constrained Residential Areas—Wildfire Scenario 1......................................... 38 Figure 16: Constrained Residential Areas—Wildfire Scenario 2......................................... 39 Figure 17: Constrained Residential Areas—Wildfire Scenario 3......................................... 40 Figure 18: Landslide Susceptibility on Possible Evacuation Routes.................................... 42 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE November 3, 2022
TO David Biggs, City Manager, City of Orinda
Drummond Buckley, Planning Director, City of Orinda Planning Department Winnie Mui, Associate Planner, City of Orinda Planning Department Mick Cronin, Senior Management Analyst, City of Orinda
FROM Eli Krispi, Senior Associate, PlaceWorks, Climate Action and Resiliency Allison Giffin, Associate, PlaceWorks
SUBJECT City of Orinda Evacuation Scenario Analysis Report – Draft
3.1 Introduction
PlaceWorks is working with the City of Orinda to update the Safety Element of the Orinda General Plan. As a part of this work, PlaceWorks has prepared a study to analyze segments and intersections along identified possible evacuation routes that are likely to be the most congested during an evacuation event, as well as residential areas that are the most vulnerable to traffic congestion along the identified constrained routes. This analysis also considers where there are residents in Orinda who may face other barriers to evacuation due to factors like limited access to a vehicle, internet, or phone service, disabilities, and/or language barriers. The report concludes with recommendations for reducing traffic congestion along congested evacuation route segments and intersections during a city-wide evacuation event, recommendations for evacuating vulnerable populations, and recommendations for reducing landslide risk along evacuation routes. This report also evaluates General Plan Housing Element Opportunity Sites and Downtown Precise Plan sites for evacuation constraints and finds that several Housing Element Sites are potentially constrained during an evacuation event due to expected traffic congestion on Moraga Way northwest-bound, although the increased traffic congestion pressure expected from development at these locations does not significantly change the overall results of the analysis in terms of the level of expected congestion at key intersections and the distribution of relative constraint across residential areas in Orinda. The Opportunity Sites found to be constrained are (in order from most constrained to least constrained) the Housing Opportunity Site on a portion of the Miramonte High School property, the St. John Orthodox Church Housing Opportunity Site, the St. Mark’s Church Housing Opportunity Site, and the Holy Shepherd Lutheran Church. As the Downtown Precise Plan sites are located close to SR-24, they are not likely to face substantial evacuation constraints. These results and implications are discussed in the Cumulative Constraint Analysis Results and Discussion section.
PlaceWorks and City staff are preparing this analysis to be consistent with California Government Code Section 65302.15, which requires that a Safety Element assess possible evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, viability, and evacuation locations under different emergency scenarios. It is important to note that this study is meant to guide and inform future citywide or project-level evacuation planning efforts and does not itself constitute an evacuation plan. This study includes H.1.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 2
information that can support project-level evacuation and analysis, consistent with direction and guidance from the California Office of the Attorney General and other sources.
This analysis evaluates three wildfire scenarios, as well as potential landslide risk along possible evacuation routes. Methods for evaluating evacuation from a wildfire differ from methods for evaluating evacuation in the event of a landslide. This is primarily because the spread of wildfire risk and potential severity are in specific areas in and around Orinda, as shown in Figure 1. Comparatively, landslide risk is much more dispersed throughout the entire city and surrounding areas, as shown in Figure 2.
The methodology used to evaluate wildfire scenarios and landslide scenarios also differ in part because the area of landslide impacts tends to be much smaller and more localized than the area of impact of wildfires (based on historic perimeters of wildfires versus landslides in California). For this reason, the methodology for evaluating possible evacuation routes in a wildfire event assumes that all residents would evacuate, as for a worst-case scenario, whereas this assumption is less applicable to a landslide event, which is more likely to be localized.
The first sections of this report describe the methodology, results, and recommendations for evaluating evacuation scenarios during wildfire events. The subsequent sections describe the methodology, results, and recommendations for evaluating evacuation scenarios for landslide events.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 3
FIGURE 1: WILDFIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES AND
LOCALLY ADOPTED WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE – FIRE AREA
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 4
FIGURE 2: LANDSLIDE RISK
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 5
3.2 Wildfire Evacuation Analysis Methodology
The goal of this analysis is to identify evacuation routes that are most likely to be congested in a wildfire emergency, as well as the residential areas that are likely to face the most evacuation constraints. This section details the method and assumptions used to identify these routes and areas.
Assumptions
The three wildfire scenarios evaluated in this report encompass representative locations in and around Orinda that are designated as very high wildfire hazard severity zones according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) or are designated as part of the Wildland-Urban Interface Planning Area by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD). These three scenarios are:
1. A wildfire originating from the open spaces to the southwest of Orinda.
2. A wildfire originating from the open space areas surrounding Lafayette Reservoir immediately east of Orinda.
3. A wildfire originating in or near Briones Regional Park north of Orinda.
All three wildfire scenarios assume all residents are evacuating out of Orinda. Each scenario makes different assumptions about the roadways that will be used for evacuation, given the origin and movement of a hypothetical wildfire This report does not model wildfire behavior and does not make any assumptions about potential timing of when evacuation routes would be impacted. Scenario 1, which assumes a wildfire occurring in the open spaces southwest of Orinda, is the most restrictive. It assumes only SR-24 westbound towards the Caldecott Tunnel, SR-24 eastbound towards Walnut Creek, and Mt. Diablo Boulevard eastbound towards Walnut Creek, are the only safe evacuation routes leading out of Orinda. Under this scenario, San Pablo Dam Road northbound, Grizzly Peak Boulevard westbound, Canyon Road westbound (via Pinehurst Road northbound), and Pinehurst Road southbound are not safe to use. Scenario 2, modeling a wildfire originating in the Lafayette Reservoir open space area, is the least restrictive in that it assumes any evacuation route leading out of Orinda is safe to use. Scenario 3, modeling a wildfire in the Briones Regional Park and open space areas north of Orinda, strikes the middle between Scenarios 1 and 2, by assuming that San Pablo Dam Road northbound and Grizzly Peak Boulevard westbound are not safe to use, but that Canyon Road and Pinehurst Road are both safe to use. The purpose of these assumptions is to analyze different scenarios where routes may be obstructed and to test how sensitive evacuation outcomes are to the availability of alternative routes to SR-24. Results from previous studies conducted by MOFD in partnership with UC Berkeley researchers indicate that a wildfire starting in Briones Regional Park and open space north of Orinda is most likely, which could obstruct San Pablo Dam Road. MOFD staff have also noted that Pinehurst Road and Canyon Road in particular have high potential for extreme fuel loading and spot fires which may preclude their availability during an actual evacuation event.
Scenario 1 captures this by assuming these routes are unavailable.
In addition to Orinda residents, all three scenarios consider residents in Lafayette, Moraga, and unincorporated Contra Costa County that might use the Orinda roadway network to evacuate. The H.1.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 6
method for considering which households are included in the study area is discussed further in the subsection describing wildfire evacuation analysis methodology steps.
The methodology used in this analysis assigns cumulative constraint index scores to residential areas using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software based on component indices capturing the following:
• how far Orinda residents must travel through Orinda to reach the nearest safe destination, • what intersections and roadway segments along Orinda’s evacuation route are expected to be congested, and how many congested intersections each household must travel through to reach the nearest safe destination,
• and demographic characteristics identifying households that may need extra time or that may have specific requirements to evacuate quickly.
Project staff ran this analysis assuming one vehicle per household, and again assuming 1.5 vehicles per household. While overall traffic volumes are more severe using the assumption of 1.5 vehicles traveling from each household, the relative results in terms of which roadway segments and residential areas are most constrained in Orinda remain the same in both cases. Additionally, however, there is a large gap in expected vehicle volumes between the most constrained intersections(mostly arterial roadways with many local roads and minor collectors feeding into them) and the second most constrained intersections, which are more minor collector roads with less than half of the expected traffic volumes as the most constrained arterial intersections along evacuation routes (see Figures 7, 8, and 9). Consequently, increasing the assumption of vehicles evacuating per household from 1 to 1.5 does not change which roadway segments and intersections are identified as the most constrained in Orinda based on thresholds for LOS F used in the analysis. Results in this report are discussed using the assumption of one vehicle evacuating per household.
This analysis also uses residential parcels as the source of vehicle trips leaving Orinda in all three wildfire scenarios, which most closely resembles a scenario in which a wildfire occurs during the evening or nighttime when Orinda’s population is comprised primarily of residents at home. Most non-residential land uses in Orinda, like offices and commercial areas, are concentrated in Downtown Orinda near the on-ramps to SR-24 and around BART. These areas are the least constrained given their proximity to high-capacity routes out of Orinda. Besides commercial or office uses, other nonresidential uses include schools, other public facilities like the Orinda Community Center, and residential care facilities. Although the methodology does not include daytime land uses or residential care facilities as evacuation origin points in the constrained intersection analysis, this report includes specific recommendations to address evacuation concerns for these facilities.
Finally, to estimate the level of congestion at intersections, the index-scoring approach uses intersection capacities expressed in vehicles per one hour. It is much more likely that Orinda residents would have more time than one hour to evacuate, particularly if a wildfire were to originate further out in the northern Briones or southwest open spaces beyond Orinda City Limits, and that a phased evacuation procedure would prevent such ‘worst-case-scenario’ traffic volumes. However, evaluating H.1.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 7
this worst-case scenario produces results that illustrate what the worst-case scenario might look like and therefore how it can be avoided (e.g., by establishing contra-flow lanes on high-priority routes), while still identifying intersections that may be congested even during a phased evacuation. An example of a recent simultaneous evacuation order occurred during the 2018 Camp Fire. The Town of Paradise had an existing phased evacuation plan in the Town’s adopted Emergency Plan. By 8:15 a.m. on November 8, 2018, Paradise public safety staff began giving phased evacuation orders to selected evacuation zones after the fire had been burning since approximately 6:15 a.m. By 8:30 a.m., just 15 minutes after the first phase evacuation order was given, Paradise public safety staff deemed the phased evacuation plan in the town’s Emergency Plan unworkable and ordered the rest of Paradise to evacuate at the same time regardless of zone, approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes after public safety was first alerted to the wildfire. Although the fire dynamics in Orinda are not the same as in Paradise, to take the conservative approach, and because the scenario in which all residents are simultaneously evacuating is one that has occurred in California in the recent past, this analysis assumes all Orinda residents are evacuating within the same hour. However, the results of this analysis generate drive time contours and groupings of households that are all evacuating towards the same safety gateway in the same direction (e.g., ‘traffic-sheds’), which are used to inform recommendations for potential phased evacuation approaches.
Wildfire Analysis Methodology Inputs
This analysis begins with the following data inputs, shown in Figure 3:
• The roadway network in Orinda.
• Residential parcel center points representing origin locations of residents for all evacuation scenarios, sourced from the Contra Costa County tax assessor. Note that this initial set of 15,104 parcel origin points encompasses a much larger set of residential parcels surrounding Orinda rather than just those within Orinda city limits. This larger set of parcels represents a conservative set that is large enough to encompass any households that might use the evacuation network in Orinda (e.g., Moraga and Canyon). This ensures traffic counts capture potential congestion during an evacuation along Orinda’s evacuation roadway network as comprehensively as possible.
• Hazard locations, representing locations where hazards are likely to be in each scenario, and which evacuees would avoid and travel away from.
• Safety gateways, which are representative points outside of Orinda along evacuation corridors at which evacuees from Orinda can consider themselves safely evacuated. Note that these are not ultimate destinations to which evacuees are traveling, but instead are points along roadways where evacuees can consider themselves safe once they have reached these points, while continuing to travel in any direction after reaching this point. The western mouth of the Caldecott Tunnel is one example: evacuees heading westbound on State Route (SR-) 24 can consider themselves safely evacuated from Orinda once they have crossed this point but would continue to travel in any direction from there to reach ultimate destinations of refuge.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 8
FIGURE 3: ORINDA WILDFIRE EVACUATION ANALYSIS INPUT DATA H.1.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 9
Safety gateways, shown as blue circles, were chosen based on an evaluation of all roadways with egress out of Orinda, that do not dead-end, and that are entirely in the public right-of-way. Each safety gateway was assigned a maximum service flow rate (MSF), which is the number of vehicles that can flow through a point along a roadway during a one-hour period to maintain a traffic level of service (LOS) C, which is the threshold at which traffic begins to slow due to congestion according to the U.S. Highway Capacity Manual. This weight is expressed in passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl), which is derived from the maximum allowable speed and roadway classification for the roadway on which that point lies.
For example, SR-24 has a maximum speed of 65 miles per hour (MPH) and four lanes in either direction. According to the U.S. Highway Capacity Manual, MSF (in pcphpl) to maintain LOS level C at the 65 MPH max speed is 1,548 passenger cars per hour per lane (1,040 to maintain LOS level B, which is completely free-flowing traffic). Therefore, to maintain traffic level C in one direction on SR-24, the capacity is 1,548*4 lanes = 6,192 in each direction over the course of one hour.
