Orinda City Council
December 5, 2023

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING

IN PERSON, OR VIEW ON ZOOM OR YOUTUBE AS LISTED BELOW
https://www.youtube.com/@cityoforinda9535/streams
Zoom Webinar:
https://tinyurl.com/OrindaCityCouncil
Phone:669 444 9171
Webinar ID:
810 2271 2723
In Person:

Orinda Library Auditorium
26 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
(925) 351-6676

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 5, 2023
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 12.05.23
How to follow and/or participate in the meeting:

IN PERSON SPEAKER CARDS: If you would like to speak during the public forum or on an item listed on the agenda, you are invited to submit a speaker card to the City Clerk. You will be permitted to speak even if you elect not to submit a speaker card or decline to provide information requested on the card. After the City Council has heard from everyone who submitted speaker cards, anyone electing not to submit a speaker card may form a line at the lectern. Public comment is generally limited to 3 minutes per speaker per agenda item.

WRITTEN COMMENTS: You may also submit a public comment in advance of the meeting by following instructions below:

Deliver to City Hall at 22 Orinda Way or send an e-mail to [email protected] by 3pm on the day of the meeting. Those comments 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://tinyurl.com/Orinda-Public-Comments
REMOTE COMMENTS: Remote Public Comments have been temporarily suspended due to an increase in “Zoombombing” at public agency meetings, which include offensive and derogatory statements.
7:00 PM - REGULAR SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Brandyn Iverson, Latika Malkani, Janet Riley Vice Mayor Darlene Gee, Mayor Inga Miller
City Council
Agenda Page 2 12.05.23
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. Introduction of Sister City Tabor Visiting Student, Eliscka Tumova D.2. Introduction of New Businesses in Orinda - The Fish Barn, Serika, Garden Nest
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 7, 2023 Closed Session

2. November 7, 2023 Regular Meeting
F.2. Approve Traffic Order to include Miner Rd. as part of Red Flag Days program.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution 65-23 and Traffic Order No. 225 to restrict stopping and parking during Red Flag Warning Days along a portion of evacuation routes within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Orinda, consisting of Miner Rd., from Camino Pablo to Ranch Rd.

F.3. Approve a Grant Application for Glorietta Boulevard Pathway – Phase 2 to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle funding.

Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 3 12.05.23
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Transportation Development Act grant application for the Glorietta Boulevard Pathway - Phase 2, from Overhill Road to Orinda City Limits, find the project categorically exempt with respect to CEQA and direct a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk, by adopting Resolution No. 64- 23, in a format specified by the grant requirements.

F.4. Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria Parking Lot
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to Exercise the Available Lease Extensions for 2024 and for each year thereafter until 2028.

F.5. Approval of 2024 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 2024 “Ballfields Lease” with the East Bay Municipal Utility District.

F.6. Award Landscape Maintenance Services Contract to MCE Corporation.

Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a 3-year general services contract with MCE Corporation for the provision of landscape maintenance services for City facilities in the amount of $411,000 for the initial year, with each subsequent year's cost adjusted by the consumer price index (CPI), and with options for two 2-year extensions, subject to approval by the City Attorney as to form.

G. PUBLIC HEARING
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Approve Traffic Calming Improvements (Speed Cushions) along Dalewood Drive and Related Actions
Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council 1) Approve Traffic Calming Improvements (Speed Cushions) along Dalewood Drive; 2) Approve resubmittal of the Plan Review Application for Traffic Calming Measure Permit Checklist and supporting documents to the Moraga Orinda Fire District (MOFD) for approval; and 3) Authorize City Staff to submit an appeal to the MOFD Board of Directors in the event that MOFD staff rejects the Traffic Calming Measure Permit application.

H.2. Ratify Discontinuance of Remote Public Comment for the City Council and Planning Commission Meetings
Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 4 12.05.23
Ratify the City Manager’s Decision to Temporarily Discontinue Remote Public Comments, or Provide Other Direction As Appropriate I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. CLOSED SESSION

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS of Closed Session Matters

3. CLOSED SESSION

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: ORINDANS FOR SAFE EMERGENCY EVACUATION v. City of Orinda, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No.

N23-0579.

M. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, December 19, 2023 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 City Council
Agenda Page 5 12.05.23
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 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.

AGENDA TITLE: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. November 7, 2023 Closed Session

2. November 7, 2023 Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023
B. City Council Closed Session Minutes of November 7, 2023 Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.1
Packet Pg. 6
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 19 11.07.23
NOVEMBER 7, 2023

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Note: Written communications received from the public prior to the start of this meeting can be viewed on the City’s website meeting calendar. They are also kept in the City Clerk’s Office as part of the public record and available upon request ([email protected]). 7:00 P.M. –REGULAR MEETING– GARDEN ROOM, ORINDA LIBRARY A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Brandyn Iverson, Latika Malkani Mayor Inga Miller, Vice Mayor Darlene Gee
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Janet Riley
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Miller.

C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Malkani, and seconded by Vice Mayor Gee, to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Proclamation Recognizing November 20, 2023 as Transgender Remembrance Day
Mayor Miller read the proclamation into the record.

Henn King, P-Flag Lamorinda, said she currently serves as Founder and Treasurer on the Board of P-Flag Lamorinda, and she described the organization’s support of LBTQIA+ individuals and their families. In 2019, P-Flag Lamorinda was established and she expressed her gratitude to the City of Orinda and Councilmembers for issuing this proclamation. November 20th serves as a day of remembrance of those who lost their lives due to transphobia, discrimination, and suicide and is a poignant reminder of the challenges many individuals face daily. She spoke of Kaylee Scott, a United Airlines flight attendance who was a hero to her. This March 23, 2023 at age of 25, Kaylee passed away due to suicide and read her message she left on social media.

Councilmembers thanked Ms. King for coming and sharing these stories and for reminding them that embracing acceptance and tolerance and kindness is a way to make all community members feel safe and included.

Mayor Miller then presented the proclamation to Ms. King and photos were then taken.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 19 11.07.23
E. PUBLIC FORUM
There were no speakers.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Miller asked and confirmed there were no requests for removal of items or public comments.

F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. October 17, 2023 Closed Session

2. October 17, 2023 Regular Meeting
F.2. Authorization to Execute Funding Agreements No. 646 and No. 673 with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for Traffic Signals Operation Improvements Project (CIP Project No. 3608).

Recommendation:

Staff recommends City Council adopt a Resolution 62-23 and 63-23 Approving Funding Agreements No. 646 and No. 673 between Contra Costa Transportation Authority and City of Orinda for the Design and Construction of the CCTA Countywide Smart Signals Project, and the Orinda Community Smart Signals Project; and Authorize City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

F.3. Award Independent Audit Contract to Badawi & Associates for Fiscal Years 2023-24 through 2027-28
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement for Independent Auditing Services to Badawi & Associates, CPAs, for fiscal years 2023-24 through 2027-28 in an amount not to exceed $185,680, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.

MOTION by Councilmember Iverson, and seconded by Vice Mayor Gee, to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1, F.2, and F.3. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.

G. PUBLIC HEARING – None.

H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Ratify Discontinuance of Remote Public Comment for the City Council and Planning Commission Meetings
Recommendation:

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 19 11.07.23
Ratify the City Manager’s Decision to Temporarily Discontinue Remote Public Comments, or Provide Other Direction As Appropriate City Manager Biggs gave the staff report and overview of staff’s decision to temporarily discontinue remote public comments and/or for the Council to provide further direction.

Staff’s goal would be for the Council to ratify his decision. Staff will then monitor the Zoom bombing situation and revisit it in the future as to when would be a good time to reinstate remote participation.

Councilmember Malkani asked what can be done if this situation were to occur during a meeting.

City Attorney Osa Wolff replied speakers can be limited to speak to the subject matter.

Public Forum is much broader. Some limits can be placed in terms of the subject matter and speakers should speak to the jurisdiction of the Council. Under the Constitution, the Council cannot prohibit speech that is critical of the City and even profanity generally has to be allowed.

There are, however, Constitutional limits on speech which cannot incite violence for example, and if the meeting is disrupted by the speech, this can be a limit as well. Where those lines are can be difficult to discern, especially in real time. When these incidents occur it is often very shocking, and the speech is so hateful that it is difficult in real time to make good decisions. So, limits can be based on jurisdiction, limits based on disruption, and also when certain speech is so outrageous so as not to be Constitutionally protected.

Councilmember Iverson asked if the City Clerk feels that Zoom has changed the available level of participation or not.

City Clerk Smith said since returning to in-person meetings most public comments are from those in person. There were 4 Zoom comments in the last 5 months which is about 10 meetings, and many more attendees on Zoom during the pandemic where speakers were limited only to Zoom.

Councilmember Malkani said Lafayette recently grappled with this and she wondered if there were others in Contra Costa County. Mr. Biggs said he was unsure and said he spoke with a couple of cities at the Mayors’ Conference and guessed it was getting close to 50/50 that have eliminated remote participation at this time.

City Clerk Smith noted she attended a City Clerk meeting the other day and of the participants there in Contra Costa, the majority had discontinued or never offered Zoom to begin with.

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

City Clerk Smith announced the Council received 7 written public comments prior to the meeting which she announced.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 19 11.07.23
Mayor Miller stated she initially had reservations about not allowing Zoom public comments, which she described and asked for other comments.