Table 1 describes each of the seven safety gateway points shown in Figure 3, and the associated capacity from the U.S. Highway Capacity Manual to maintain LOS C.
TABLE 1: SAFETY GATEWAYS AND ASSOCIATED CAPACITIES TO MAINTAIN LOS LEVEL C Scenarios
Included Safety Gateway Description
Speed Limit
at Point
(MPH)
Number of
Lanes per
Direction
Pcphpl for
LOS Level C
1, 2, 3 SR-24 EB to Walnut Creek 65 4 4,160
1, 2, 3 SR-24 WB to Berkeley/Oakland 65 4 4,160
1, 2, 3 Mt Diablo Blvd E to Pleasant Hill Rd 35 2 3,400 2, 3 Pinehurst Rd SB 35 1 1,700
2 Grizzly Peak Blvd WB 35 1 1,700
2 San Pablo Dam Road NB to Richmond 35 1 1,700
2, 3 Canyon Rd WB (via Pinehurst Rd NB) 25 1 850
Wildfire Evacuation Analysis Methodology Steps
The following steps describe the methodology used to evaluate potentially congested intersections and roadways as well as where households are that are most likely to experience congestion during an evacuation event. The steps described herein are repeated for all three scenarios.
Step One
The first step establishes the closest safety gateway and fastest route for each household along the street network. Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the assignment of household origin points to their nearest safety gateway in each scenario. The fastest route calculation also establishes which roadways each household would likely travel on to reach their closest safety gateway, which also establishes which households are likely to use the possible evacuation route in Orinda. The resulting set of households likely to use Orinda’s possible evacuation network, regardless of whether they are within Orinda City Limits or not, are then used as inputs to the congested intersection analysis described in subsequent steps.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 10
FIGURE 4: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 1, STEP ONE: RESIDENTIAL PARCELS POINTS
AND CLOSEST SAFETY GATEWAYS
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 11
FIGURE 5: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 2, STEP ONE: RESIDENTIAL PARCELS POINTS
AND CLOSEST SAFETY GATEWAYS
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 12
FIGURE 6: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 3, STEP ONE: RESIDENTIAL PARCELS POINTS
AND CLOSEST SAFETY GATEWAYS
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 13
Figures 4, 5, and 6 show that in all three scenarios, the fastest route for most Orinda residents from their home to safety is towards SR-24 westbound towards the Caldecott Tunnel, particularly to the westbound on-ramps from Camino Pablo.
The legends in Figures 4, 5, and 6 also label some residential origin points and their corresponding safety gateways as ‘NOT IN NETWORK’. These residences do not use the Orinda evacuation network at all. For some safety gateways in some scenarios, any households routed towards them do not use the Orinda roadway network, in which case the gateway itself is also labeled as ‘NOT IN NETWORK’ in the legend. For example, households routed to Mt. Diablo Boulevard in Scenarios 2 and 3 use Moraga Road, which is not in the Orinda evacuation network, and so these households and the Mt.
Diablo Boulevard safety gateway are considered out of the network. Out of network homes and safety gateways are not considered further in this analysis for that scenario. Importantly, however, Figures 4, 5, and 6 show that residents of Moraga Country Club outside of Orinda City Limit boundaries would likely evacuate towards SR-24 via Moraga Way northbound through Orinda, so these households are included in the subsequent steps estimating traffic volumes at intersections along possible evacuation routes.
Step Two
The second step sums expected vehicle counts at each intersection in the direction of travel towards the nearest safety destination, resulting in the total cumulative estimated traffic volume for each intersection, which is compared to the intersection’s associated capacity to maintain LOS C, the level at which traffic speeds begin to slow due to congestion. The ratio of expected traffic volumes to capacity (Volume-to-Capacity or V/C ratio) to maintain each LOS is summarized in Table 2. Because wildfire behavior is not modeled in this report, the analysis assumes that all intersections are fully operational during an evacuation.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 14
TABLE 2: LEVEL OF SERVICE AND ASSOCIATED VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO AND DESCRIPTION LOS V/C Ratio Description
Control Delay
per Vehicle
(sec/veh)
Signalized
Intersections
Control Delay
per Vehicle
(sec/veh)
Non-Signalized
Intersections
A <0.60 Traffic flows at or above speed limit;
complete mobility between lanes 0 - 10 0 - 10
B >0.61 to
0.70 Slightly more congested than free-flow,
with almost no limits to lane-changing
mobility
10 - 20 10 - 15
C >0.71 to
0.80 Stable flow where posted speed is
maintained. Ability to pass or change
lanes is somewhat limited.
21 - 35 15 - 25
D >0.81 to
0.90 Approaching unstable flow, speeds
somewhat reduced from posted limit
with vehicles close together
36 - 55 26 - 35
E >0.91 to
1.00 Flow becomes unstable (stop and go);
consistent with volume to capacity (V/C)
ratios of 0.9 and greater
56 - 80 36 - 50
F >1.00 Stopped traffic idling for up to minutes at
a time >80 >50
Project staff assigned intersection capacity thresholds (the ‘C’ in V/C ratio) to possible evacuation route intersections based on traffic capacities measured for the Moraga Way and Glorietta Boulevard intersection in a 2015 Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering Inc. for the City of Orinda’s 5th Cycle Housing Element. This critical intersection along the Orinda evacuation network is a standard signalized four-way intersection with left and right turns allowed in all directions and is comparable to other arterial intersections along Moraga Way and Camino Pablo that connect to SR-24 with residential streets and minor collectors feeding into it. This AB-747 evacuation study uses the estimated capacity for the Glorietta Boulevard/Moraga Way intersection in the northwest-bound direction towards SR-24 (in the direction of evacuation for all three scenarios) as the baseline traffic capacity for similar intersections along Orinda’s possible evacuation network. This is 912 vehicles per hour to maintain LOS C according to the 2015 Abrams Associates study. LOS is a ratio of roadway volume to roadway capacity. While the volume of traffic using Orinda intersections (the ‘V’ in V/C ratio) has very likely increased since 2015, this evacuation analysis only relies on the 2015 study to establish roadway capacity (the ‘C’ in V/C ratio), which reflects the infrastructural capacity of the intersection and has largely remained constant since 2015.
This evacuation analysis generates roadway volume based on 2022 Contra Costa County tax assessor datasets and a network analysis of Orinda’s roads.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 15
Project staff assigned LOS thresholds to each arterial intersection in the Orinda evacuation network based on the LOS thresholds described in table 2 as percentages of the baseline LOS C capacity of 912 vehicles per hour derived from the 2015 Abrams Associates study. These thresholds are summarized below:
• Less than 549 vehicles = LOS A
• 549 -638 vehicles = LOS B
• 639 -728 vehicles = LOS C
• 729 -818 vehicles = LOS D
• 819 -899 vehicles = LOS E
• Over 900 vehicles = LOS F
One important arterial roadway segment in the Orinda evacuation network, Camino Pablo between Moraga Way and Miner Road, has two lanes in both directions instead of one lane, which could translate to increased capacity along this segment compared to the LOS thresholds derived from Moraga Way at Glorietta Boulevard which has only one lane in each direction. Within the two-lane segment of Camino Pablo, however, evacuees are either heading northwest-bound (from Moraga Way) to turn right and merge onto the SR-24 cloverleaf on-ramp or are heading southeast-bound on Camino Pablo from Miner Road to turn right onto the SR-24 westbound on-ramp from the southbound approach. In both cases, traffic lanes merge from two lanes into one on-ramp with no signal timing infrastructure, which could likely create bottlenecks that decrease the capacity of intersections within this roadway segment as vehicles merge into one lane at the on-ramps. For this reason, project staff conservatively assigned the same capacity of 912 vehicles per hour to intersections in this two-lane segment of Camino Pablo. All other intersections at arterials along the Orinda roadway network are considered comparable to the intersection with Glorietta Boulevard and Moraga Way in terms of their vehicle volume capacities.
Project staff estimated traffic volume counts at each intersection in Orinda’s possible evacuation roadway network based on the number of households traveling towards each safety gateway depicted in Figures 4, 5, and 6, and the associated fastest route for each household origin point (assuming maximum allowable speeds on each roadway). The methodology aggregates cumulative vehicle counts for arterial intersections along the possible evacuation network and compares them to their assigned capacities of 912 vehicles per hour to estimate LOS. Figures 7, 8, and 9 below depict intersection counts, with plus-sign or cross-shaped symbols showing minor roadway intersection counts, and inverse tear drop-shaped icons showing the cumulative counts for arterial intersections.
These figures show arterial intersections expected to meet or exceed 900 vehicles (LOS F) as ‘Constrained’, intersections expected to meet or exceed 1,500 vehicles as ‘Very Constrained’ and intersections expected to meet or exceed 1,900 vehicles as ‘Extremely Constrained’.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 16
FIGURE 7: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 1, STEP TWO: INTERSECTION COUNTS H.1.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 17
FIGURE 8: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 2, STEP TWO: INTERSECTION COUNTS H.1.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 18
FIGURE 9: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 3, STEP TWO: INTERSECTION COUNTS H.1.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 19
Figures 7, 8, and 9 show that several major evacuation arterial routes are likely to be constrained in all three scenarios based on the extent to which expected traffic volumes exceed estimated capacities. These are:
• Moraga Way northbound from Ivy Drive to Camino Pablo and the SR-24 westbound on-ramps from Camino Pablo northbound,
• And Camino Pablo Southbound from Miner Road to the SR-24 westbound on-ramps.
In addition, the following two intersections result in the highest V/C ratio and are therefore considered to be the most constrained intersections:
• Camino Pablo southbound/Santa Maria Way westbound and the SR-24 westbound on-ramps, • And the Camino Pablo and Brookwood Road intersection, just before the right-turn cloverleaf on-ramp to SR-24 westbound from Camino Pablo Northbound.
The methodology ultimately uses the level of constraint for each arterial intersection to assign increasing ‘congestion index’ points to households traveling through increasing numbers of constrained arterial intersections shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9, with additional weight for increasing expected cumulative LOS for each intersection beyond level C. The resulting implications for households traveling through these intersections are discussed in more detail in the Wildfire Evacuation Analysis Results and Discussion section.
Step Three
Project staff generated travel distance contours to the closest safety gateways along Orinda’s roadway network for each scenario and assigned increasing index points to households based on their location within increasing distance intervals away from the nearest safety gateway. Project staff generated the first set of contours assuming maximum allowable speeds on all roadways to establish the baseline travel times, and then again using an assumption of an average speed of 5 miles per hour (mph) on all roadways to model a potential scenario with significant congestion. While the previous step identifies constraints from traffic congestion, this step identifies constraints based on distance expressed as driving times under the two different speed assumptions. Figures 10, 11, and 12 depict baseline drive time contours to the nearest safety gateway side by side with 5 mph scenario drive time contours for all three scenarios.
Under Scenario 1, which has the fewest accessible safety gateways, modeling an average driving speed of 5 mph on all roadways indicates that some residential areas that are furthest away from their nearest safety gateway (e.g., around Miramonte High School) could require up to two hours (120 minutes) to evacuate, as shown in Figure 10. Under this scenario, the second-furthest areas from their respective safety gateways could require up to 90 minutes to evacuate. Under Scenarios 2 and 3 , modeling an average driving speed of 5 mph indicates that all areas in Orinda could likely evacuate within an hour and a half (90 minutes), and most within one hour, as shown in Figures 11 and 12, respectively. While 5 mph speed limits represent a conservative assumption of severely congested traffic on all roads, one limitation of this assumption is that it does not consider additional traffic congestion due to emergency response vehicle traffic traveling through evacuation traffic.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 20
Note that figures 10, 11 and 12 show 5 mph drive time contours to depict potential maximum drive times under heavy traffic congestion compared with baseline drive times at maximum speed limits.
However, index points for the purposes of cumulative constraint index scoring are assigned to residential parcels based on the baseline maximum speed drive time contours and not the 5 mph contours. This is because Step 2 captures traffic congestion impacts already, such that using the 5 mph contours to assign index points would double-count the effects of traffic congestion.
Step Four
Project staff assigned an additional index point to residential areas with only one point of ingress or egress, based on an earlier analysis conducted for the Orinda General Plan Safety Element Update in compliance with California Senate Bill 99. These are neighborhoods along single-access roads or within a cul-de-sac of 10 or more parcels. These areas are shown in Figure 13.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 21
FIGURE 10: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 1, STEP THREE: BASELINE AND CONSTRAINED TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS H.1.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 22
FIGURE 11: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 2, STEP THREE: BASELINE AND CONSTRAINED TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS H.1.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 23
FIGURE 12: WILDFIRE SCENARIO 3, STEP THREE: BASELINE AND CONSTRAINED TRAVEL TIME CONTOURS H.1.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 24
FIGURE 13: STEP FOUR (ALL SCENARIOS): RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH A SINGLE POINT OF
INGRESS OR EGRESS
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 25
The final step in the wildfire evacuation constraint methodology adds additional constraint index points to the cumulative constraint index score if households are within census tracts with high percentages of populations or households having demographic characteristics that could pose as barriers to evacuating. Specifically, the methodology identifies tracts where the share of the population or households meet or exceed the Contra Costa County average share for the following factors based on American Community Survey (ACS) 2020 data:
• Share of senior citizen (65 years of age or more) householders living alone • Share of households with adults speaking limited English • Share of households with limited access to phone and/or internet • Share of low-income households
• Share of households with children under 6 years of age • Share of households with limited access to vehicles
• Share of the population with a disability
The project team assigned a demographic vulnerability index point to households within census geographies that meet or exceed the average countywide share for these, with multiple points assigned to households with multiple characteristics above the countywide average share threshold.
The team added this additional demographic evacuation barrier score to households’ cumulative traffic constraint score to assess areas in Orinda where households may face both traffic constraints and demographic barriers to evacuation. This report summarizes the demographic analysis separately from the traffic analysis results, since recommendations for mitigating traffic congestion impacts are different than recommendations for assisting specific populations that may face barriers to evacuation. Efforts to reduce traffic congestion may include contra-flow lanes or other traffic interventions, while evacuation recommendations for specific populations may involve improved notification systems or chartering buses to assist with evacuating people who do not have access to a vehicle. The ACS data is based on households, so it does not include people living in group quarters such as senior citizen nursing facilities. This report includes recommendations to address the specific evacuation needs of senior facilities.
Cumulative Wildfire Evacuation Constraint Index Scoring Summary The overall constraint scores for residential parcels in a wildfire evacuation event are calculated for each scenario based on the formula discussed above and summarized in the list below.
LOS C Index
• 0.25 point assigned to a parcel for each intersection traveled through with LOS C or D LOS D Index
• 0.5 index point assigned to a parcel for each intersection traveled through with LOS D or E LOS E Index
• 1 index point assigned to a parcel for each intersection traveled through with LOS E or F H.1.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 26
LOS F Index
• 1.5 index points assigned to a parcel for each intersection traveled through that exceeds LOS F by 100
• 2 index points assigned to a parcel for each intersection traveled through that exceeds LOS F by 600
• 2 index points assigned to a parcel for each arterial intersection traveled through that exceeds LOS F by more than 600 but that has two lanes
Travel Time Contour Index
• 0 index points assigned to a parcel if it is within the 0 – 5-minute baseline drive time contour • 1 index point assigned to a parcel if it is within the 10 – 15-minute baseline drive time contour • 2 index points assigned to a parcel if it is within the 16 – 20-minute baseline drive time contour Limited Egress Index
• 1 index point if parcel is in a limited egress area
Senior Householder (65+) Living Alone Index
• 1 index point assigned to households within census tracts that have a higher percentage than countywide average
Limited-English Speaking Household Index
• 1 index point assigned to households within census tracts that have a higher percentage than countywide average
Limited Access to Lifelines Index (phone and/or internet) • 1 index point assigned to households within census tracts that have a higher percentage than countywide average
Low-Income Household Index
• 1 index point assigned to households within census tracts that have a higher percentage than countywide average
Households with Children Under 6 Index
• 1 index point assigned to households within census tracts that have a higher percentage than countywide average
Limited Access to a Vehicle Index
• 1 index point assigned to households within census tracts that have a higher percentage than countywide average
Disabled Population Index
• 1 index point assigned to households within census tracts that have a higher percentage than countywide average
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 27
The goal of this index weighting approach is to apply relatively equal weight to all constraint factors, plus additional weight to capture the level by which intersections exceed LOS F based on their expected traffic volume-to-capacity ratios. The weighting scale acts as a standardized numeric ranking index that evaluates the relative constraint and vulnerability of residential areas within Orinda compared to each other. This approach is like the vulnerability index score used in the Orinda General Plan Safety Element Vulnerability Assessment in that it is an index of multiple factors with different scales that are standardized into a score and ranked based on the number of factors that apply. However, this approach is targeted more towards assessing vulnerabilities related to traffic and ability to evacuate during an acute emergency in Orinda.
3.3 Landslide Evacuation Analysis Methodology
This report uses a different approach to evaluate landslide evacuation scenarios compared to the methods used to evaluate wildfire evacuation scenarios, primarily because the geographic spread of impacts and associated number of people who would need to evacuate immediately during a wildfire could potentially be much larger than the geographic spread of impacts and associated number of immediate evacuees during a landslide. For example, the Zander Drive landslide in 2008 measured 200 feet across, 115 feet in depth, and extended 1,000 feet in length from Zander Drive down the slope to San Pablo Creek, covering almost five acres in surface area. The 1991 Oakland Tunnel and 1998 Sibley Fires, by comparison, had burn areas measuring 1,622 acres and 200 acres, respectively.
Because of the typically more localized nature of landslides compared to wildfires in California, the possible evacuation ‘network’ for a landslide event is specific to the local area in which it occurs, such that recommendations for evacuation in one localized area or neighborhood are not necessarily relevant for other areas or neighborhoods.
For these reasons, this report evaluates evacuation risk specifically along Orinda’s network of possible evacuation routes in GIS by intersecting the possible evacuation routes data layer with the landslide risk data layer shown in Figure 2, and summarizes recommendations based on segments of the possible evacuation network that are at the highest landslide susceptibility class.
3.4 Wildfire Evacuation Analysis Results and Discussion As discussed in the introduction, Scenario 1 (a wildfire originating southwest of Orinda) assumes that San Pablo Dam Road northbound, Grizzly Peak Boulevard westbound, Canyon Road westbound (via Pinehurst Road northbound), and Pinehurst Road southbound are not safe to use; Scenario 2 (a wildfire originating in the Lafayette Reservoir open space area) assumes that all evacuation gateways are safe to use; and Scenario 3 (a wildfire originating in Briones Regional Park northeast of Orinda) assumes that San Pablo Dam Road northbound and Grizzly Peak Boulevard westbound are not safe to use, but that Canyon Road and Pinehurst Road are both safe.
Figures 7, 8, and 9 show that both Moraga Way northwest-bound and Camino Pablo southeast-bound are still likely to be congested above LOS F in all three scenarios, even under Scenario 2 with all evacuation gateways available. This is because most residents will still evacuate towards SR-24 because it has a much higher vehicle capacity than any alternative routes (illustrated in Table 1), and H.1.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 28
Camino Pablo and Moraga Way are the only arterial roadways in Orinda that lead to SR-24 on-ramps, so most traffic bound for SR-24 ultimately travels along these routes.
Recommendations for Reducing Traffic Congestion during Evacuation The City of Orinda has already implemented contra-flow lanes on Miner Road, which convert northbound lanes into additional southbound lanes towards SR-24 during an evacuation event. The City has also implemented Red Flag Day parking restrictions along several key evacuation routes, including along El Toyonal and other areas north of SR-24. During Red Flag Days, on-street parking and stopping is prohibited to keep roadways clear for potential evacuation and fire vehicle access.
The National Weather Service may declare a Red Flag Day, indicating a high risk of wildfires, given humidity levels, wind speeds, and the possibility of dry lightning. MOFD may also declare a Red Flag Day under similarly dangerous conditions.
Orinda could expand red flag parking restrictions to other corridors in evacuation-constrained areas and establish contra-flow lanes and signal timing measures on existing and recommended Red Flag Day corridors. However, while implementing contra-flow lanes and signal timing preferences is likely to significantly ease congestion along major arterials leading to SR-24 on-ramps by doubling their capacity in the direction of evacuation, the on ramps themselves still merge into one lane without shoulders or signal timing infrastructure, which is likely to create bottlenecks even if arterials leading to the on-ramps have contra flow lanes. This report recommends that Orinda staff coordinate with Caltrans to study the feasibility of implementing potential capital improvements to the SR-24 westbound on-ramps from Camino Pablo northbound and Southbound, like signal timing infrastructure, that could improve the flow of traffic at these on-ramps.
The following recommendations address expected congestion along Moraga Way in the northwestbound direction towards the SR-24 on-ramps:
1. Consider expanding Red Flag Day parking restrictions to include Moraga Way between Ivy Drive and Camino Pablo, and from Camino Pablo northwest-bound to SR-24 westbound on-ramps.
2. In addition to parking restrictions on the segment of Moraga Way between Ivy Drive and Camino Pablo, study the feasibility of implementing contra-flow lanes that convert the southeast-bound lane on Moraga Way into an additional northwest-bound lane towards SR-24 during an evacuation.
3. Consider implementing an evacuation signal timing plan for the following intersections along Moraga Way and the segment of Camino Pablo south of SR-24 to allow only the northwestbound through direction as well as turning movements onto Moraga Way and Camino Pablo northwest-bound to SR-24:
− Brookwood Road/ Camino Pablo
− Moraga Way/ Camino Pablo
− Glorietta Boulevard/ Moraga Way
− El Camino Moraga/ Moraga Way
− Coral Drive/ Moraga Way
− Ivy Drive/ Moraga Way
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 29
In addition, the City could also deploy staff to direct traffic at the above key intersections during an evacuation event, or use automated signals as feasible.
1. There are two Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roads, otherwise known as fire roads, that connect Moraga Way with Wilder Road, and that could be studied for residential access during an evacuation event to relieve traffic pressure along Moraga Way northbound towards SR-24.
The northern of these two EVAs connects Brookside Road (at the intersection with Sunrise Hill Road) with Boeger Ranch Road, and the southern of the two EVAs connects Edgewood Road to the southern end of Wilder Road. This report recommends that Orinda staff, in coordination with MOFD, study the feasibility of using both EVAs for residential use during an evacuation to relieve expected traffic pressure on Moraga Way towards SR-24. MOFD has noted that the Edgewood Road/Wilder Road EVA may require significant improvements to safely support residential use during an evacuation, such as grading, paving, and traffic controls, whereas the Brookside Road/Boeger Ranch Road EVA would only require gate removal at the time of evacuation. Any plans to convert EVAs to public access during an evacuation would require coordination with MOFD to ensure staff provide emergency vehicles with priority access to these routes as necessary before making them publicly accessible.
2. Consider entering into an agreement with unincorporated county, and any other stakeholders to implement contra-flow lanes along San Pablo Dam Road in the northbound direction from Bear Creek Road to the intersection with Valley View Road in El Sobrante.
3. Consider entering into an agreement with Caltrans and other stakeholders to implement contra-flow lanes in the westbound direction along the reversible lanes available on SR-24 in the event of a wildfire in the MOFD jurisdiction.
Orinda has already established or intends to establish red flag parking restrictions on Miner Road and parts of Camino Pablo southbound towards SR-24 from Miner Road. The following recommendations could help provide additional traffic congestion relief along this corridor north of SR-24 during an evacuation:
1. In addition to the contra-flow lanes already established along Miner Road, consider also implementing contra-flow lanes on Camino Pablo from Miner Road to the SR-24 on-ramps, converting the northbound lanes into additional southbound lanes during an evacuation.
2. Consider implementing an evacuation signal timing plan for the following intersections along Camino Pablo to allow only the southbound through direction as well as turning movements onto Camino Pablo southbound:
− Miner/ Camino Pablo
− El Toyonal/ Orinda Way/ Camino Pablo
− Camino Sobrante/ Camino Pablo
− Orinda Way/ Altarinda/ Santa Maria
− Santa Maria/ Camino Pablo
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 30
3. There is an additional EVA connecting the northern segment of El Toyonal with Wildcat Canyon Road. This report recommends that Orinda staff coordinate with MOFD to make necessary roadway improvements to this segment of El Toyonal, like bridge upgrades and gate removal, that would make this roadway accessible for public access during an evacuation. This additional access route could enable more residents in the El Toyonal neighborhood to evacuate via Wildcat Canyon Road and potentially relieve additional congestion pressure along Camino Pablo southbound towards SR-24.
In addition to the location-specific recommendations above, this report also offers recommendations for improving general traffic flow for all vehicles traveling out of Orinda during a citywide evacuation:
1. Encourage all residents on the east side of Moraga Way (e.g., with mailers or electronic notifications) to be prepared to check traffic (on Google Maps, Apple Maps, Waze, or other mobile direction application) for both directions along SR-24 during an evacuation event.
Residents could enter ‘Walnut Creek’ as their destination and view the routing, travel time, and traffic estimates for the eastbound direction, and then entering ‘BART Rockridge’ or other equivalent destination to compare conditions in the westbound direction.
2. Consider expanding emergency plans to use dynamic signage (e.g., digital screens at bus stops or along major arterials) that can be used to display messages during an evacuation event directing traffic to alternative routes. Currently, dynamic signage is recommended on Miner Road. For example, a dynamic sign could be deployed at Valley View Drive and Moraga Way encouraging evacuees to use Valley View Drive to Edgewood Fire Road towards SR-24 westbound. Dynamic signage can be temporary and deployed only during the time of evacuation.
In addition to potential congestion reduction measures listed above, recommendations listed below potentially reduce the overall number of vehicles evacuating during a citywide evacuation event.