Vice Mayor Gee voiced support of the City Manager’s decision, thinks the City had Zoom availability over the last 5 months, and it was hardly used. She is saddened about how much hate is within society and believes it will not be reduced but rather continue to escalate. She also did not believe the Council was denying anyone of transparency so she voiced support.

Councilmember Malkani wondered how a Zoom bomb would affect those in the meeting, thinks Zoom gives people accessibility, hopes more people will use Zoom which allows more public comment and participation, and pointed to the 7 public commenters asking not to remove it. She did not believe hateful comments could be stopped given guidelines, and was leaning towards not discontinuing it.

Councilmember Iverson said the First Amendment factor is very important. The accessibility is nice for those who cannot attend the meetings, but on the other hand the Zoom format was an experiment. Councils have gotten along fine for years without having Zoom, likes the personal interaction of people speaking, and on balance supports staying with the in-person format versus Zoom only because so very few people used it.

Mayor Miller said she appreciates all comments, said she feels reticent to limit what they allow to be said in Public Forum because this is a place where people can bring items where perhaps would not fall within the City’s jurisdiction to deal with otherwise. She also recognizes Zoom’s ease of use for working parents and/or those with mobility issues and the City has avoided Zoom bombings up to now. She asked if Councilmembers would like to suspend it for now but revisit it or some other alternative.

Councilmember Iverson said she thinks a Zoom bombing is the worst reason to stop using Zoom because once it happens once, typically a city is not tagged again. She thinks once the Council decides in-person is how they hold meetings, that should be it. She did not support a suspension and then revisiting it. She thinks they kept Zoom going so as not to cut people off once they were back to in-person meetings and since they saw it was not used much, this is not worth the cost and effort for the City to administer, but either way was okay with her.

Councilmember Malkani said she is still leaning in the direction of keeping remote participation to the extent they can, and did not want to minimize the horrible incidents of hateful speech which she has heard of so this is a hard decision.

Vice Mayor Gee agrees with Councilmember Iverson’s comments regarding holding Council meetings for decades before anyone heard of Zoom, and it has not been without cost and frustrations and challenges. For the amount of participation they have experienced, half the year is a long time in terms of its generation of activity, and therefore, she does not see a need to use it. She has heard staff responding very timely to the public and thinks the City works hard to be responsive, feels every dollar saved always has a better use in town.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 19 11.07.23
City Clerk Smith reported currently the City is spending about $500 to $700 per meeting but they are renting equipment they purchased so they not have to rent it any longer.

They discontinued a service to live stream via an encoder and stopped paying for the monthly subscription which was $700 per month, and now they are using Zoom which is much more reliable and cost effective. She would propose they still use Zoom for recording because now the public can see presentations on screen. The money they are spending is also being saved in other areas so she would hope they do not stop using the technology but just decide on whether to take public comments via Zoom.

Mr. Biggs added that the Council only adopted the hybrid format for a period of time and at some point staff expects to bring back the basic decision of whether to continue holding hybrid meetings.

Councilmember Iverson said the City is doing the Zoom for live streaming and if there is no incremental set up, staff time, or trouble she asked if it reduces the decision to only whether they are turning on or off the participation feature.

Mr. Biggs noted staff finds it Zoom saves them money when they have a consultant that is an invited guest and participant in the meeting so they do not have to travel and charge the City time and staff has not quantified that element.

Ms. Wolff said the question is whether you turn on additional participants being able to join, and she did not think there will be any change in money or staff time.

Councilmember Iverson suggested possibly having a 30-60 default time under Public Forum and as needed the Council could extend it as needed.

Mr. Biggs said this cannot be done as all speakers receive 1 or 3 minutes and this would discriminating based upon First Amendment speech rights.

Ms. Wolff said the City would not discriminate between speakers based on the content of their speech and would not recommend it. What some cities have done is when they experience uncivil comment, be it profanity or topics that are not family-friendly, the City has the ability to temporarily mute the speaker and ask them to be civil based upon the City’s practice. The City can interrupt, ask for civility, remind the public about the First Amendment rules, and this all remains available. But, if giving speakers 3 minutes, even the hateful speakers need to be given 3 minutes unless they are disrupting the meeting or inciting violence.

Council discussion ensued and Councilmembers spoke of continuing with the ability to allow City related panelists such as those giving presentations on Zoom, some preferences for in-person meetings, and some preferring continuance of hybrid meetings and allowing Zoom public comments.

Mayor Miller suggested a motion.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 19 11.07.23
MOTION by Vice Mayor Gee, and seconded by Mayor Miller, to ratify the City Manager’s decision to temporarily discontinue remote public comments. Said motion failed by (2-2; Malkani and Iverson voted no) roll call vote.

Ms. Wolff said the City Manager has made this decision and sought the Council’s ratification. There is a split vote and the motion has failed.

H.2. Presentation of Pavement Condition Forecast Analysis Results of the Pavement Management Program
Recommendation:

Receive presentation on Overview of the Pavement Management Program and Forecast Analysis Results, and provide feedback to Staff City Manager Biggs introduced the item.

City Engineer Sivakumar Natarajan gave a PowerPoint presentation, noting the presentation from May 9th was more high level and less about analysis of future budget impacts. He spoke of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) and MTC’s Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) which is a federal fund that comes through MTC every 2 years and which provides for the City to do conditional assessments of its road network. The amount of funding received depends on miles of roadway each agency has.

MTC also provides a StreetSaver software program which takes the input and allows them a platform to visualize and analyze it and arrive at scenarios that will be helpful for the City. Staff also plays a role in field conditions assessments, given priorities.

Mr. Natarajan then described and displayed the StreetSaver program, PCI value and remaining service life dials, charts, and graphs and said it is data fed and driven to determine the City’s pavement life. The program allows staff to organize all information in one place, MTC maintains the program and staff can retrieve data whenever needed, and it allows staff to perform calculations looking forward into the future as well as cost effective management strategies to implement.

Key benefits of the StreetSaver program include inventory tools, condition assessments, determination of needed work and funds, identifies candidate projects, determination of impacts of funding alternatives, and GIS maps. Having the program in place qualifies the City for funding and staff uses it to justify state and federal funding for roadway work.

He then displayed a pie chart view of residential, collectors, arterials, and urban local streets, a chart of pavement life cycle, how PMP helps, maintenance treatments, Orinda’s road network showing a condition category breakdown, samples of pavement conditions and ranges in numbers.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 19 11.07.23
He presented and described budget needs over the next 18 years, revenue projections, the pavement budget and scenarios 1, 2 and 3 and comparisons of scenarios: 1) paving budget only; 2) paving budget plus Measure R $1.2 million/year; 3) paving budget plus Measure R $2.5 million/year. In looking at comparisons of scenarios, Mr. Natarajan described each scenario and their PCI, deferred maintenance, and average budget per year.

In summary, to maintain the public road network for the next 18 years at its current PCI of 84, it is estimated the City will need to spend an average of $3.6 million annually.

Maintaining the current funding level of $1.8 million annually will result in a PCI decrease of 14 points to a PCI of 70. Additionally, at this funding level, the deferred maintenance cost will increase to $67.5 million, 372% compared to $18.1 million.

Mr. Biggs referred to an article in the packet from the League of California Cities about the success of Orinda’s roads going from a 45 PCI to the second highest in the Bay Area that occurred last year. This required hard work, significant investment, and with factors working against them such as lower gas tax. Measure J expires in the future and the City may not have that level of funding. There are threats to the garbage truck impact fee and will need to do a new nexus study. What is also not counted are occasional grants to close gaps, and this is meant to stimulate thoughts about the City’s roads and considerations for funding for Measure R and priorities for the future.

Mayor Miller said a large portion of extra money are projections for the State Water Quality Control Board requirements on roads. City Manager Biggs said the City and other cities have weighed in on mandates and through the City Manager’s Group and Ad Hoc Committee, they were able to make minor modifications through feedback to the Board.

He spoke about inclusion of funding and confirmed staff included a 30% of all available roads funding must go towards green infrastructure.

Vice Mayor Gee said she thinks what has been presented is a good start. She attended a session last week with the Secretary of Transportation for the State, and there are a couple of things that are worrisome where at some point they will have to take this analysis and up the sophistication of it. First, she worries about the sunset of the CCTA funds. They have had 2 failures to reup the tax and she is not confident where this will go.

The garbage fees is also a big risk as well as gas tax which is a very fluid number because some people are driving electric vehicles. In the timespan the City is projecting they are also looking at an ugly transition with going from gas tax to VMT, so she questioned whether this would result in a bigger or smaller number.

At some point, federal funding is not going to flow any longer based on gas tax and it will be controversial and complicated, but some states are already making a faster transition than California is. At some point, those things in a 20 year project will really matter. She thinks they need an equal projection of Measure R which could continue to be a huge number or lower number. So, this will need to become even more refined.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 19 11.07.23
Another element is a risk-based issue. We all know and have seen the controversies in Orinda between public and private roads. To the City itself, there is very limited risk in regards to the physicality of private roads. However, there are also many private drainage facilities in the City. She is not asking to figure out their condition, but thinks something that would be very prudent on the City’s part is to get a sense of how much potential risk the City has if any of those were to fail.