1. Consider implementing a plan for coordinated car/van/or bus pool evacuation procedures for Miramonte Gardens and other larger multifamily housing developments, especially that are evacuating via Moraga Way in the northwest-bound direction towards SR-24 westbound onramps.
2. Coordinate with MOFD to develop fire safe standards as part of the Fire Code for new residential developments in constrained residential areas, such that sheltering in place is a viable alternative plan if evacuation routes become too congested to preclude timely evacuation during an emergency or if other circumstances prevent evacuation, as sheltering in place should only be considered if evacuation is not feasible. Housing Element Opportunity Sites in relatively constrained residential areas (based on their constraint index score) are shown in Figures 14, 15, and 16 and discussed in further detail in the subsection discussing.
Design and building requirements related to fire safety are discussed in Chapter 14.4 of the Orinda General Plan EIR, which designates the J&J Ranch and Wilder residential developments as Shelter-in-Place locations based on these standards. Shelter in Place communities are defined in the EIR as ‘entire community or subdivision designed to withstand heat and flames from an approaching wildfire’.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 31
3. Consider using Orinda Community Center as a potential emergency shelter location, which is also northwest of the SR-24 westbound on-ramps from Camino Pablo northwest-bound. If the west-bound on-ramps to SR-24 from Camino Pablo are severely congested, evacuees can alternatively continue straight and head to the Orinda Community Center.
4. Develop evacuation plan with BART to evacuate workers in the Downtown area. Include potential measures for deploying traffic control personnel in the Orinda BART station area and surrounding intersections to coordinate evacuee transfer to BART stations. Also consider coordinating with commercial property owners near Orinda BART to use parking lots for additional BART parking and disseminate public safety awareness campaigns that encourage Orinda residents to make an alternative plan to evacuate via BART.
5. Consider adopting a phased evacuation approach, using Zonehaven or other applicable tools, that prioritizes improving accessibility along Moraga Way in the northwest-bound direction particularly for residents living in southeast Orinda south of Hall Drive.
In addition to these recommendations for arterial intersections, Table 3 below lists more minor collector intersections that could be potentially constrained, with 100 or more vehicles traveling through them during the first phases of evacuation as residents exit their homes. Table 3 describes each intersection, the estimated vehicle count based on the sum of closest households, and associated recommendations for alleviating traffic congestion at these intersections.
Any roadway segment recommended for contra-flow lanes in Table 3 should also be considered for expansion of red flag parking restriction days other than where Red Flag Day parking restrictions are implemented already. Current red flag parking restricted areas include Loma Vista Drive and El Toyonal between Camino Pablo and Vista Orinda in the northeast El Toyonal neighborhood of Orinda.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 32
TABLE 3: POTENTIALLY CONSTRAINED MINOR INTERSECTIONS: ALL THREE WILDFIRE SCENARIOS ID Intersection Name Intersection
Type
Vehicle
Count1 Proposed Potential Congestion Reduction Measure
L1 Honey Hill Road and Via
Las Cruces
Local Street
to Collector 265
• Consider implementing contra-flow lanes in the southbound direction on Honey Hill Road/Charles Hill Road Southbound towards SR-24. • Consider implementing contra-flow lanes in the eastbound direction on Hidden Valley Road between St Stephens Drive and the SR-24 eastbound onramp.
L2 Miner Road and Camino
Sobrante
Local Street
to Collector 252
• If San Pablo Dam Road northbound is not a safe possible evacuation route, then Camino Pablo could be considered for contra flow in the southbound direction starting from Bear Creek Road.
• Consider encouraging residents along Camino Sobrante round the north side of Lake Cascade to evacuate south via Camino Sobrante towards Orinda Way, instead of north to the Miner Road intersection.
L3
Happy Valley Road and
Upper Happy Valley
Road
Local Street
to Collector 163 • Same recommendation as L2
L4 Overhill Road and Tara
Road
Local Street
to Collector 129 • Consider implementing contra-flow lane in the westbound direction along Overhill Road between Tara Road and Moraga Way.
L5 Arroyo Drive and Ivy
Drive
Local Street
to Collector 132 • See more general recommendations above for implementing contra-flow lane(s) along Moraga Way in the northwest-bound direction.
L6 Orinda Woods Drive and
Kite Hill Road
Local Street
to Collector 121
• Encourage residents in this area to prepare to check two potential safety destinations to program into mobile direction applications (like Google or Apple Maps): Walnut Creek and Caldecott Tunnel, to evaluate whether SR-24 eastbound or westbound is faster given real-time traffic conditions.
L7 Orinda Woods Drive and
Village Gate Road
Local Street
to Collector 112 • Same recommendation as Intersection L6. 1 Note: this value is the same in all three scenarios for these routes.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 33
Note that while collector intersections listed in Table 3 were found to have higher traffic volumes than comparable intersections in Orinda, no constraint index points were assigned to residential parcels based on the number of local or collector intersections they must travel through. Residential parcel points were assigned index points only based on the number of constrained arterial intersections they must pass through to reach their closest capacity-weighted safety gateway. This is for ease and accuracy of calculation since arterials have a clear flow of traffic in the direction of the nearest safety gateways, whereas the collector intersections and routes typically have alternatives that lead to the same safety gateway.
3.5 Demographic Analysis Results and Discussion
Even within an area of similar traffic constraints for evacuation, the constraints are not likely to be felt equally. Some community members are likely to need more time to evacuate, particularly given mobility challenges or difficulty getting information. The demographic analysis evaluates the following key demographic characteristics representing potential barriers to evacuation:
• Share of senior citizen (65 years of age or more) householders living alone • Share of households with adults speaking limited English • Share of households with limited access to phone and/or internet • Share of low-income households
• Share of households with children under 6 years of age • Share of households with limited access to vehicles
• Share of the population with a disability
For each census tract in Orinda shown in Figure 14, the analysis compares the census tract average for each indicator with the countywide average and assigns demographic constraint index points to residential parcels within census tracts that meet or exceed the countywide averages.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 34
FIGURE 14: ORINDA CENSUS TRACTS
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 35
Census Tract 2450.02 in northeast Orinda encompasses the most area in Orinda of any other census tract. This tract includes all neighborhoods bounded by Camino Pablo to the west, SR-24 so the south, and Orinda City Limits to the north and east, including Charles Hill, Orinda Downs, Orinda View, and Sleepy Hollow. It also includes some areas in Lafayette. Census Tract 3540.01 primarily encompasses the El Toyonal neighborhood in northwest Orinda. Census Tract 3530.02 encompasses most of southwestern Orinda south of SR-24 and west of Moraga Way, and includes the Knickerbocker, Lost Valley, and Wilder Neighborhoods. Census Tract 3530.02 encompasses the area bounded by SR-24 to the north, Moraga Way to the southwest, and Glorietta Boulevard to the east. It includes the Northwood Tara and Silverwood neighborhoods. Census Tract 3522.01 encompasses a large sliver in Southeast Orinda and includes the Corliss and Donald neighborhoods but is otherwise mostly within Moraga. Census Tract 3522.02 encompasses only a small sliver of South Orinda that includes Miramonte Gardens, and otherwise is mostly within unincorporated Contra Costa County.
The project team compared these census tracts were to Countywide averages for the demographic vulnerability characteristics of interest, listed below.
Senior Householders (65+) Living Alone
• 10.2 percent of households Countywide
Limited-English Speaking Households
• 14.5 percent of adults Countywide
Limited Access to Lifelines (phone and/or internet)
• 5.5 percent of households Countywide
Low-Income Households (living below the Federal Poverty Line or FPL) • 8.2 percent of households Countywide
Households with Children Under 6
• 19 percent of households Countywide
Households with Limited Access to a Vehicle
• 5.3 percent of households Countywide
Disabled Population
• 11.2 percent Countywide (31 percent for population over 65 years of age) The following summarizes findings related to each Orinda census track as it compares to the Countywide average for each characteristic.
Census Tract 3522.01
• Highest percentage of the population living below the federal poverty line (9.5 percent), which is greater than the Countywide average of 8.2 percent.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 36
• Highest percentage of adults in limited English-speaking households at nearly 9 percent, which is less than the Countywide average.
Census Tract 3522.02
• Highest percentage of householders over 65 living alone (10.4 percent), which is just over the Countywide average.
• Highest percentage of disabled residents in Orinda (10 percent), which is less than the Countywide average.
Census Tract 3540.01
• No demographic factors exceed the countywide average for this Census Tract.
Census Tract 3540.02
• Highest percentage of households with no internet access (5.6 percent) and no smartphone, tablet, or computer (5.3 percent), which is at or slightly above the Countywide average. • Highest percentage of households with no vehicle in Orinda (5.7 percent), which is greater than the countywide average.
• Census Tract 3540.02 also includes Orinda’s two senior residential communities: Orinda Senior Village and Monteverde Senior Apartments. These two locations are not included in census definitions of seniors living alone because they are both considered ‘group quarters’ and not households by the ACS, but recommendations below include Census Tract 3530.01
• Highest percentage of households with children under 6 in Orinda (15 percent), which is less than the countywide average.
Census Tract 3530.02
• No demographic factors exceed the countywide average for this Census Tract.
Based on these results, households were assigned one demographic constraint index point if they were within Census Tracts 3522.01 or 3530.01, one index point if they were within Census Tract 3522.02, and two index points if they were within Census Tract 3540.02. Households were not assigned any points if they are located within Census Tract 3530.01, because although it contains the highest percentage of families with children under six, the percentage is still below the countywide average of 19%.
Census Tract 3540.02 also includes Orinda’s two senior residential communities: Orinda Senior Village and Monteverde Senior Apartments. These two residential facilities are not counted in the population of seniors living alone because they are both considered to be group quarters rather than households by the ACS, but they are home to much of Orinda’s senior population who may need extra time or specific assistance during an evacuation. Recommendations discussed in the section below include potential measures pertaining to these two communities.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 37
Recommendations for Evacuating Potentially Vulnerable Populations The following are recommendations for evacuating potentially vulnerable populations:
1. Prioritize in-person door knocking to disseminate evacuation notices/orders to residents within the tract where phone and/or internet access is at or lower than the county average.
2. Develop an early evacuation plan for Orinda Senior Village, Monteverde Senior Apartments, the future Countryhouse Memory Care facility at 1 Wilder Road, and any future assisted living facilities or senior living communities. Plans for these locations should include measures for deploying school buses, or paratransit vehicles, or maintaining designated van or bus fleets located on-site to evacuate multiple residents per vehicle.
3. Study the feasibility of designating Orinda Senior Village and Monteverde Senior Apartments as Shelter in Place locations as well as the nearby Orinda Community Center. If Orinda Senior Village and Monteverde are not feasible as shelter-in-place locations, but the nearby Orinda Community Center is, then direct residents of these two residential facilities to the Community Center in the event that early evacuation is not feasible, and develop a shelter plan for the Community Center that accommodates the needs of sheltering seniors, e.g., that includes measures for procuring and maintaining back-up generators which are capable of powering medical equipment continuously.
4. Implement Orinda General Plan Safety Element Policy S-10, to develop and implement an evacuation assistance program, in coordination with Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, Seniors Around Town, and paratransit and dial-a-ride agencies to help those with limited mobility or lack of access to a vehicle evacuate safely. Mailers with information about this program can be prioritized for residents in Census Tract 3540.02 (where the highest percentage of residents in Orinda are that do not have access to a vehicle and that do not have phone and/or internet service), and Census Tract 3522.02 in South Orinda.
3.6 Cumulative Constraint Analysis Results and Discussion Figures 15, 16, and 17 show cumulative constraint index scores for households as well as Housing Element (HE) Opportunity Sites and Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) sites.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 38
FIGURE 15: CONSTRAINED RESIDENTIAL AREAS—WILDFIRE SCENARIO 1 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 39
FIGURE 16: CONSTRAINED RESIDENTIAL AREAS—WILDFIRE SCENARIO 2 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 40
FIGURE 17: CONSTRAINED RESIDENTIAL AREAS—WILDFIRE SCENARIO 3 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 41
First, the parcel points ranked by level of constraint layer in figures 15, 16, and 17 show that the constrained areas differ only slightly under the three different scenarios. Residential areas close to San Pablo Dam Road and Grizzly Peak Boulevard are less constrained under Scenario 2 because these roadways can be used for evacuation (although their capacity is limited). Nearly all other households in Orinda maintain the same level of constraint across all three scenarios, consistent with the findings discussed in the constrained intersection analysis results section of this report. The finding that Moraga Way northwest-bound and Miner Road/Camino Pablo southbound towards SR-24 are likely to be congested regardless of where a wildfire originates emphasizes the importance of timed evacuation procedures.
Figures 15, 16, and 17 also show that the sites in the Downtown Precise Plan area as well as the Caltrans gateway site at Shakespeare Theater Way are relatively unconstrained due to their proximity to SR-24 on-ramps. The DPP sites combined constitute the highest capacity for new housing units in Orinda (644 units total at maximum), and the Caltrans gateway site has the highest maximum number of allowed housing units on any single Housing Element Opportunity Site (408 units at maximum).
However, the Opportunity Site at Miramonte High School has the second highest maximum allowable units (234 units) and is the most constrained Housing Element Opportunity Site. The Opportunity Site at St. John Orthodox Church (501 Moraga Way) is also highly constrained. The Holy Shephard Lutheran Church and St. Mark’s Church Housing Element Opportunity Sites are moderately constrained. Constrained Housing Element Opportunity Sites are all located along Moraga Way and would likely use this arterial to evacuate based on this analysis. These results underscore the potential benefit to allowing public access on the Brookside Road/Boeger Ranch Rd EVA (in the short term), and Edgewood/Wilder EVA (in the long term, if feasible) towards SR-24 from southern Orinda during an evacuation event as an alternative to Moraga Way. Secondly, while evacuees should only shelter in place when evacuation is not feasible, Orinda staff could additionally coordinate with MOFD to establish fire code standards for new developments on any constrained Housing Element Opportunity Site which enable them serve as shelter-in-place locations only if evacuation becomes infeasible, similarly to the J&J Ranch and Wilder developments discussed in Chapter 4.14 of the Orinda General Plan EIR.
3.7 Landslide Evacuation Analysis Results and Discussion Because of the typically more localized nature of landslides compared to wildfires, particularly in California, the possible evacuation ‘network’ for a landslide event is specific to the local area in which it occurs, such that recommendations for evacuation in one localized area or neighborhood are not necessarily relevant for other areas or neighborhoods.
For these reasons this methodology analyzes evacuation risk specifically along Orinda’s network of possible evacuation routes in GIS and summarizes recommendations based on segments of the possible evacuation network that are at the highest risk of landslide. The results are shown in Figure 18 below.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 42
FIGURE 18: LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY ON POSSIBLE EVACUATION ROUTES H.1.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 43
Results indicate that much of Orinda’s primary evacuation route: SR-24, is in highly susceptible landslide areas, particularly in the following locations:
• Eastbound and westbound lanes in the Caldecott Tunnel, • Westbound lanes northwest of the Orinda BART station, • Large swaths of both eastbound and westbound lanes of the length between Camino Pablo and El Nido Ranch Road, but mostly in the westbound lanes, • And the following On-Ramps:
− Wilder Road/Gateway Boulevard eastbound and westbound on-ramps from all approaches
− Eastbound and westbound lanes in the Caldecott Tunnel − On-ramps from Wilder Road, El Nido Ranch Road, and Charles Hill Road Other segments of Orinda’s possible evacuation network located in highly susceptible landslide areas are listed below:
Possible Evacuation Network Segments Susceptible to Landslides South of SR-24 • La Cresta Road southeast of the intersection with Woodland Road • Donald Drive between Hall Drive and the Orinda city limit • Alice Lane between Donald Drive and Zander Drive
• Zander Drive just north of the intersection with Alice Lane and between Zander Court and Rheem Boulevard
• Rheem Boulevard between Zander Drive and west of Calvin Drive • Portions of Lost Valley Drive
• Glorietta Boulevard between Orchard Road and Virginia Drive • Most of Wilder Road
• Most of Stein Way and Knickerbocker Lane
• Orchard Road between Moraga Way and Oakwood Road
• A portion of Overhill Road between Broadview Terrace and Tara Road • Tahos Road between Bates Boulevard and north of St. Hill Road • Muth Drive between Wanda Lane and Warford Terrace
• Portions of Bates Boulevard between Muth Drive and Davis Road • Gateway Boulevard and Frontal Road on-ramps to SR-24 (westbound and eastbound, respectively)
• Hidden Valley Road between Tahos Road and the SR-24 eastbound on ramp west of Juniper Drive
• The intersection with El Nido Ranch Road, Muth Drive, and Orinda Woods Drive H.1.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 44
Possible Evacuation Network Segments Susceptible to Landslides North of SR-24 • El Nido Ranch Road between St. Stephens Drive and the city limit • East Altarinda Drive between Altarinda circle and St. Stephens Drive • St Stephens Drive between El Nido Ranch Road and SR-24 overpass to Tahos Road. • Orinda Woods Drive between East Altarinda Drive and Wild Plum Way • Happy Valley Road between Orinda View Road and Sundown Terrace • Most of Dalewood Drive
• Dalewood Terrace
• Tarry Lane between Bear Ridge Road and Tappan Lane
• Most of Tappan Lane
• Valley View Lane
• Miner Road between Sycamore Road and Canyon View Drive, between Lombardy Lane and Camino Sobrante, and sections between Camino Lenada and Camino Don Miguel • Claremont Avenue between Holly Lane and California Avenue • Most of Monte Vista Ridge Road and Monte Vista Road
• El Toyonal between the city limit and Vis del Orinda, between La Encinal and Vallecito Lane, and between El Rincon and Loma Vista Drive
It should be noted that the Wilder Ranch neighborhood along Wilder Road is a newer development in Orinda and has a Development Plan from 2005 describing the developer’s grading efforts to significantly reduce the landslide risk in the Wilder area and along Wilder Road. These are described in the Development Plan beginning on page 31. Other areas listed above may also have similar interventions, like retaining walls and grading, to reduce the landslide risk along those routes.
Recommendations for Reducing Landslide Risk along Possible Evacuation Routes Based on these results, this report recommends that Orinda consider maintaining an inventory (e.g., in excel, or GIS) of evacuation route segments susceptible to landslides, as well as corresponding information about site characteristics, any recommended infrastructure improvements collected through geotechnical studies, and potentially also maintenance and/or development status of existing and planned infrastructure improvements for landslide-susceptible evacuation route segments inventoried in the database.
In addition, this report recommends pursuing policies S-19 through S23 in the Orinda General Plan Safety Element, listed below:
Policy S-20 A geotechnical investigation and report shall be required for all new development in landslide and liquefaction zones. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road on hillside terrain, must also conduct such an investigation. Evidence of probable geologic hazard shall require a geotechnical study by a registered soil engineer H.1.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis)
CITY OF ORINDA DRAFT EVACUATION ANALYSIS
November 3, 2022 45
or registered geologist that shall be reviewed by geotechnical consultants selected by the City.
Policy S-21 Require new development in areas prone to geologic hazards (e.g., landslides, steep topography, slope instability), including the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District, to be designed to adequately reduce these hazards, including minimizing the loss of native vegetation. Grading plans; environmental assessments; engineering and geologic technical reports; and irrigation and landscaping plans, including ecological restoration and revegetation plans, shall be required as appropriate to ensure the adequate demonstration of a project’s ability to mitigate these potential impacts.
Policy S-22 Require new development in hillside areas to prepare drainage plans to direct runoff and drainage away from potentially unstable slopes.
Policy S-23 Encourage retrofits to existing buildings that improve resiliency to geologic and seismic hazards.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Draft AB 747 Evacuation Analysis (2959 : Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: November 15, 2022
Department:
Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Consider Recommendation for Brookwood Rd mitigation measures as a result of vegetation removal to meet current Fire Fuel reduction requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report on various mitigation options being considered for Brookwood Road and provide direction to Staff to move forward with the recommended option.
BACKGROUND:
In April 2021, the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) conducted an inspection of City owned properties/right of way for compliance with the Fire Code. MOFD identified the property along a portion of Brookwood Road, which separates Brookwood Road from Highway 24, was not in compliance with the fire code because of dead trees, brush and other combustible materials being near the road. Brookwood Roads’ proximity to Highway 24 also put it at an increased risk of fires started by vehicles.
The City removed dead trees, vegetation and other combustible materials in May 2021 in order to be in compliance with MOFD requirements. Attachment A includes pictures taken prior to and after removal of vegetation.
During the May 11, 2021 City Council meeting, residents shared their concern about the removal of vegetation and perceived potential safety issues resulting from the work. City Council allocated $110,000 from Measure R funds (Fund #106) during the 2021 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) update in order to evaluate the mitigation measures by a landscape architect and for use in construction of the selected option.
DISCUSSION:
In October 2021, City utilized an on-call Landscape Architect, Dutchover and Associates, to prepare a report based on initial evaluation and provided options to consider for mitigation measures (Attachment B). The recommendation included planting medium size (4-6 ft. in height) native, drought tolerant, fire-resistant vegetation along Brookwood Road. For additional screening, a gabion wall could be constructed adjacent to the existing chain link fence that runs along the Caltrans right-of-way. City staff met with the residents on October 29, 2021 to present the initial review recommendations and receive feedback.
Based on resident feedback received, the preference was to implement both options discussed in the initial report, (i) installing the landscaping and (ii) constructing a gabion wall. Additional feedback from residents was that the wall should be tall enough to possibly serve as both a sound and traffic barrier, e.g. 15 feet.
H.2
Packet Pg. 107
Brookwood Road Screening Study:
Following the meeting with residents, City Staff requested a proposal for design services from an on-call engineering consultant, LCC. The proposal for design services, which included conducting a feasibility analysis of the design elements preferred by the residents, preparing feasible conceptual alternatives and cost estimates, preparing construction documents for the preferred design and supporting City staff during project implementation/construction, was for the amount of $111,919. City staff approved the first phase for an amount not to exceed $33,805, which involved preparing feasible conceptual alternatives and cost estimates, and the engineering consultant conducted various studies and prepared the “Brookwood Road Screening Study” report in March 2022, included as Attachment C. The report findings concluded that constructing a gabion wall at this location will result in significant damage or removal of the remaining trees, in addition to be highly cost prohibitive. The report also included various other feasible alternatives for consideration.
City staff met with the Brookwood Road residents on July 11, 2022, and presented the findings from the study report. Feedback shared by the residents involved reduced noise and pedestrian safety as high priority. As the gabion wall options involved removal of trees, it was not preferred. The residents indicated they preferred an option that could be implemented sooner and would likely involve either fencing or landscaping or both.
In addition, it was requested that the fence be extended to start from west of 12 Brookwood Road.
Option 1 (6 feet high redwood fence and landscaping):
Option 1, is the concept design recommended by Staff that was prepared based on the feedback received from the July 11, 2022 meeting (Attachment D). This option includes approximately 300 linear feet of 6 feet high redwood fence and approximately 1700 square feet of landscaping with shrubs that would have a 10 feet to 12 feet height at maturity. The fence will be placed adjacent to the 6 feet high chain link fence that exists along the Caltrans right-of-way. The landscaping will be installed as part of the project, but long term maintenance will be the responsibility of the residents, as the current staff resources will not be able to take on this additional task and it will be highly cost prohibitive to hire a contractor to maintain the vegetation on an ongoing basis. The preliminary estimated cost for Option 1 is $70,000. A 6 month Plant establishment period would be included in the work contract.
This concept was shared with the residents, and staff received feedback that involved two main requests:
1. Maintaining the vegetation will be a significant burden on the residents and therefore they do not support.
2. The height of the fence should be at least 12 feet.
Option 2 (12 feet high redwood fence):
Option 2 was prepared based on feedback received from residents on Option 1 noted above (Attachment D). This option removed all landscaping and includes installing a 12 feet high redwood fence for approximately 615 linear feet. The fence will be placed H.2
Packet Pg. 108
adjacent to the 6 feet high chain link fence that exists along the Caltrans right-of-way, except where existing trees will be in conflict when the fence will be placed in manner that will reduce impact to the trees. The preliminary estimated cost for Option 2 is $190,000. This option would have no landscaping component.
The estimated cost of this option is more than twice that of Option 1. In addition, there could be potential conflicts with existing trees, at locations where the fence will have to be installed between trees, due to the 12 feet height.
Zoning limitation for 12 feet high fence:
The City of Orinda municipal code limits height of fences. For Residential districts, “No fence in any location may exceed six feet, except for sports court fences and except for de minimus variances relating to minor variations in the underlying terrain”. For Downtown districts “The maximum height is six feet, except within the front yard, where it is three feet”. The zoning in this area is unclear, so although there could be an interpretation that the code does not specify a maximum height given that the zone is neither one of the Residential nor Downtown districts, as far as practice goes, fences are not allowed over 6’ in height citywide.
Option 3 (6 feet high redwood fence):
In addition to the above two options, City staff also considered a third option that would include installing a 6 feet high redwood fence for the approximately 615 linear feet. This option will be very similar to Option 2 noted above except for the difference in overall height of the fence. The preliminary estimated cost for Option 3 is $100,000. This option would have no landscaping component.
Staff recommends that the Council approve Option 1. Option 1 includes a feasible design that has the least impact on existing trees and vegetation, has the least cost impact for this project, and meets the City’s zoning restrictions, while addressing to a reasonable extent the safety, visual and noise concerns raised by the residents.
Though, the condition of the area prior to the removal of vegetation for fire prevention reasons, did not realistically provide for any true noise mitigation or enhanced safety.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon direction from City Council, Staff will continue to work the City selected engineering firm to prepare construction documents for the selected option. Since the expected construction cost exceeds $60,000, bids for the project will be solicited in accordance with the adopted UPCCA (Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting) and municipal code section 2.55.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The 2021 Capital Improvement Program budget allocated $110,000 from Add-On Sales Tax Measure R (Fund #106), toward the Brookwood Road mitigation project. Total expenditure on the project to date is $16,900. The remaining budget of $93,100 will be sufficient to implement Option 1. Option 2 will require an estimated $100,000 more and Option 3 will require an estimated $10,000 in additional funds. All three options include an estimated allowance for design services and construction administration.