Mayor Miller said when the insurance commissioner came in the Spring, he talked about Hawaii and one of its counties was insuring its coral reefs. He was suggesting the City might look to self-insure themselves or insuring themselves against these kinds of disasters. Clearly, as numbers show and in the context of the City’s funds, they do not have funding to put away monies in the case of a huge drainage disaster. So, it is prudent to look at this in context to the numbers.

Vice Mayor Gee said perhaps CCTA also has some thinking on it right now, and other cities in the county that are receiving return to source funds because the sunset is not far away.

Mr. Natarajan said there are quite a few variations, and staff was trying to determine how far to take out the projections. Return to source is also a concern and he believes CCTA is looking at different concepts for the next measure likely and testing out goals. They did put in some adjustments, such as the solid waste management fee they put some impacts on it. Right now, the City receives a little over $1 million and they brought it down to $750,000. The Administrative Services Director was looking at the nexus study that was done before and tried to figure out how that potentially could change. Cost increase was a big consideration because 3% inflation was not true over the last 5-10 years particularly as it relates to construction which has gone up significantly higher. Staff did include a 5% inflation rate over the next 18 years which might balance out better, but were limited in how far they could do considering all known factors. They made some assumptions where certain funds will be available to use towards paving projects which could change.

Councilmember Iverson asked how does the SSTOC feel about some of the numbers such as the $1.2 million and the $2.5 million figures, and Mr. Biggs said the SSTOC has not seen that at all.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 19 11.07.23
Councilmember Iverson said Scenario 3 is a nice optimal scenario and she asked if this is achievable given the City’s current rates. Mr. Natarajan said that brings him back to his previous answer; the reason they curbed it at $2.5 million is because of the technical reason as far as the PCI level. The reason they showed Measure R funds is because that is the fund that potentially could pay for paving and storm drains, and also they took into consideration what has already been budgeted, so the 5 year CIP numbers are already fed in. For the rest of it they did not have a projection of what the expenses would be other than the annual expenses for operational purposes. So, it gave them an idea of what amount of funds are expected to remain every year that could be used for other purposes not matter what they chose to use. This is where they were taking the $2.5 million from. This is primarily looking at what other opportunities they have within local funds that they can first look at towards this analysis before looking at external funds.

Mr. Biggs said he thinks this year they may get up to $3.8 million in Measure R funds. In looking at what they spend for operations and wildfire prevention, there probably is about $2.5 million a year available.

Councilmember Iverson said this was just helping her understand how to think about those numbers. She asked how is each road condition determined, and asked if drones or in person evaluation is used.

Mr. Natarajan said the funding he referred to from MTC is used to hire a consultant who physically goes to the streets, monitor them, measure them, and then they extrapolate those numbers to a certain extent because they cannot measure every square foot of it.

MTC sets standards they follow and MTC also has a list of consultant who are trained and certified to do this.

Mayor Miller questioned what is done for the assessment of roads. Mr. Natarajan explained what is done for conditional assessments. Once they get to the point of implementing a repair they will choose the treatment, and that decision will be made by a separate design consultant the City will hire who will do physical testing, so there are multiple methods. The outcome of it will go back into StreetSaver so the system recognizes the treatment has been put in place and increases the score.

Councilmember Iverson said in the real estate world, they have more of a “cap x” reserve model where you know you will have a full replacement in 20 years, so you build up a fund where you will fund a steady amount every year to have the piggy bank to replace things. There will be repairs along the way, but primarily they look at the full replacement budget. When looking at this model it is confusing to her how to understand those deferred maintenance things. When looking at what the City did with Measures L and J, they had a weird situation where the City essentially built everything new all at once. She is concerned they will have this 20-year full replacement cliff, and she asked how the 18 year model is building up this reserve for these big events or she asked if the model of annual variable work is all the City needs.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 19 11.07.23
Mr. Natarajan explained the way the model calculates it depends on what type of structure the pavement has. Although on the surface all streets look the same. Underneath them, however, each street is different in how it is built. When they rebuilt most of the streets 10 years ago, they did a full reclamation treatment which is a cemented base layer with a top asphalt layer. That section will have its own life term and its own repair needs and also maintenance needs, compared to another street which was not in an extremely bad condition but needed a certain overlay where they grind the top layer of asphalt and put back a new layer of asphalt. They both score 100 on the PCI after they are done with them, but the long term use validity of those sections, how they deteriorate and what their needs will be will change drastically over time. All that information is in the software which is able to assign the depreciation and relative repair expectations depending on the type of surface, road, whether it is a residential or arterial street, etc. This is where the data input becomes very important because every section should be as accurate as possible.

Whatever output the program is telling them, it takes all of this into consideration, and the deferred fund comes into play only when they are not able to provide that fund to meet the requirements. If they are able to provide the amount of funds every year as shown in the program, they will not have to spend any more, and their roadways will stay in this condition every year.

Vice Mayor Gee said the difference between the public infrastructure and the model Councilmember Iverson used to that she sets up real estate as if the cash flow is going to be able to fund that. Public monies do not work that way, and if they need $3 million this year and have $4 million, they can save that $1 million to keep using it, but they will never have a nice cash flow on the public side to build up the replacement fund for roads.

Mr. Biggs said this is what the bond issues did which was funding deferred maintenance.

The City borrowed $50 or $60 million and residents are paying back those bonds over time which allowed the City to borrow the money to bring the roads up to this level. So, if they want to avoid borrowing, they must be strategic or they must determine what level of borrowing makes sense in the future because regular funding streams do not allow the City to put aside enough money to ensure that does not happen.

Councilmember Iverson said if the graph looks bouncy the way it does, you would think in the off years the City could set aside a reserve. Vice Maor Gee said they will set it aside, but then it will get used.

Councilmember Malkani said Orinda is built on all of these underlying streams and creeks and she asked how this impacts road conditions. It sounds like it is based on the interactive process with StreetSaver where some of this information gets input. Regarding drains, some of these projects talk about looking at repairs of roads and drains when they are connected at the same time if they can. She asked if there is software that has a holistic analysis of the public roads and drains.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 19 11.07.23
Mr. Natarajan said the understanding of the bottom layers of the pavement was more focused on the design side of it. The point about what Orinda is made of and its soil layer underneath it comes into play to a certain extent when doing the design calculations because the soil will tell them how much they can expect of it for the roadway to sit on it.

As far as slides and other events, those are things they cannot account for in the software.

They must address this on a case-by-case basis. The reason they did the FDR treatment on the reconstructions is because that actually will support more because it is denser and more stiff compared to a typical asphalt roadway.

Regarding storm drains, in his previous May presentation they touched on the City’s storm drain condition analysis. Unfortunately, they do not have software to do that. The City hired a consultant who actually conducted assessments of those and categorized them into A and B categories of pipes. A were the more severe conditions which was estimated at about $10 million. Category B was about $20 million in repair costs. Category A pipes are being addressed in projects of their own through the CIP, as well as some Category B pipes.

There are some things MTC is trying to help agencies with. They call these non-pavement assets and they are still working on it. Eventually, their goal is to create a similar program agencies can use to store the information, help monitor, and possibly conduct further analysis. Last winter, the City had storms and lots of damage to roads, and some of this is being recovered from FEMA but he questioned if that will be a sustainable model in the future with climate change. This is why they are continuing these discussions with a more renewed focus on these questions.

Mayor Miller said there is a murmuring about having to use bonds again no matter what, so to the extent they will they want to do it in the most conservative way possible.

Councilmember Malkani referred to the chart on budget needs for the next 18 years, she asked and confirmed this is out of StreetSaver to stay at the 87 PCI level. She asked how are these forecasts are reduced to specific budget items that appear in their CIP.

Historically, the CIOC used to provide this annual report on roads and drains. The SSTOC has focused on wildfire and emergency preparedness, and she asked where staff sees the SSTOC also providing input in an advisory capacity on roads and drains.

Mr. Biggs explained that they are on a parallel track with the SSTOC. There was so much heavy lifting done previously that they do not have to reinvent the wheel. Regarding what are the critical points of consideration in developing this model, how to finetune it, what level of funding is available will all be things they will go back and work with the SSTOC on. They present recommended projects in the 5-year CIP to the CIOC, and this model will guide those future recommendations in regards to the 5-year CIP in each year so it is an interactive process.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 19 11.07.23
Mr. Natarajan said his understanding of the CIOC’s role was primarily to help with the bond measure funds. There were a few years where the City was doing $12 to $15 million a year paving projects which are significant. Also, it involved making the determination of which streets get paved at what time. StreetSaver was very beneficial looking back.

Mostly, the approach was quite technical in how they handled this which he described.

The last few years they have been in the maintenance phase. There are still a handful of streets pending because of various reasons, but mostly, they got the majority of streets in good shape already and are in the maintenance mode. 80% or more of their budget is going towards preventative maintenance treatments.

The way they have been approaching that is based upon budget availability and they use StreetSaver. For the 2023 paving project, he put in the actual budget in the chart which is $4.9 million. They have Miner Road, Bear Creek Road, and Happy Valley Road which are low PCI-rated roads that had to be held back and these are getting addressed this year which added significant cost. Construction costs and bids as compared to last year went up significantly, and these are factors that come into play. They take the annual available budget in the CIP and start to build a list of streets that need attention. Ideally, they will need $5 million over the next 3 years, but they have only less than $2 million available to put towards them. So, they try to find the best use for those funds.

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

City Clerk Smith noted that the Council received 22 emails on this subject which is part of the public record and on the City’s website.

Mr. Biggs said staff will share the Council’s comments and questions and staff will next present to the SSTOC. After the first of the year, staff will bring back another look at it.

Councilmember Malkani credited the then Council for the improvements to the PCI and would be interested in hearing any thoughts on how the City moves forward. She wondered if it makes sense to continue to achieve the current PCI at this level, asked if there is a big difference between 84 and 80 or 75, given costs associated with various ranges. She would also like to obtain a better understanding on what they are dealing with regarding conditions and risk of private drains and private roads.

Vice Mayor Gee explained she doubts people could identify the PCI of any given road.

She thinks it is a sound idea to try and pick a strategic target and it is very important for the community to do everything they can to maintain the current system. Everybody knows that if you let maintenance go too far downhill, they will have a much bigger bill than if you kept it up all the time. It would be an awful shame to let all the hard work and investment go downhill. It is easier to keep the roads in good shape if they are maintained.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 13 of 19 11.07.23
So, she thinks it is imperative they look at how to keep it going which will be complicated.

Some of the controversies floating around with Measure R will have to be part of that equation and at some point there will have to be ways of finding additional funding. In looking at that additional funding, there are politics and Orinda is a bit of anomaly. There are many communities in the U.S. that are full of private roads, and she provided examples.

They have other communities that have somewhat similar issues, but Orinda’s situation is not typical at all so the controversies that continue to arise from it are genuine in the sense that if you try to understand how they got to where they are and it is a strange combination of things. The reality is that trying to maintain this system and the investment will be critical. She is very concerned about the controversies in the community about Measure R funds. With the bond and Measure R monies, she believes the City has spent the community’s money in a way they should be proud of forever more.

One of the great challenges is the public and the private roads and drainage, and the Council will need to look at it. The decisions of the next few years for Measure R funds will be critical to the community and understanding of trust. She recognized Senator Glazer for understanding incrementalism. The City had to do part of it and prove it could be trusted with the voters’ money, but she was concerned with the current dialogue.

Mayor Miller echoed Vice Mayor Gee’s comments and her work as the CIOC Chair. The promises made were promises kept which were important to getting to where they are now. She does not share quite the same fear about the dialogue, however, right now only because vocal minorities have always been a reality in Orinda. They kept this downtown from having a downtown plan for many years. Then they got a vocal minority that the Town needed to be fair so people who lives on private roads needed them paved just the same as those who lived on public roads. Maybe someone did not understand when they purchased their property they did not know how a private road worked, but this is how the law works. Orinda is a well-educated town and she finds it quite disingenuous when people come before the Council and say they need the City to come and pave their private roads for their private benefits. It will keep the City from keeping its promises to their voters, keep them from the fiscal conservatism entrusted in them, and she has many solutions.

The Orinda Country Club owns their road and they would like the City to take it over. As a City they cannot take on a huge liability which is a dam regulated by the State of California. She thinks it would be wonderful to put together the funds to get the dam strengthened to put all the water in the lake and have it there in the case of a fire and have a nice road, but taxpayers cannot use the public coffers to do this. They could charge a toll and similarly those on private roads could do that or have a gate and not let people in. So, to protect public funds is not to spend them on private property.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 14 of 19 11.07.23
Taking care of the City’s drainage is a challenge, and they went to voters for Measure R and somehow there has been a feeling the City is charged with fire prevention versus evacuation work. They are all important, and they have found that education is not especially expensive. More controversial are the ideas of grants and how much money is a redistribution of tax money back to taxpayers to clear their property. So, she wants to ensure the City keeps its promises to voters as well, and thinks much of this will come through maintenance of their public infrastructure, educating, and letting newer residents understand, and she described the Wilder development and neighborhoods creating capital facility districts where they do not to maintain their roads which is something the City can help with. So, she does not believe the City will be in a position to take in private roads at a cost of adding 20% to the City’s budget.

Councilmember Malkani said she asking for the background and said it is not a one-sizefits-all problem. She is not proposing a solution but wanting more of an understanding and assessment.

Councilmember Iverson said those Councilmembers who have been here longer knows the neighborhoods, and she thinks the newer Councilmembers would be served well with a binder of the map of the private roads, which ones are in HOAs and which ones have 3 homes or fewer with shared private driveways, and where are some of the communities because they could almost color-code them into groups so the City not just says it is all or none. She does not think anyone wants to give a handout to people just because they did not read the documents when they bought their homes.

What Vice Mayor Gee said about the underlying unfairness that is not going to go away, she feels they can address this one bite at a time by looking at things that are not that hard or that might be fixable or that the homeowner wants help organizing so they can raise money to get the roads up to code so they can be adopted. She would love to start with facts, inventory, types, conditions, and history just so the Council is all speaking on the same level. She would love to have shared facts for affected members of the public as well as for the Council so they can stop recycling the same arguments. It would be nice to change the conversation to constructive things that might be able to be done without it being handouts or anything not fair to those on public roads. She feels the City is a better City if they can chip away, especially with the drains. Therefore, she hopes they can broaden the conversation knowing they cannot do everything but maybe in doing long-range planning, they could start planning for chipping away.

Vice Mayor Gee said they have the mapping of which roads are private and it is colorcoated. Mr. Natarajan said they do have a map that identifies public versus private, but the private roads are not separated further into different categories.

Mayor Miller stated Larry Theis had created a map that had the roads of Hacienda where one color were the HOAs and private driveways were one color, and Mr. Natarajan said he can look for this. Vice Mayor Gee said in the large HOA developments, you can assume and confirm the condition of those roads are already in good shape. The 20% private which includes everything is an accurate number.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 15 of 19 11.07.23
Councilmember Iverson said she would love to see the color coded map and have a binder with shared facts on this, and she would hope to create something that is factspecific on what can and cannot be done, and what has been done to create a sense of fairness.

Mr. Biggs noted when he was hired, Jim Bogart was working here and there were a number of community workshops on private roads, public roads, and there were reports that came out of that and staff could find what they have. This process resulted in changes to the City’s private road acceptance policy at that time, as well. He is hearing that did not go far enough for some of the community, but it was not like the process did not result in some changes.

EXTEND MEETING
MOTION by Councilmember Malkani, and seconded by Vice Mayor Gee, to extend the meeting at 10:00 p.m. to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.

Councilmember Iverson said she would like for people newly engaged to know what has been done, who they can talk to, etc.

Councilmember Malkani said she would be interested in hearing from the SSTOC and their ad-hoc committees what input they could provide. It was something that struck her when reading the annual report. It sounds like there were many infrastructure decisions and prioritization that had to happen during a certain few years. To the extent they are now in on-going maintenance, she questioned if it is necessary and useful.

Mayor Miller said her understanding was when she interfaced with the CIOC as a Councilmember and others who are now on the CIOC had interfaced with that group, it was a very needed and technical group. These were all retired road engineers and people who had actual professional knowledge. It is a different type of situation that they have now which is a typical City commission which is comprised of lay people. She thinks the Council did not provide any context for that, so the SSTOC members had a very hard job to figure out how to become the technical body and now they are taking on a different role as the overseers of this general tax that was needed for roads, drains, evacuation, and emergency preparedness. So, she thinks there is the understanding that is the overall charge. Now, the question is at what depth are they being asked as commissioners to engage with that. She thinks in this past year, it was more of a staff presentation and budget discussion based on dollar needs and there was some level of grappling with the expectation there would be more in the future.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 16 of 19 11.07.23
Mr. Biggs added that they are still implementing the CIOC’s approved priority storm drain list. This is what has been in the 5-year CIP; the A projects, the B projects, and their early efforts identified $40 million of storm drain needs, but they only anticipated about $10 million of that being met through Measure R. While making these improvements to storm drains, there is still a big gap of meeting total existing public storm drainage needs, so this is not fully funded either. So, the SSTOC is prepared to start to engage more in storm drains and roads, while still maintaining a focus on wildfire prevention, and the next step is bringing them up to speed at the same time they are bringing a newer Council up to speed as far as these issues. The landscape has changed, as well, but they are willing to involve themselves in this and it is good for them to have the benefit of this discussion as they ask what is it the Council would like them to do. Staff will provide the same presentation tonight and the Council’s questions may have flushed out a lot for them, and it will be an interactive process.

Councilmember Malkani said the composition of the SSTOC is very different from the CIOC in terms of people’s backgrounds. There are 2 or 3 people who were on the CIOC would continued to continuity, but most members do not have the engineering or technical background.

Vice Mayor Gee said the initial years of the CIOC were trying to solve this giant problem and there were members with significant expertise. As things began to happen there was more money into the system and they prioritized projects. Also, they were actually working with City staff on understanding and making recommendations on a much more technical level than is needed now.

She thinks the SSTOC members will be able to understand the idea that you have something that needs to be maintained. She does not think they need to understand everything there is to know about pavement engineering or drainage, but they will need to understand the magnitudes of what the community’s needs are going to be and the big picture. The Council did not spent much time on the revenue side of it tonight, but touched on some of the concerns, and somewhere is the projection of the Measure R funds as well. No matter what, there is not enough money for everything, so the issue will be prioritization of the road system at the level they have gotten it to. If they slip more than a little, over time this will add a burden back to the community.

Mayor Miller referred to the SSTOC’s focus on wildfire prevention, and when Measure R passed, there was emergency preparedness, roads and drainage, and wildfire prevention which was a part of it. She asked about the wildfire prevention focus, as it is part of the Fire District’s role and focus.