H.2
Packet Pg. 109
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Attach A Brookwood Road Before and After Picture
B. Attach B Brookwood Road Initial Evaluation Report
C. Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study
D. Attach D Brookwood Road Concept Designs and Estimate Respectfully Submitted by:
Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Sivakumar Natarajan, City Engineer
Approved by:
H.2
Packet Pg. 110
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attach A Brookwood Road Before and After Picture (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 1807 Santa Rita Road, Suite H252
Pleasanton, CA 94566
phone 925.462.5300
www.dutchover.com
A.S. Dutchover, License No. 1607
DUTCH OVER
& ASSOCIATES Lands c ape A r c hitec tur e
September 28, 2021
Mr. Jason Chen
City of Orinda
Public Works & Engineering Services
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Re: Brookwood Road Highway 24 Screening
Dear Mr. Chen;
INTRODUCTION
Dutchover & Associates was requested by Mr. Larry Theis, City of Orinda, to assess the views opened of Highway 24 from the adjacent homes at 18 Brookwood Road north to 38 Brookwood Road due to recent tree pruning and removal.
SITE EVALUATION
A site review and evaluation were conducted on August 17, 2021 with Mr. Theis and the following information is the result of my observations. A visual review was conducted of the area of consideration.
The limit of area considered is illustrated on Exhibit A, below. The area ranges in width from approximately 25 feet to 50 feet in width and is approximately 500 feet in length. The area is bordered on the north by Highway 24 and bordered on the south by Brookwood Road. The area consists of mainly large mature trees. There are wood chips on the surface with emerging growth which appears to be from trees removed and flush cut.
Homes are located uphill from Highway 24 and are separated by the area of consideration and Brookwood Road. Due to recent fire conditions the City contracted to prune trees in order to raise the tree canopies, remove trees, and remove the understory planting to reduce the fire risk.
Exhibit A – Brookwood Road
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attach B Brookwood Road Initial Evaluation Report (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda – Highway 24 Screening Page 2 of 3
ASSIGNMENT
I was requested to consider options to obstruct these views of the highway from the adjacent homes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations to obstruct the views of the highway:
1. To help reduce the potential growth sprouting from trees removed, the emerging vegetation should be removed and the tree stumps ground below the surface. Wood chips from stump grinding should be spread throughout the area to reduce erosion and compaction. I recommend a minimum 3 inch layer of wood chips cover the area of consideration.
Brookwood Road - Emerging vegetation should be removed.
2. Consider planting medium size (4-6 feet in height), native, drought tolerant, fire-resistant plant species in the area on the uphill side near the roadway north of Brookwood Road. Plants with the aforementioned characteristics should be planted in the fall with supplemental handwatering. If planted during this time-frame supplemental water should not be necessary beyond the fall.
Brookwood Road Elevation – Graphic representation.
3. For additional screening a gabion wall (rock filled steel structure) could be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing chain link fence on the south side. Leaving the chain link fence in place. This will provide additional screening and provide some sound attenuation as an alternative to a soundwall. This wall may be more natural in appearance and fitting for the area.
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attach B Brookwood Road Initial Evaluation Report (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda – Highway 24 Screening Page 3 of 3
Gabion Wall - Image from LVHUA Gabion Wall Co. Ltd.
SUMMARY
Consideration of cost-effective solutions are included in the above recommendations. There are many other options to screen the views of Highway 24. It would be my pleasure to assist the City of Orinda in further consideration of the above recommendations or other alternatives. Please let me know how I may assist you further.
Sincerest Regards,
Brian Dutchover
General Partner
925-872-4004 cell
DUTCHOVER & ASSOCIATES
L an d sc a pe A r c h i t ec t ur e | C o n s u lt i n g 1807 Santa Rita Road, Suite H252 | Pleasanton, CA 94566 www.dutchover.com
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Attach B Brookwood Road Initial Evaluation Report (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda
Brookwood Road Screening Study
DRAFT – MARCH 28, 2022
March 2022
Prepared by:
LCC Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
930 Estudillo Street
Martinez, CA 94553–1620
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 1 Background
During the Summer of 2021, the City contracted to prune and remove trees and vegetation along Brookwood Road as part of a city‐wide fire mitigation program. Brookwood Road is a residential Street adjacent to Highway 24 to the west and with homes built on an up‐slope to the east. In some areas, the vegetation that was cleared along Brookwood Road provided visual screening between Brookwood Road and Highway 24. In particular, the residents from 18 Brookwood Road to 38 Brookwood Road have expressed concerns about how the clearing of the vegetation eliminated the natural screening from the adjacent Highway.
The City has been working with the residents to mitigate the impacts of the pruning. The “buffer area” along the west side of Brookwood Road adjacent to the Highway from 18 to 38 Brookwood Road is approximately 500 feet long and varies in width between 25 and 50 feet. There is gravel parking in some parts of this area. See exhibit on page 3 and photos below.
In September of 2021, The City hired Landscape Architect, Dutchover & Associates, to provide initial recommendations to provide visual screening of the highway in this buffer area. The Landscape Architect’s initial recommendations included additional clearing of emerging vegetation, placement of grindings, planting of medium size native drought tolerant fire resistant plants on the uphill side of the buffer area, and installing a gabion wall on the downhill side of the buffer area adjacent to Highway 24 where an existing chain link fence is present. The residents generally were receptive of this initial recommendation.
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 2 Purpose of Study
The City has now hired LCC Engineering & Surveying, Inc (LCC) to review Dutchover’s initial recommendations for cost and constructability and to provide any additional alternatives that are similar in nature to the original Gabion Wall concept. The LCC Design Team (Design Team) includes Landscape Architects, Dutchover & Associates, and Geotechnical and Structural Engineers, Cal Engineering & Geology.
Existing Conditions
An exhibit map of the project “buffer area” is
shown on the next page. There is an existing
Caltrans fence which is approximately on the
Right of Way line. There is an existing
guardrail along the Highway adjacent to the
fence from about 16‐24 Brookwood Road.
There are several large trees along the
existing fence with some gravel parking in the
buffer area as well. There are overhead
electrical lines along the north end of
Brookwood Road.
On the west end of Brookwood, the
residence at 16/18 Brookwood Road is
closest to the highway (80’ approx.). Noise
from the highway is most noticeable here.
On the east end of Brookwood, the residence
at 38 Brookwood Road is furthest from the
highway (130’ approx.) considerable
vegetation screening remains starting 32
Brookwood. The noise is considerably less at
32/38 Brookwood as well.
The buffer area slopes down to the Highway
for the most part. With the greatest difference in elevation at the west end, and almost level at the east end. The elevation of the chain link fence in relation to Brookwood Road gets higher to the north‐east of the site.
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) Park 1
16, 18
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
20 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
24 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
28 BROOKWOOD ROAD
32 BROOKWOOD ROAD
38 BROOKWOOD ROAD
Spring Road
Existing AC Pavement
CA-24
(STATE)
Brookwood Road
(CITY)
Parking Sign (2)
Parking Sign
Parking Sign
Parking Sign
Dirt
Exisitng
Gravel Parking
Existing Gravel Parking
Approximate Limits of
Existing Guard Rail
Approximate Location of Property
Line and Existing Chain Link Fence
ROW Limits
Approximate Limits of
Existing AC Pavement
Existing Overhead Electric
Existing Chain Link
Fence Below
Brookwood Road
Existing AC Paving
Existing Overhead Electric
Pole with Guy Wire
Pull Box
Electric
Pedestal
Grade Break
Approximate Existing Tree
Location Typ.
Existing Shrub
Existing Overhead Electric
Pole with Guy Wires
Joint Pole
Existing Swale
Dense Tree's
Dense Tree's
Cars Parked Perpendicular
Limits of Parking
Pull Box Electric
Pedestal
Existing 2H:1V
Slope toward CA-24
Joint Pole
Property LIne
E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G , I N C . Brookwood Road Screening Existing Condtions
Scale: 1" = 30'
Date: 3/28/2022
Q:\2019.037.04 Brookwood Rd Survey\CAD\Exhibits.dwg
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 4 Design Criteria
The Design Team understands that the new screening will need to fit the City’s budget and will need to fit the following design criteria based on the existing conditions. Existing trees need to be protected. Fencing may be installed in foundations installed to avoid tree roots. Walls may be installed on a grade beam with pier foundations avoiding tree roots as well.
Parking areas further limit the space for new screening, pushing the location of the screening closer to the existing Caltrans Fence.
Existing slope near the Caltrans Fence, makes it harder to construct options with a larger footprint.
Options which may help alleviate highway noise are preferred however not all noise can be addressed with these options.
The conceptual cross‐section below illustrates the challenges of installing a suitable screening option – whether it be landscaping and/or a physical barrier such as a fence or a wall.
Following are the various screening options that were evaluated. Preliminary Conceptual Plans and Estimates with recommended combinations of options is provided at the end of this Report.
Screening Options
Traditional Gabion Wall
A gabion wall is a rock‐filled steel structure with an at grade horizontal footing. The higher the wall, the wider the footing. If a freestanding gabion wall were
constructed on a slope, the concern is that the gabion
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 5 wall would lean over and could then fall into the highway. There are methods to avoid this but they dramatically increase cost and would still make it difficult to avoid tree roots.
Concept 1A illustrates the substantial grading and tree demolition required for a traditional gabion wall. The
gabion wall would require a large subsurface structure
and would not be visible from Brookwood Road. It
would require a fence for fall protection. This option
would be highly cost prohibitive and pose
constructability challenges.
Gabion Wall with Concrete Backing
Concept 1B is an alternative to a Traditional Gabion Wall which provides a thinner gabion cage fastened to a
Concrete Wall on both sides. This wall could be installed on a grade beam with piles mitigating extensive tree
demolition required by the traditional alternative above.
The lifespan for replacement of a gabion wall would be 30 years. A gabion wall would be costly to install and repair compared to all other options.
Gabion Fence
A gabion fence includes the installation of metal channel posts driven or concreted into the ground. A wire mesh cage is then installed between the posts and filled with gabion stones. The driven posts would eliminate the need for a spread footing compared to a gabion wall, which not only reduces cost but is also considerably more constructable in existing sloped areas. The driven posts could also be placed to avoid tree roots. The lifespan for replacement of a gabion fence would be the same as a chain link fence at approximately 30 years. A gabion fence would be more costly to install and repair than a mulch fence.
Estimated Cost:
‐ Traditional Gabion Wall $750 per LF
‐ Gabion with Concrete Wall $550 per
LF
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 6 Gabion Fence
Mulch Fence
A mulch fence includes the installation of a double chain link or wire fence with wood posts installed in parallel approximately 1.5 to 2 feet apart. The area between the parallel fences would be filled with wood mulch (which the city may provide). There is an existing mulch wall in the City of Orinda along Moraga Way at approximately 133 Moraga Way.
A mulch fence may be installed in concrete foundations
placed so as to avoid existing tree roots. The “wider” nature of this wall will make it slighter harder to install on a slope while avoiding trees in relation to a
traditional single fence. The mulch fence would also
only be slightly more difficult and costly to repair or replace in the even of it being damaged.
The lifespan for replacement of a chain link or wire
fence is approximately 30 years. Replenishing of wood
mulch due to compression and decomposition would
necessitate topping off with a 1 foot layer every two
years.
Estimated Cost:
- 6’ high at $170 per LF
- 8’ high at $210 per LF
- 10’ high at $300 per LF
Estimated Cost:
‐ 6’ high at $300 per LF
‐ 8’ high at $400 per LF
‐ 10’ high at $500 per LF
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 7 Wood Fence
A traditional wood fence with board on board installation with 4x6 inch posts can be a cost effective screening option as well. The posts would be installed in concrete foundations which can also be placed to avoid tree roots. Wood fences are commonly installed on sloped terrain. Wood fences are also easy to repair or replace, and the lifespan for replacement of a wood fence is approximately 10‐ 15 years.
Vinyl Fence
An alternative to a wood fence that would be constructed in the same manner however the lifespan for replacement of a vinyl fence is approximately 20‐30 years.
Vinyl Fence
Estimated Cost:
‐ 6’ high at $90 per LF
‐ 8’ high at $110 per LF
‐ 10’ high at $170 per LF
Estimated Cost:
‐ 6’ high at $75 per LF
‐ 8’ high at $90 per LF
‐ 10’ high at $140 per LF
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 8 Wood Fence with Steel Posts
An additional alternative to a wood fence is to provide a wood fence with steel posts driven into the ground. This would increase the lifespan to of the steel posts or beams to 30 years with some maintenance to the wood every 10‐15 years. The steel beams to be used for a freestanding wall although light for steel beams will be stronger than wood posts and hence may perform better in the rare event a car were to collide with the wall.