Mr. Biggs said the SSTOC will continue to help guide how the City spends Measure R money as it relates to wildfire prevention and provide guidance on programs and activities. Now, they are expanding their focus to taking the other things but they will be engaged with staff on wildfire prevention as well as with evacuation. Emergency preparedness captures both.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 17 of 19 11.07.23
I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Councilmember Malkani announced the Orinda Association is interested in doing a public safety forum and may have been in touch with Chief Sullivan and the Mayor.

Mayor Miller reported having a lovely time at the Citizen and Volunteer of the Year dinner honoring Bill Waterman as Citizen of the Year and John Fazel as Volunteer of the Year on Sunday evening.

J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – City Manager Biggs reported that Thanksgiving is coming up and the Council will not meet again until December 5th. On December 2 nd, the City will have a winter event at the Community Center, and there was a police incident here in town. Unfortunately, the media picked it up and mischaracterized what occurred. He complimented the Chief and the department and neighboring jurisdiction resources and the Chief will share what happened today off of Moraga Way.

Police Chief Ryan Sullivan stated this morning at approximately 8:23 a.m. a resident on Knickerbocker Lane called police and reported a suspicious person at their door possibly tried to open the door or knocked. The resident described the person as wearing black and a black ski mask. They got into a white vehicle and fled the area. Officers arrived on scene and spoke to the resident who reported it.

While checking the area, one officer located a white vehicle on Lloyd Lane matching the description of the vehicle reported on Knickerbocker Lane. As the officer went to investigate the vehicle further, 3 men exited the residence holding stolen property from inside the house. As soon as they saw the officer, they dropped the items and fled back into the house. The officer gave chase as the 3 suspects ran out the back door towards Moraga Way.

The officer was able to apprehend one of the suspects and he was taken into custody. The other two fled on foot with the assistance of Lafayette and Moraga Police. They established a perimeter and a canine was requested and a canine officer from San Ramon answered the call and responded. A track was performed with the canine and another suspect was located hiding under a shed in the nearby area. That person was taken into custody and they continued to search for the third suspect who is outstanding at this time.

During the incident, Glorietta Elementary School was placed into lockdown as a precaution. At the time, they did not know a positive direction the two suspects had gone. Being concerned they may have run towards direction of the school it was better to have the lockdown as a precaution than to chase them through the school.

The two suspects were both treated at the scene for minor injuries and transported to County Hospital and both cleared and taken to the Martinez Detention facility.

The search continued for the third suspect. They fielded several other calls, and it is an on-going investigation. Their officers worked extremely hard and it will not be long before they apprehend the third suspect. One suspect arrested was on parole out of San Francisco for residential burglary.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 18 of 19 11.07.23
Mr. Biggs noted that an initial report was that it was a home invasion robbery which was not the home that was burglarized which was unoccupied at the time. A later report said the second suspect was barricaded in a home, but hiding under a shed, so this created a lot of concern. He complimented the police department and other agencies, cited the resources, and a Nixle alert was sent out along with social media. He also noted the Chief and his team did not think a general shelter in place order was necessary as the suspects were not armed.

Chief Sullivan clarified that the residence of the house that was burglarized were not home at the time, so it was not a home invasion robbery, and at no point did any suspect barricade themselves in the residence. He recognized Lafayette and Moraga who were here first and then shortly afterwards they received assistance from the Sheriff’s Office, Valley Station, and from Danville Police Department.

Mayor Miller and Councilmembers thanked Chief Sullivan and all officers for their diligence and incredibly quick response.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – Vice Mayor Gee said while she does not want to make this a Matters Initiated, she thinks there may be a perception there is a rising sentiment of concern about burglary in the community it would be very good timing for hearing a report on Neighborhood Watch, neighborhood cameras, and crime statistics in town. Mr. Biggs said they normally conduct an update twice a year with the Council’s Public Safety Committee and staff will double-check the calendar.

L. CLOSED SESSION

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS of Closed Session Matters – None.

3. CLOSED SESSION

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: ORINDANS FOR SAFE EMERGENCY EVACUATION v. City of Orinda, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No.

N23-0579.

B. CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, annual performance evaluation of City Manager David Biggs
C. CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, annual performance evaluation of City Attorney Osa Wolff
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 19 of 19 11.07.23
M. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Miller announced that there was no reportable action taken in closed session. The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:24 p.m. to the next Regular Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 05, 2023, at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) November 7, 2023

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
6:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
Mayor Miller called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and City Manager Biggs called the roll. All Councilmembers were present.

OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
The Closed Session Matters were identified.

C. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
There were no public comments received.

D. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: ORINDANS FOR SAFE EMERGENCY EVACUATION v. City of Orinda, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N23-0579.

B. CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, annual performance evaluation of City Manager David Biggs
C. CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, annual performance evaluation of City Attorney Osa Wolff
E. OPEN SESSION REPORT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION
There was no reportable action.

F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 P.M.
_______________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City Council Closed Session Minutes of November 7, 2023 (3246 : City Council Minutes) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: December 5, 2023
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Traffic Order to include Miner Rd. as part of Red Flag Days program.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution 65-23 and Traffic Order No. 225 to restrict stopping and parking during Red Flag Warning Days along a portion of evacuation routes within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Orinda, consisting of Miner Rd., from Camino Pablo to Ranch Rd.

BACKGROUND:

At its June 7, 2022 meeting, City Council considered expansion of the Red Flag Day Parking restriction program, and directed staff to expand the program to evacuation routes within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. These are all located in North Orinda and the staff report indicated would include portions of Lomas Cantadas, Claremont Avenue, Monte Vista Road, Manzanita Drive, Miner Road, Vista Del Mar, Sleepy Hollow Lane, Dalewood Drive, Sundown Terrace, Tappan Lane, and Honey Hill Road.

At its July 19, 2022 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution 36-22 and Traffic Order No. 216 to restrict stopping and parking during Red Flag Warning Days along portions of evacuation routes within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Orinda. The intent was to include all evacuation routes, as described at the June 7, 2022 City Council meeting, including Miner Rd. However, Miner Rd was inadvertently omitted in the traffic order, but all of the other listed evacuation routes were included in Traffic Order No. 216:
• Monte Vista Road from Camino Pablo to Monte Vista Ridge Road • Claremont Ave from Camino Pablo to the second western Holly Lane intersection
• Manzanita Drive from Camino Pablo to Bobolink Road
• The entire length Vista Del Mar
• The eastern portion of Camino Don Miguel from Miner Road to Vista del Mar
• The western leg of Sleepy Hollow Lane from Lombardy Lane to the Normandy Lane and Washington Lane intersection
• Lombardy Lane from Miner Road to Tarry Lane
• Dalewood Drive from Lombardy Lane to Sundown Terrace
• Honey Hill Road from Miner Road to Charles Hill Road
• Charles Hill Road from Honey Hill Road to El Nido Ranch Road F.2
Packet Pg. 27
• Sundown Terrace from Happy Valley Toad to Silver Oak Terrace DISCUSSION:

The subject traffic order (Attachment A) will include the portions of Miner Rd. that are an evacuation route as part of the Red Flag Day parking restriction program: Miner Rd., from Camino Pablo to Ranch Rd. It should be noted that the no parking sign installation contract (awarded at the June 30, 2023 City Council meeting) did include Miner Rd. along with the other roads included in traffic order No. 216.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon City Council adoption of Resolution 65-23, Traffic Order 225 will be in effect.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact from the adoption of the resolution.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 65-23 Red Flag Day Parking Restrictions add Miner Rd. TO 225 Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Scott Christie, Public Works Director
Approved by:

F.2
Packet Pg. 28

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
Resolution Approving the Restriction of )
Parking During Red Flag Warning Events)
For Miner Rd. )
Resolution No. 65-23
Program Traffic Order No. 225
WHEREAS, the residents of Orinda have shown through their desire and need for parking restrictions during red flag warning events to improve emergency evacuation and emergency vehicle access of the area during the most critical fire danger levels; WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes a local agency to establish parking regulations on streets and roads under their jurisdiction; WHEREAS, Orinda Municipal Code Section 10.04.020 authorizes the Director of Public Works to make traffic orders to establish parking regulations on street or highways; and
WHEREAS, Orinda Municipal Code Section 10.04.040 requires the adoption of a resolution for a traffic order to become effective.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda as follows:

Stopping and parking shall be prohibited while red flag warnings are in effect within 5 feet from the edge of the City paved roadway along both sides of Miner Rd., from Camino Pablo to Ranch Rd.

At driveways, parallel parking locations, or any location a vehicle can park along the paved roadway, the 5 feet shall be measured starting at the following:
• Where the City paved roadway abuts a driveway
• Where the City paved roadway abuts a parallel paved or concrete parking area
• Where the City paved roadway abuts a dirt shoulder wide enough to accommodate vehicle parking.
///
///
F.2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Resolution 65-23 Red Flag Day Parking Restrictions add Miner Rd. TO 225 (3255 : add Miner Rd to Red Flag Day program) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on December 5, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
Inga Miller, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Resolution 65-23 Red Flag Day Parking Restrictions add Miner Rd. TO 225 (3255 : add Miner Rd to Red Flag Day program) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: December 5, 2023
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Approve a Grant Application for Glorietta Boulevard Pathway – Phase 2 to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2024- 2025 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle funding.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Transportation Development Act grant application for the Glorietta Boulevard Pathway - Phase 2, from Overhill Road to Orinda City Limits, find the project categorically exempt with respect to CEQA and direct a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk, by adopting Resolution No. 64-23, in a format specified by the grant requirements.

BACKGROUND:

Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are designated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements to encourage non-automobile modes of transportation. The MTC requires the City Bicycle Advisory Committee and the City Council to approve the selected TDA grant application project.

The Orinda Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) is the designated Bicycle Advisory Committee for Orinda. TSAC recommended the Glorietta Boulevard Pathway Project – Phase 2 on September 18, 2023 for the TDA grant application to the City Council. The application seeks grant funds for an extension of the Glorietta Boulevard Pathway, from Overhill Road to Orinda City Limits, as shown in the attached map (Attachment B).

DISCUSSION:

Staff has prepared the TDA grant application for the extension of the Glorietta Boulevard Pathway, from Overhill Road to Orinda City Limits. The proposed pathway would have the same layout as the existing pathway on Glorietta Boulevard from Rheem Boulevard to Overhill Road, which was constructed in 2019. The path would be an at-grade walkway separated from the travel lane by a six inch high asphalt dike/concrete curb on the west side of Glorietta Blvd. The project will also install shared bike lane markings on Glorietta Blvd. The project elements would include the following:
• Mill existing asphalt shoulder on the west side of Glorietta Boulevard and regrade and pave to limit the maximum cross slope to 2% (for ADA accessibility requirements). The intent is to fit the pathway within the public right-of-way, which may impact landscaping and require some mailbox and roadside sign relocation.

F.3
Packet Pg. 31
• Restripe the westbound lane edge line, potentially reducing lane width from 12 feet to approximately 11 feet.
• Although it is illegal to park in the bike lane, currently vehicles occasionally park along the edge of the bike lane. The proposed concrete curb would prevent such on-street parking.
• There will be openings in the curb for driveways, mailboxes and drainage, similar to the existing pathway project elements.

The pathway will be constructed on the west side of Glorietta Boulevard and construction and design is estimated to be $330,000.

Staff has prepared the grant application (Attachment A) for a $330,000 project with a pathway on the west side of Glorietta Boulevard. The application includes a project description, cost estimate, map and Resolution No. 64-23. The application requests TDA funding in the amount of $200,000, with the remaining $130,000 covered by Traffic Impact Fees and in-kind services for staff project management.

The MTC allocation for the TDA grant varies annually. MTC has not notified Contra Costa County of the amount of funding available for bicycle and pedestrian projects for fiscal year 2024-2025. Generally, most agencies who are awarded grants receive funding ranging between $25,000 and $150,000 per project. It is possible that an award for less than the request is granted which will require the City to identify additional funding sources in order to proceed with the project. There is currently approximately $180,000 balance remaining in the Transportation Impact Fees (Fund #205) that could be utilized if needed.

Staff has evaluated the subject project with respect to CEQA and recommends that it be found categorically exempt under Section 15301.c “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines.

Final applications are due to the County and TDA Subcommittee on January 25, 2024.

A field review will be conducted by the TDA Subcommittee on February 22, 2024, to evaluate the competing projects in Contra Costa County and recommend zero, partial or full grant funding for submitted projects. The grant funding recommendation is anticipated to be presented at the Mayor’s Conference for approval in April 2024 and County’s Board of Supervisors approval in May 2024. Lastly, the final recommended applications will be forwarded to MTC for allocation approval in June 2024. Historically, MTC does not formally approve the project list and funding allocation until late summer or early fall. If the project is recommended for TDA grant allocation, the project funding will be updated in the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2024-25.

NEXT STEPS:

Staff will file the CEQA Notice of Exemption (Attachment C) with the County Clerk; submission of the filed Notice is required as part of the application process. The F.3
Packet Pg. 32
complete application will be submitted to the County by the anticipated deadline of late January 25, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

It is likely the City will not be awarded the full $200,000 requested for TDA funding, and therefore additional local funding would be needed to supplement the grant funding. For example, if $150,000 is awarded, the City would need to use other funding to make up the difference of $50,000 ($330,000 - $150,000= $180,000) in addition to the $130,000 of non-TDA funding mentioned earlier in this report. One option could be using Transportation Impact Fees (Fund #205). Depending on when approval of the grant occurs the project will be presented as part of an update to the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2024-25, and the proposed funding will be presented as part of the Budget/CIP approval by the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 B. Attachment B-Map-11-2023
C. Attachment C Notice of Exemption CEQA
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Ryan Okane,
Approved by:

F.3
Packet Pg. 33
TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Model Resolution Page 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:

Request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the
allocation of fiscal year 2024-2025
Transportation Development Act
Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle project
funding for the Glorietta Boulevard
Pathway -Phase 2 Project (Overhill
Road to Orinda North City Limits)
)
)
)
) Resolution No. 64-23
)
)
)
)
)
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA Article 3” funding; and WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and WHEREAS, the City of Orinda desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, Staff has evaluated the subject project with respect to CEQA and recommends that it be found categorically exempt under Section 15301.c “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Of Orinda declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code, and furthermore, be it
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2) TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Model Resolution Page 2 RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Orinda to carry out the project; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that the project has been reviewed by the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee which acts as the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) of City of Orinda; and furthermore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Orinda attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case may be, of Contra Costa County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.

RESOLVED, that of the City of Orinda finds the subject project categorically exempt under Section 15301.c “minor alterations of existing facilities (highways & streets)” of the CEQA guidelines and directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on the 5th day of December, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________
Inga Miller, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2)

TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Attachment A Page 1
Resolution No. 64-23
Attachment A
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding Findings

1. That the City Of Orinda is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City Of Orinda legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.

2. That the City Of Orinda has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B.

3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s).

4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested.

5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).

6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).

7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or final design and engineering or quick build project; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic and/or Class IV separated bikeway; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City Of Orinda within the prior five fiscal years.

8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.) or responds to an immediate community need, such as a quick-build project.

9. That any project described in Attachment B bicycle project meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in the California Highway Design Manual or is in a National Association of City and Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidance or similar best practices document.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2)

TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Attachment A Page 2

10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed in the allocated time (fiscal year of allocation plus two additional fiscal years).

11. That the City Of Orinda agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2) TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Attachment B Page 1
Resolution No. 64-23
Attachment B
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form

1. Agency City of Orinda

2. Primary Contact Ryan O’Kane

3. Mailing Address 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563

4. Email Address [email protected] 5. Phone Number 925-253-4282

6. Secondary Contact (in
the event primary is not
available)
Siva Natarajan, City Engineer

7. Mailing address (if
different) N/A☒

8. Email Address [email protected] 9. Phone Number 925-253-4524

10. Send allocation
instructions to (if
different from above):

N/A

11. Project Title North Glorietta Boulevard Pathway Project (Overhill Road to Orinda North City Limits)

12. Amount requested $235,000 13. Fiscal Year of Claim 2024-2025

14. Description of Overall Project:

15. Project Scope Proposed for Funding: (Project level environmental, preliminary planning, and ROW are ineligible uses of TDA funds.)

16. Project Location: A map of the project location is attached or a link to a online map of the project location is provided below:

The project will provide a separated pedestrian pathway on the west side of Glorietta Boulevard from Overhill Road to Orinda North City Limits with an at-grade walkway separated from the vehicle lane and Class III Bikeway by a six inch high asphalt dike/concrete curb. See attached maps and descriptions.

List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, engineering, construction, contingency). Use the table below to show the project budget for the phase being funded or total project. Include prior and proposed future funding of the project. Planning funds may only be used for comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Project level planning is not an eligible use of TDA Article 3.

See Map in Attachment C
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2) TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Attachment B Page 2
Project Relation to Regional Policies (for information only)

17. Is the project in an Equity Priority Community? Yes☐ No☒

18. Is this project in a Priority Development Area or a Transit-Oriented Community? Yes☐ No☒ Project Budget and Schedule
Project Eligibility
A. Has the project been reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee? Yes☒ No☐ If “YES,” identify the date and provide a copy or link to the agenda.

Traffic Safety Advisory Committee Regular Meeting, 9/18/2023 Meeting Minutes: https://tinyurl.com/TSAC-Item-G
If "NO," provide an explanation).

B. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? Yes☒ No☐ If "NO," provide expected date:__________________
C. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? Yes☐ No☒ (If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page)
D. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria Yes☒ No☐ pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? E. 1. Is the project categorically exempt from CEQA, pursuant to CCR Section 15301(c), Yes☒ No☐ Existing Facility?

2. If “NO” above, is the project is exempt from CEQA for another reason? Yes☐ No☐ Cite the basis for the exemption. Categorical Exemption, 15301 Class 1 (c) N/A☒ If the project is not exempt, please check “NO,” and provide environmental documentation, as appropriate.

F. Estimated Completion Date of project (month and year): _June 2025______ Project
Phase
TDA 3 Other Funds Total Cost
Estimated Completion
(month/year)
Bike/Ped
Plan
ENV
PA&ED
PS&E 64,000 64,000 December 2024
ROW
CON 200,000 66,000 266,000 June 2025
Total Cost 200,000 130,000 330,000
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2) TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Attachment B Page 3
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has Yes☒ No☐ the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility, please identify below and provide the agreement.