Wood Fence with Steel Posts
Planting and Irrigation
The buffer area can be planted and irrigated to provide screening. Planting would be low density consisting of fire‐resistant, drought tolerant shrubs with a 3‐inch layer of wood mulch. Varieties of the Manzanita, Sugarbush, Coffeeberry, and California Lilac shrubs shown below can reach 10‐12 feet in height. and will take about 3 years to reach mature size. The existing emerging vegetation would be removed, and existing tree stumps would be ground below the surface.
There are two options for irrigating the area which include manual watering for 9 months until the plants are established or to install an automatic irrigation system.
Estimated Cost:
‐ 6’ high at $180 per LF
‐ 8’ high at $250 per LF
‐ 10’ high at $300 per LF
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 9 Estimated Cost:
‐ Planting at $5 per SF
‐ Manual Watering at 1.5 week
intervals for 9 months at $800 per
watering
‐Automatic Irrigation at $6 per SF
Conceptual Plans & Estimates
Based on the design criteria and options evaluated, the LCC Design Team has prepared four Conceptual Plans with correlating Estimates which are provided on the following pages. In summary the Plans and Estimates provide four concepts:
Concept 1A – Traditional Gabion Wall
Concept 1B – Concrete Wall with Gabion Facing
Concept 2 – Fence Screening Only
Concept 3 ‐ Combination of Landscape & Fence Screening Concept 4 ‐ Landscape Screening Only
The following is a summary of the costs for each Concept based on the various options:
Summary
Concept Description Proposed Cost
1A Traditional Gabion Wall $ 470,000.00
1B Concrete Wall with Gabion Facing $ 300,000.00
2A Gabion Fence $ 260,000.00
2B Mulch Fence $ 180,000.00
2C Wood Fence $ 150,000.00
3A Gabion Fence and Landscaping $ 330,000.00
3B Mulch Fence and Landscaping $ 170,000.00
3C Wood Fence and Landscaping $ 130,000.00
4 Landscaping $ 100,000.00
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) Backfill A
A
See Section A-A
6' High Fence
Remove Existing
Tree Typ.
Back of Footing 265LF, 8' Max Height Gabion Wall
Height
Varies
1.0% Min
Perforated Drainage Pipe
Existing Chain
Link Fence
Remove Existing Tree's in
Conflict with Gabion Wall
Gabion Wall
E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G , I N C . Brookwood Road Screening Concept 1A - Gabion Wall
Scale: 1" = 30'
Date: 3/28/2022
Q:\2019.037.04 Brookwood Rd Survey\CAD\Exhibits.dwg
16, 18
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
20 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
24 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
Section A-A
28 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
PARK 1
Spring Road
CA-24
(STATE)
Brookwood Road
(CITY)
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) See Section B-B
B
B
16, 18
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
20 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
Piers and Grade Beam
to Avoid Existing Tree Roots
Remove Existing Trees at Base
of Slope for Concrete Wall
PARK 1
265LF of Concrete Wall Height Ranges from 6'-15'
24 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
28 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
32 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
38 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
Height
Varies
Piers and Grade Beam
Existing Chain
Link Fence
Gabion Cladding
E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G , I N C . Brookwood Road Screening Concept 1B - Concrete Wall with Gabion Facing
Scale: 1" = 30'
Date: 3/28/2022
Q:\2019.037.04 Brookwood Rd Survey\CAD\Exhibits.dwg
Section B-B
Remove Existing Trees Adjacent to
Existing Fence for Concrete Wall
CA-24
(STATE)
Brookwood Road
(CITY)
Concrete Wall Concrete Wall
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) Install Fence
Along Edge of
Gravel Parking
315 LF of New
10' High Fence
Adjust Fencing
Alignment to
Avoid Tree's to
the Maximum
Extent Possible
Q:\2019.037.04 Brookwood Rd Survey\CAD\Exhibits.dwg
E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G , I N C . Brookwood Road Screening Concept 2 - Fence Screening
Scale: 1" = 30'
Date: 3/28/2022
16, 18
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
20 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
24 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
28 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
PARK 1
32 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
38 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
CA-24
(STATE)
Brookwood Road
(CITY)
Gabion Fence Mulch Fence Wood Fence Vinyl Fence
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) Spring Road
850 SF of New Shrubs
10' to 12' High
at Maturity
CA-24
(STATE)
Brookwood Road
(CITY)
Install Fence
Along Edge of
Gravel Parking
170 LF of New
10' High Fence
E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G , I N C . Q:\2019.037.04 Brookwood Rd Survey\CAD\Exhibits.dwg Brookwood Road Screening
Concept 3 - Fence and Landscape Screening
Scale: 1" = 30'
Date: 3/28/2022
Dense Tree's
at Back of
Parking
16, 18
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
20 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
24 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
28 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
PARK 1
32 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) 1,700 SF of
5' Wide Shrubs
10' to 12' High
at Maturity
CA-24
(STATE)
Brookwood Road
(CITY)
E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G , I N C . Brookwood Road Screening Concept 4 - Landscape Screening
Scale: 1" = 30'
Date: 3/28/2022
Q:\2019.037.04 Brookwood Rd Survey\CAD\Exhibits.dwg
16, 18
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
20 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
Coffee Berry (Fragnula Californica)
PARK 1
Sugarbush (Rhus Ovata)
24 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
28 BROOKWOOD
ROAD 32
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
38 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
California Lilac (Ceanothus Concha) Manzanita (Arctostaphylos) H.2.c
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda
Brookwood Road Screening
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
Item
# Civil Item Description UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS $ 13,281.25 1 $ 13,281.25
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree Removal (Approx 20 Trees) LS $ 28,000.00 1 $ 28,000.00 6 Gabion Wall LF $ 750.00 265 $ 198,750.00
7 6' High Fence LF $ 75.00 265 $ 19,875.00
$ 278,906.25
$ 83,671.88
$ 362,578.13
$ 108,773.44
$ 471,351.56
$ 470,000.00
1 Mobilization LS $ 8,517.50 1 $ 8,517.50
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree Removal (Approx 6 Trees) LS $ 5,600.00 1 $ 5,600.00 6 Gabion Wall LF $ 550.00 265 $ 145,750.00
$ 178,867.50
$ 53,660.25
$ 232,527.75
$ 69,758.33
$ 302,286.08
$ 300,000.00
Mariam Munshi Virani, R.C.E. No. 71,568
Conceptual Estimate 3/28/2022
Dated
Concept 1A - Gabion Wall
Concept 1B - Concrete Wall w/ Gabion Facing
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
SAY
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
Concept 1 - Gabion Wall
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
NOTE: This construction cost estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost based upon reasonable professional judgement and experience and does not constitute a warranty, expressed or implied, that the Contractor's bid or the negotiated price of the work will not exceed the total amount set forth above.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda
Brookwood Road Screening
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
Item
# Civil Item Description UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS $ 9,325.00 1 $ 9,325.00
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 Gabion Fence, 10' Tall LF $ 500.00 315 $ 157,500.00
$ 195,825.00
$ 58,747.50
$ 254,572.50
$ 76,371.75
$ 330,944.25
$ 330,000.00
1 Mobilization LS $ 4,915.00 1 $ 4,915.00
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 Mulch Fence, 10' Tall LF $ 220.00 315 $ 69,300.00
$ 103,215.00
$ 30,964.50
$ 134,179.50
$ 40,253.85
$ 174,433.35
$ 170,000.00
1 Mobilization LS $ 3,655.00 1 $ 3,655.00
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 Wood Fence 10' Tall LF $ 140.00 315 $ 44,100.00
$ 76,755.00
$ 23,026.50
$ 99,781.50
$ 29,934.45
$ 129,715.95
$ 130,000.00
Mariam Munshi Virani, R.C.E. No. 71,568
TOTAL PROJECT
Concept 2 - Fence Screening Only
Concept 2A - Gabion Fence
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
Concept 2B - Mulch Wall
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
Dated
SAY
Concept 2C - Wood Fence
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
NOTE: This construction cost estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost based upon reasonable professional judgement and experience and does not constitute a warranty, expressed or implied, that the Contractor's bid or the negotiated price of the work will not exceed the total amount set forth above.
Conceptual Estimate 3/28/2022
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda
Brookwood Road Screening
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
Item
# Civil Item Description UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS $ 7,412.50 1 $ 7,412.50
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 Gabion Fence, 10' Tall LF $ 500.00 170 $ 85,000.00
7 New Shrubs SF $ 5.00 850 $ 4,250.00
8 Irrigation LS $ 30,000.00 1 $ 30,000.00
$ 155,662.50
$ 46,698.75
$ 202,361.25
$ 60,708.38
$ 263,069.63
$ 260,000.00
1 Mobilization LS $ 5,032.50 1 $ 5,032.50
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 Mulch Wall, 10' Tall LF $ 220.00 170 $ 37,400.00
7 New Shrubs SF $ 5.00 850 $ 4,250.00
8 Irrigation LS $ 30,000.00 1 $ 30,000.00
$ 105,682.50
$ 31,704.75
$ 137,387.25
$ 41,216.18
$ 178,603.43
$ 180,000.00
1 Mobilization LS $ 4,352.50 1 $ 4,352.50
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 Wood Fence 10' Tall LF $ 140.00 170 $ 23,800.00
7 New Shrubs SF $ 5.00 850 $ 4,250.00
8 Irrigation LS $ 30,000.00 1 $ 30,000.00
$ 91,402.50
$ 27,420.75
$ 118,823.25
$ 35,646.98
$ 154,470.23
$ 150,000.00
Mariam Munshi Virani, R.C.E. No. 71,568
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
Concept 3A - Landscaping and Gabion Fence
Concept 3B - Landscaping and Mulch Fence
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
Concept 3 - Landscape and Fence Screening
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
NOTE: This construction cost estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost based upon reasonable professional judgement and experience and does not constitute a warranty, expressed or implied, that the Contractor's bid or the negotiated price of the work will not exceed the total amount set forth above.
Conceptual Estimate 3/28/2022
Dated
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
Concept 3C - Landscaping and Wood Fence
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda
Brookwood Road Screening
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
Item
# Civil Item Description UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS $ 2,893.50 1 $ 2,893.50
2 Temporary Traffic Control Plan and Public Convenience LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 New Shrubs SF $ 5.00 1,700 $ 8,500.00
7 Irrigation LS $ 20,370.00 1 $ 20,370.00
$ 60,763.50
$ 18,229.05
$ 78,992.55
$ 23,697.77
$ 102,690.32
$ 100,000.00
Mariam Munshi Virani, R.C.E. No. 71,568
NOTE: This construction cost estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost based upon reasonable professional judgement and experience and does not constitute a warranty, expressed or implied, that the Contractor's bid or the negotiated price of the work will not exceed the total amount set forth above.
Conceptual Estimate 3/28/2022
Dated
SAY
Concept 4 - Landscape Only
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attach C Brookwood Road Screening Study (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) Spring Road
1,700 SF of 5' Wide Shrubs 10' to 12' High
at Maturity
CA-24
(STATE)
Brookwood Road
(CITY)
Spring Court
300 LF of 6' High Wood Fence
E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G , I N C . Brookwood Road Screening Wood Fence and Landscape Screening Concept
Scale: 1" = 60'
Date: 9/13/2022
Q:\2019.037.04 Brookwood Rd Survey\CAD\Exhibits.dwg
16, 18
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
20 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
Coffee Berry (Fragnula Californica)
PARK 1
Sugarbush (Rhus Ovata)
24 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
28 BROOKWOOD
ROAD 32 BROOKWOOD
ROAD 38 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
California Lilac (Ceanothus Concha) Manzanita (Arctostaphylos) 12 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
Wood Fence
12 SPRING
ROAD
20 SPRING
ROAD
46 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attach D Brookwood Road Concept Designs and Estimate (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) Spring Road
Install Fence Along Edge of
Gravel Parking
CA-24
(STATE)
Brookwood Road
(CITY)
Adjust Fencing
Alignment to Avoid Tree's to
the Maximum
Extent Possible
Spring Court
615 LF of 12' High Wood Fence E N G I N E E R I N G & S U R V E Y I N G , I N C . Brookwood Road Screening Wood Fence Screening Concept
Scale: 1" = 60'
Date: 10/6/2022
Q:\2019.037.04 Brookwood Rd Survey\CAD\Exhibits final.dwg 16, 18
BROOKWOOD
ROAD
20 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
PARK 1
24 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
28 BROOKWOOD
ROAD 32 BROOKWOOD
ROAD 38 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
12 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
Wood Fence
12 SPRING
ROAD
20 SPRING
ROAD
46 BROOKWOOD
ROAD
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attach D Brookwood Road Concept Designs and Estimate (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda
Brookwood Road Screening
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
Item
# Civil Item Description UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS $ 2,525.00 1 $ 2,525.00
2 Traffic Control and Public Convenience LS $ 3,500.00 1 $ 3,500.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 6 Wood Fence 6' Tall LF $ 75.00 300 $ 22,500.00
7 New Shrubs SF $ 5.00 1,700 $ 8,500.00
$ 53,025.00
$ 2,651.25
$ 55,676.25
$ 2,783.81
$ 58,460.06
$ 16,702.88
$ 72,379.13
$ 70,000.00
Mariam Munshi Virani, R.C.E. No. 71,568
Landscaping and Wood Fence
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 5%
Landscape and Fence Screening
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
CONTSTRUCTION CONTINEGENCY, 5%
Conceptual Estimate 9/13/2022
Dated
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
NOTE: This construction cost estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost based upon reasonable professional judgement and experience and does not constitute a warranty, expressed or implied, that the Contractor's bid or the negotiated price of the work will not exceed the total amount set forth above.