H. Is a Complete Streets Checklist required for this project? Yes☐ No☒ If the amount requested is over $250,000 or if the total project phase or construction phase is over $250,000, a Complete Streets checklist is likely required. Please attach the Complete Streets checklist or record of review, as applicable. More information and the form may be found here: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/complete-streets F.3.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2) TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Attachment C Page 1
Resolution No. 64-23
Attachment C
Glorietta Boulevard Pathway -Phase 2 Map

EXISTING PATHWAY

PROPOSED PATHWAY
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Resolution 64-23 TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2) TDA Article 3 Claim Applications- Map Attachment C Page 1 Glorietta Boulevard Pathway -Phase 2 Map

EXISTING PATHWAY

PROPOSED PATHWAY

ATTACHMENT B
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Attachment B-Map-11-2023 (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2) Notice of Exemption
To: County Clerk
County of Contra Costa
555 Escobar St.
□ Martinez, CA 94553
From: City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda CA 94563
Project Title: Glorietta Boulevard Pathway -Phase 2 Project, Overhill Road to Orinda North City Limits
Lead Agency & Applicant: City of Orinda
Project Location – Specific: West side of Glorietta Boulevard Pathway from Overhill Road to Orinda North City Limits
Project Location – County: Contra Costa
Project Location – City: Orinda
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:

Mill existing asphalt shoulder on the west side of Moraga Way and re-grade and pave to limit cross slope to 2% (for accessibility requirements) to create pedestrian pathway. Install a sixinch high asphalt dike/concrete curb. Restripe edge line in front of concrete curb and install shared bike lane symbols in both directions of travel.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Orinda Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Department of Public Works and Engineering Services
Exempt Status: Categorical Exemption, 15301 Class 1 (c) Reason Why Project is Exempt:

Section 15301, Class 1, consists of minor alterations of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the determination. Section (c) includes existing streets and bicycle facilities. This project involves minor alteration to existing street facilities, with no expansion in use.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Ryan O’Kane, Senior Engineer Telephone: 925-253-4282
Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _______________ ATTACHMENT C F.3.c
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Attachment C Notice of Exemption CEQA (3253 : TDA Grant Glorietta Pathway Phase 2) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.4
Date: December 5, 2023
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria Parking Lot
RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to Exercise the Available Lease Extensions for 2024 and for each year thereafter until 2028.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Orinda currently leases the park-and-ride lot located on the Santa Maria Church property pursuant to a 1995 lease (Attachment 1). The lot contains 52 parking spots. The existing lease runs to April 19, 2024, with up to four 1-year extensions available to the City, which could take the lease to 2028. The existing lease does not require the City to pay any rent. This rent waiver was given in exchange for specified City maintenance obligations and in recognition of the fact that the City constructed the lot and various related improvements.

In 2016, the City spent approximately $269,000 to install a retaining wall to support a portion of this parking lot that was unstable and moving downhill. The estimated annual maintenance cost, which is the City’s obligation, is $10,000 per year or less. In 2017, the City considered a lease amendment that would have extended the lease and imposed monthly rent, but that did not proceed.

The existing lease extension options have to be exercised 60 days prior to the April 19, 2024, lease end of term, and in each year thereafter.

NEXT STEPS: The City Manager will notify the Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland of the 2024 option exercise. In each subsequent year, the City Manager will exercise the option in a timely manner.

FISCAL IMPACT: None as a result of this action. The budget for each fiscal year includes the funds needed for the annual maintenance costs.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases
Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
F.4
Packet Pg. 44
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

F.4
Packet Pg. 45
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases (3250 : Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria F.4.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases (3250 : Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria F.4.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases (3250 : Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria F.4.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases (3250 : Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria F.4.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases (3250 : Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria F.4.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases (3250 : Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria F.4.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases (3250 : Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria F.4.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Santa Maria Park and Ride Leases (3250 : Exercise the Four 1 (one) Year Lease Extensions Available to the City for Santa Maria City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.5
Date: December 5, 2023
Department: Parks and Recreation
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of 2024 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 2024 “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 and again in 2023; 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 F.5
Packet Pg. 54
with automatic renewals in the future. The Council authorized the City Manager to execute a one-year “Ballfields Lease” with EBMUD most recently on November 15, 2022.

DISCUSSION: The City has continued its use of the Orinda Sports Fields even though all the ballfields at Wilder have been completed, and would like to continue to do so.

The revenue the City typically realizes from field rentals and program income related to OSF exceeds direct 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, 2024.

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 coming year that would likely determine the facility’s future for the next several years; because they feel they are 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 2024 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.

NEXT STEPS: Execute the 2024 “Ballfields Lease” with the East Bay Municipal Utility District.

FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the lease term is $12,200. 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. 2024BallfieldLeaseAgreementDRAFT
B. Exhibit A- Map
F.5
Packet Pg. 55
Respectfully Submitted by:

Todd Trimble
Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Todd Trimble, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by:

F.5
Packet Pg. 56
A18-06.01 1
LEASE

BALLFIELDS
THIS LEASE, made and entered into this _____ day of _________________, 2023 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, 2024 and ending on December 31, 2024.

3. Rent. Rent for the term of the lease shall be $12,200 paid by the Lessee to Lessor before January 1, 2024.

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.5.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: 2024BallfieldLeaseAgreementDRAFT (3244 : 2024 EBMUD Lease for the Orinda Sports 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.5.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: 2024BallfieldLeaseAgreementDRAFT (3244 : 2024 EBMUD Lease for the Orinda Sports 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.5.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: 2024BallfieldLeaseAgreementDRAFT (3244 : 2024 EBMUD Lease for the Orinda Sports 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.5.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: 2024BallfieldLeaseAgreementDRAFT (3244 : 2024 EBMUD Lease for the Orinda Sports 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.5.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: 2024BallfieldLeaseAgreementDRAFT (3244 : 2024 EBMUD Lease for the Orinda Sports 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.5.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: 2024BallfieldLeaseAgreementDRAFT (3244 : 2024 EBMUD Lease for the Orinda Sports Fields) F.5.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Exhibit A- Map (3244 : 2024 EBMUD Lease for the Orinda Sports Fields) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.6
Date: December 5, 2023
Department: Parks and Recreation
AGENDA TITLE: Award Landscape Maintenance Services Contract to MCE Corporation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a 3-year general services contract with MCE Corporation for the provision of landscape maintenance services for City facilities in the amount of $411,000 for the initial year, with each subsequent year's cost adjusted by the consumer price index (CPI), and with options for two 2-year extensions, subject to approval by the City Attorney as to form.

BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Department is assigned responsibility for all landscape maintenance facilities, including all parks and sports fields (including fields on five Orinda Union School District campuses), the Orinda Library, the Community Center, the Wilder Art and Garden Center, City Hall, landscaped areas within the public street right-of-way, and landscaped areas included in the downtown M-11 Assessment District. The Department retains and oversees the services of a qualified landscape service provider to perform most of these activities. These services include tree and shrub care, weeding, leaf and debris removal, lawn care, irrigation maintenance and repair, median island maintenance, trash collection, park and sports field maintenance, and limited janitorial service.

DISCUSSION: In September 2023, staff prepared a Request for Proposal to provide landscape maintenance services to the City of Orinda facilities. The plan was directly sent to six landscape firms in the Bay Area and posted on the City’s website. There were three firms that attended the mandatory Pre-proposal conference on October 6, 2023, and one proposal was received by the October 20, 2023 deadline. The proposal was reviewed for completeness and accepted.

MCE Corporation (MCE) submitted the proposal, and it included the following highlights:
❑ Provides trained personnel utilizing the latest landscaping and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques. All lead workers have a minimum of thirty years’ experience and landscaping staff are all certified landscape and/or irrigation technicians and are in daily contact with their immediate supervisor, thus providing prompt and cost-effective service.
❑ Their exceptional scheduling, supervision, safety, training, and quality assurance systems help ensure strong quality control, while their maintenance management system of detailed information and reports all but guarantees the appropriate output throughout the seasons.

F.6
Packet Pg. 64
❑ MCE utilizes smart phones and tablets for field personnel and has 24/7 contacts and are local for emergencies and unforeseen events.
❑ MCE’s customer service philosophy and project understanding are outstanding with pre-meetings of staff, surveys of the landscaped areas, and responsiveness to specific work plans and schedules to meet the city’s needs. ❑ Extensive experience with municipal settings, including broad experience on sports fields and median care.

MCE has served as Orinda’s landscape contractor since the Fall of 2015 and some of the current workers have been serving our City for all, or most, of those years. Our landscaping needs have evolved significantly since 2015, with the completion of Wilder Park to assuming maintenance responsibility of OUSD fields, traversing uncertain times during the pandemic, and, now, to experiencing record numbers of field users and park renters. MCE management and workers have been extremely flexible and responsive when adjusting to our requests. The continuity of management, supervisors, and, certainly, landscaping crews, has reaped numerous benefits for Orinda, including a familiarity with the community to the extent that they are well equipped to absorb additional duties. MCE adjusted remarkably well to the introduction of the Bigbelly SMART waste and recycle system, ultimately removing waste collection from the list of duties for Public Works staff, both from receptacles in the Theater district as well as with regular roadside collection along Moraga Way and Camino Pablo. MCE has taken on daily restroom cleaning responsibility at Wilder Park and has become, again resulting from continuity of the workers, a big component in our annual fire fuel mitigation and compliance efforts.