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attach D Brookwood Road Concept Designs and Estimate (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda
Brookwood Road Screening
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
Item
# Civil Item Description UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS $ 6,760.00 1 $ 6,760.00
2 Traffic Control and Public Convenience LS $ 3,500.00 1 $ 3,500.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 Wood Fence 12' Tall LF $ 180.00 615 $ 110,700.00
$ 141,960.00
$ 7,098.00
$ 149,058.00
$ 7,452.90
$ 156,510.90
$ 44,717.40
$ 193,775.40
$ 190,000.00
Mariam Munshi Virani, R.C.E. No. 71,568
CONTSTRUCTION CONTINEGENCY, 5%
Fence Screening
Landscaping and Wood Fence
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 5%
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
Conceptual Estimate 10/7/2022
Dated
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
NOTE: This construction cost estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost based upon reasonable professional judgement and experience and does not constitute a warranty, expressed or implied, that the Contractor's bid or the negotiated price of the work will not exceed the total amount set forth above.
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attach D Brookwood Road Concept Designs and Estimate (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City of Orinda
Brookwood Road Screening
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
Item
# Civil Item Description UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL 1 Mobilization LS $ 3,531.25 1 $ 3,531.25
2 Traffic Control and Public Convenience LS $ 3,500.00 1 $ 3,500.00 3 Locate & Protect Existing Utilities LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00 4 Clearing & Grubbing LS $ 6,000.00 1 $ 6,000.00
5 Tree/Root Trimming & Protection LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00 6 Wood Fence 6' Tall LF $ 75.00 615 $ 46,125.00
$ 74,156.25
$ 3,707.81
$ 77,864.06
$ 3,893.20
$ 81,757.27
$ 23,359.22
$ 101,223.28
$ 100,000.00
Mariam Munshi Virani, R.C.E. No. 71,568
CONTSTRUCTION CONTINEGENCY, 5%
6' Wood Fence Screening
Wood Fence
SUBTOTAL CIVIL ITEMS
ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY, 5%
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
Conceptual Estimate 10/28/2022
Dated
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMIN, 30%
TOTAL PROJECT
SAY
NOTE: This construction cost estimate is an opinion of probable construction cost based upon reasonable professional judgement and experience and does not constitute a warranty, expressed or implied, that the Contractor's bid or the negotiated price of the work will not exceed the total amount set forth above.
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attach D Brookwood Road Concept Designs and Estimate (2961 : Brookwood Rd mitigation measures) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.3
Date: November 15, 2022
Department: Human Resources
AGENDA TITLE: Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 56-22 Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement between the City of Orinda and David Biggs, City Manager RECOMMENDATION:
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 56-22 approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement between City of Orinda and David Biggs
BACKGROUND:
California Government Code section 54953(c)(3) establishes requirements for the adoption of salary and compensation adjustments for local agency executives. The information in this report conforms with the requirements of the Government Code.
Prior to taking final action, the City Council must orally report a summary of a recommendation for a final action. This must be made during the open meeting in which the final action is to be taken.
The City Council approved an Employment Agreement with David Biggs on February 2, 2021 by Resolution 06-21 to serve as the City of Orinda’s City Manager beginning April 5, 2021 (see Exhibit B). The Employment Agreement specified that a six-month evaluation would take place not later than November 1, 2021 to determine whether a salary adjustment is warranted based on market comparability and performance. The Council conducted a performance review in November 2021 and, on January 11, 2022, the Council approved Resolution No. 02-22 authorizing the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the Employment Agreement providing a 3% salary increase effective January 3, 2022.
DISCUSSION:
The City Manager Employment Agreement specifies in section 3 B that the City Council should review the City Manager performance on an annual basis, which the Council has requested take place in the Fall of each year. An annual performance review was conducted by the Council in September 2022 and performance objectives were set.
The recommendation by the Mayor is for a three percent (3%) salary increase for the City Manager. This adjustment is two percent (2%) less than the five percent (5%) increase received most recently by the Unrepresented Employees which was effective on July 2, 2022.
The Mayor is also recommending to modify the current Employment Agreement and replace language which has been updated for Unrepresented Employees including work H.3
Packet Pg. 139
hours due to the City’s transition to a 9/80 Work Schedule and Holidays observed, by adding the Juneteenth Holiday and expanding the Christmas Eve holiday to a full day.
In lieu of the additional two percent (2%) salary increase provided to Unrepresented Employees, the recommendation is to increase the amount of Administrative Leave hours provided to the City Manager in section 4 I from 80 hours to 120 hours each fiscal year. If approved by the Council, the forty (40) hour increase to Administrative Leave represents approximately 1.9% in proportional compensation.
The Mayor requested the Human Resources Manager to work with outside legal counsel, Deanna Mouser, to draft the necessary documents for consideration by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The base salary for the City Manager would be $257,798.70 per year. The annualized cost to the City is $8,817.97. This includes:
• Three percent (3%) salary adjustment $7,508.70
• Increased contributions to MissionSquare Retirement 401(a) Plan $1,201.39 • Increased Medicare payroll taxes $ 108.88
TOTAL ANNUAL INCREASE IN COSTS: $8,818.97
The adjustment is proposed to be effective November 7, 2022 which results in the impact on the current fiscal year expenditures are estimated to be $5,879.31.
The FY 2022-2023 budget for the City Manager salary is sufficient to cover the proposed adjustment. The increase in future costs resulting from this amendment will be incorporated into future operating budgets as appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution 56-22 Second Amendment to CM Employment Agreement B. City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment C. Second Amendment to Employment Agreement City Manager David Biggs Respectfully Submitted by:
Ginger Staton
Human Resources Manager
Prepared By: Ginger Staton, Human Resources Manager
Approved by:
H.3
Packet Pg. 140
H.3
Packet Pg. 141
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:
Approving and Authorizing the )
Mayor to Execute the Second ) Resolution 55-22
Amendment to Employment )
Agreement between City of Orinda )
and David Biggs
WHEREAS, the City of Orinda and David Biggs (“City Manager”) entered into an Employment Agreement, effective as of April 5, 2021, which was approved by the City Council on February 2, 2021 by Resolution 06-21 (“Employment Agreement”), to provide for employment as City Manager of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager Employment Agreement specifies in Section 3 B that the employee’s salary will be reviewed annually to determine whether a salary adjustment is warranted based on performance; and
WHEREAS, a Performance Evaluation of the City Manager was recently completed by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to enter into a Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement to increase the City Manager’s annual salary by 3% effective as of November 7, 2022; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby authorize the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the Employment Agreement with David Biggs with any minor revisions as approved by the City Employment Counsel.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting of the Council held on November 15, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Dennis Fay, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Resolution 56-22 Second Amendment to CM Employment Agreement (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment H.3.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAVID BIGGS 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
between
CITY OF ORINDA AND DAVID BIGGS
(Effective January 3, 2022)
1. PARTIES AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
The parties to this First Amendment to Employment Agreement (“First Amendment”) are the City of Orinda (“CITY”) and DAVID BIGGS (“Employee”), and the effective date of this First Amendment shall be January 3, 2022 (“Effective Date”). CITY and EMPLOYEE shall be collectively referred to as “parties”.
2. PURPOSE
The parties have previously entered into an Employment Agreement between CITY and EMPLOYEE (“Employment Agreement”) effective beginning April 5, 2021. The parties now wish to amend the Employment Agreement to modify EMPLOYEE’s compensation as follows:
3. AMENDMENT
Section 3.A. of the Employment Agreement entitled “COMPENSATION AND HOURS” is hereby amended as follows:
3. COMPENSATION AND HOURS
The City agrees to compensate Employee for his services as City Manager as follows:
A. “As of the effective date, Employee’s base salary will be $250,290.00 per year, which will be paid according to the City’s regular payroll periods, policies, and practices, except as modified by the specific terms of the Agreement.”
Except as otherwise specifically set forth in this First Amendment, the remaining terms and obligations set forth in the Employment Agreement between the CITY and EMPLOYEE shall remain in full force and effect.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5608C294-D8CB-4374-854A-B4B14A1D505D H.3.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAVID BIGGS 2 This First Amendment shall be effective as of January 3, 2022, regardless of when executed by the parties.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES:
___________________________ ________________________
Dennis Fay, Mayor David Biggs, Employee
City of Orinda
ATTEST:
__________________________
Sheri Marie Smith
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Deanna Mouser
Employment Counsel for City
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5608C294-D8CB-4374-854A-B4B14A1D505D 1/12/2022
1/12/2022 1/12/2022
1/12/2022
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: City Manager Employment Agreement including First Amendment (2943 : Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement) DRAFT
SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAVID BIGGS 1
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
between
CITY OF ORINDA AND DAVID BIGGS
(Effective November 7, 2022)
1. PARTIES AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
The parties to this Second Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Second Amendment”) are the City of Orinda (“CITY”) and DAVID BIGGS (“Employee”), and the effective date of this Second Amendment shall be November 7, 2022 (“Effective Date”). CITY and EMPLOYEE shall be collectively referred to as “parties”.
2. PURPOSE
The parties have previously entered into an Employment Agreement between CITY and EMPLOYEE (“Employment Agreement”) effective beginning April 5, 2021. The parties entered into that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement with an effective date of January 3, 2022 to increase compensation (“First Amendment”). The parties now wish to amend the Employment Agreement to modify EMPLOYEE’s compensation, Hours, Holidays and timing of Performance Evaluation as follows:
3. AMENDMENTS
Section 3.A. of the Employment Agreement entitled “COMPENSATION AND HOURS” is hereby amended as follows:
3. COMPENSATION AND HOURS
The City agrees to compensate Employee for his services as City Manager as follows:
A. “As of the effective date, Employee’s base salary will be $257,795.20 per year, which will be paid according to the City’s regular payroll periods, policies, and practices, except as modified by the specific terms of the Agreement.”
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Second Amendment to Employment Agreement City Manager David Biggs [Revision 1] (2943 : Amendment to City Manager DRAFT
SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAVID BIGGS 2 i. “Employee will perform 80 or more hours of work per two-week pay period, or Employee will otherwise account for at least 80 hours per two-week pay period as non-work time. More specifically, Employee will account for 80 hours per two-week pay period as one of the following:”
Section 3.C. of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
C. If Employee's performance is satisfactory when reviewed in the fall each year, Employee shall timely cause the City Council’s consideration of a salary increase to be placed on the City Council’s regular meeting open session agenda. A salary increase, if any is granted, will be effective on the date Council specifies. The total salary increase to be considered at that time shall not exceed three percent (3%), unless Council determines a higher increase is both fiscally responsible and is warranted in recognition of the City Manager’s accomplishments.
Section 4.B. of the Employment Agreement entitled “HOLIDAYS” is hereby amended as follows:
D. Holidays. The City observes the following holidays and will provide Employee time off with pay for each holiday based on the hours that would have otherwise been worked on the day of the holiday based on the 9/80 Work Schedule for employees, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.
Holiday Day Observed
New Year’s Day January 1
MLK Jr. Birthday Third Monday in January
President’s Day Third Monday in February
Memorial Day Last Monday in May
Juneteenth June 19
Independence Day July 4
Labor Day First Monday in September
Veterans’ Day November 11
Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Second Amendment to Employment Agreement City Manager David Biggs [Revision 1] (2943 : Amendment to City Manager DRAFT
SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAVID BIGGS 3 The Day After Thanksgiving Fourth Friday in November
Christmas Eve December 24
Christmas December 25
Section 4.I. of the Employment Agreement entitled “ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE” is hereby amended as follows:
I. Administrative Leave. Employee receives administrative leave of 120 hours each fiscal year effective the date of the Second Amendment (40 additional hours for use in FY 22-23).
Except as otherwise specifically set forth in this Second Amendment, the remaining terms and obligations set forth in the Employment Agreement between the CITY and EMPLOYEE shall remain in full force and effect.
This Second Amendment shall be effective as of November 7, 2022, regardless of when executed by the parties.
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES:
___________________________ ________________________
Dennis Fay, Mayor David Biggs, Employee
City of Orinda
ATTEST:
__________________________
Sheri Marie Smith
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Deanna Mouser
Employment Counsel for City
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Second Amendment to Employment Agreement City Manager David Biggs [Revision 1] (2943 : Amendment to City Manager