Staff are looking forward to a continuing relationship with MCE.

NEXT STEPS: MCE has been conducting business on a month-to-month basis since late 2022, so the next step will be to enter into the new services contract, effective January 1, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2024 budget includes $404,481 for the landscape maintenance services based on the existing agreement and needs. The proposal submitted for schedule A is approximately $411,000. MCE bills the City on a time and materials basis and the contract allows for flexibility in compensation based on possible changes in the provider’s services.

The contract also allows the contractor to request, in writing, an annual percentage adjustment to the pricing rates for all services equal to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay counties.

Respectfully Submitted by:

Todd Trimble
Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Todd Trimble, Director of Parks and Recreation F.6
Packet Pg. 65
Approved by:

F.6
Packet Pg. 66
City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: December 5, 2023
Department: City Council
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Traffic Calming Improvements (Speed Cushions) along Dalewood Drive and Related Actions
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council 1) Approve Traffic Calming Improvements (Speed Cushions) along Dalewood Drive; 2) Approve resubmittal of the Plan Review Application for Traffic Calming Measure Permit Checklist and supporting documents to the Moraga Orinda Fire District (MOFD) for approval; and 3) Authorize City Staff to submit an appeal to the MOFD Board of Directors in the event that MOFD staff rejects the Traffic Calming Measure Permit application.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2009, the City Council adopted the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) guidelines as recommended by the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). This program outlines a process which empowers the City’s residents to develop and implement traffic calming improvements for their neighborhood. The guidelines help educate the public about the philosophy of traffic calming and the regulations the City must follow for compliance with federal, state, and local laws. It provides a step-by-step process on how to initiate a traffic calming request. Upon receipt of an application for traffic calming, staff conducts an evaluation of the request, collects relevant data, and submits these materials to TSAC; TSAC then reviews the request; and City staff and TSAC solicit neighborhood input aimed at forming a Neighborhood Advisory Team (NAT) to build a consensus and draft a proposed plan.

Once a plan has been drafted, staff conducts neighborhood advisory voting/polling of affected property owners. The item is then presented to the TSAC for a recommendation to the City Council.

In April 2019, the TSAC received a traffic calming request to reduce vehicular speeds along Dalewood Drive. The TSAC directed Staff to place the traffic calming request on hold until staff time was available as three requests were currently under review with five additional requests in line.

On July 29, 2020, Staff hosted the 1st Neighborhood Meeting after mailing out meeting notifications to property owners along Dalewood Drive and posting on Nextdoor. The Nextdoor notice was viewable by the residents in the immediate neighborhood. At this meeting, residents were encouraged to describe their concerns and provide input on proposed traffic calming measures. There was some dissension from some residents due to concerns with the placement of cushions directly in front of their property, but the recommendation was to use speed cushions. A NAT was formed to provide input to Staff in preparing a traffic calming plan with speed cushions.

H.1
Packet Pg. 67
Staff prepared a draft traffic calming plan and worked directly with the NAT to confirm the quantity and location of the proposed traffic calming improvements. On December 14, 2020 Staff hosted the 2nd Neighborhood Meeting, which was preceded with another meeting notification to the residents. Staff presented the traffic calming plan to all of the attendees of the meeting and solicited additional feedback. Three locations for proposed speed cushions were identified based on feedback from the NAT.

On March 15, 2021, at a publicly noticed meeting, the TSAC reviewed the proposed traffic calming plan by the NAT and did not have any comments. Since the plan contained speed cushions, which are categorized as a “Level 3” traffic calming measure, the procedure required City staff to poll all property owners within 40 feet of the proposed speed cushion locations and then conduct a neighborhood vote of all fronting property owners along the affected street. The TSAC made a recommendation by unanimous vote to proceed with the polling.

After some minor adjustments, three of the proposed speed cushion locations were approved unanimously by all property owners within the 40 foot requirement. TSAC directed staff to proceed with the speed cushions at the three identified locations (Attachment A).

The location of the speed cushions is on a two-way road with a wide shoulder, so four speed cushion modules will be needed at each of the three locations totaling 12 modules.

In June 2021, Staff mailed out ballots for the Level 3 Neighborhood Voting Process to all fronting property owners along Dalewood Drive. The advisory vote for the speed cushion installation had 80% of property owners returning ballots (50% minimum required); of those respondents, 81% approved the placement of the speed cushions (60% minimum required).

On August 16, 2021, at a publicly noticed meeting, TSAC was informed of the polling results, again reviewed the proposed plan, and unanimously recommended the installation of the proposed speed cushions, with an estimated cost of $16,000, for the City Council's approval.

The City has thus far complied with its own procedures, as set forth by the NTMP, for developing and implementing traffic calming measures.

DISCUSSION:

First MOFD Review
City Staff requested that Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) review the proposed speed cushion locations on Dalewood Drive. In response to City Staff’s request, MOFD provided comments on September 20, 2021. City Staff was informed by the MOFD Fire Chief that the District does not recommend installing traffic calming improvements that would increase response times from emergency vehicles. Prior studies have shown a slight delay (approximately 1+ second) in emergency vehicle response time when H.1
Packet Pg. 68
travelling over speed cushions of the type proposed here. The speed cushions used in Orinda are approximately six feet wide and three inches in height. Fire engine vehicles have a wide wheelbase that can span over the top of the speed cushion without having a wheel rolling over the top of the cushion. However, other emergency vehicles such as ambulances or police patrol cars do not have a wide enough wheelbase and must slow down and traverse the speed cushion.

The Fire Chief suggested that the speed cushions be spaced out longitudinally along the roadway such that emergency vehicles could “snake” between them. City staff did not recommend this type of cushion alignment since it would not stop the general public’s vehicles illegally doing the same avoidance tactic, leaving the traffic calming improvement being less effective and creating a potential safety issue.

At its meeting on February 1, 2022, the City Council discussed the TSAC’s recommendation to appeal what it understood to be MOFD’s staff rejection of Dalewood Drive speed cushions without a 20 foot offset. Fire Chief David Winnacker stated at the February 1, 2022 meeting that additional information was needed in accordance with the NTMP, so MOFD staff felt they could not move forward with reviewing the request since Dalewood Drive is the sole evacuation route from an area adjacent to a high fire hazard severity zone. Fire Chief Winnacker did not say that the speed cushions may not be warranted, but rather that it was premature to take a position on it. City Staff noted that the Dalewood speed cushion study and NTMP process had been performed in the usual manner and, as in the past, staff had not prepared a formal document to share with other agencies (including the District). According to the criteria, the policy states the Orinda Police Department and MOFD will be advised of the specific proposal and offered the opportunity to comment.

The City reviews traffic calming measures for compliance with its own policy and MOFD is reviewing based on compliance with the California Building and Fire Codes.

If the request is rejected by MOFD staff, the City can appeal to the MOFD Board of Directors, which serves as the MOFD Board of Appeals. At the conclusion of the February 1, 2022 meeting, City Council agreed that a traffic study was not required and recommended staff update the Prerequisites for Speed Cushions (which was updated and approved by City Council on April 19, 2022). No direction was given to staff to appeal at this meeting. The February 1, 2022 Minutes are included in attachment B “Prior Discussions”, along with other Council Agendas and TSAC meetings that discuss Dalewood Drive speed cushions.

Second MOFD Review
City Staff resubmitted the Dalewood Speed Cushion package to MOFD on February 10, 2022. On March 11, 2022, a response was provided from MOFD that did not approve the “request for a permit to obstruct a fire apparatus access road.” Three reasons were provided for the response including:

1. Documented speed is three mph below the City’s NTMP speed cushion prerequisite threshold.

H.1
Packet Pg. 69

2. There are no documented attempts to address the issue through education or enforcement.

3. Emergency response times to the area in question exceed benchmark, average, and LEMSA (Local EMS Agency) mandates.

On March 25, 2022, City staff submitted additional information showing that the speed threshold for Orinda's NTMP was met.

On March 25, 2022, MOFD acknowledged that the speed thresholds had been met but stated that enforcement documentation was lacking and did not want to move forward with an engineering solution before having exhausted education and enforcement options.

A Zoom meeting was held on April 21, 2022 with City Manager David Biggs, Fire Chief David Winnacker, Police Chief Ryan Sullivan, and Acting Public Works Director Scott Christie to discuss traffic calming measures, including speed cushions, and also the concept of raised crosswalks and intersection speed tables. MOFD staff did not support the City’s request for speed cushions on Dalewood.

Third MOFD Review (Current Submittal)
This staff report is being provided in support of a proposed resubmittal to MOFD. This resubmittal would document speeding in the area with recent data from two recent deployments of the Orinda Police Department’s radar speed feedback sign as well as describe the City’s education and enforcement efforts. Please see the Prerequisites for Speed Cushions, amended April 2022, in the current NTMP.

TSAC reviewed the current proposed submittal (Attachments A & C) at their November 27, 2023 regular meeting, and unanimously recommended it be presented for City Council approval and submittal to MOFD. Therefore, City staff requests the City Council to consider the recommendation of the TSAC, the information described in the report, as well as any public testimony. If the Council approves the speed cushions along Dalewood Drive as recommended by the TSAC, staff would resubmit the Traffic Calming Measure Permit Checklist and supporting documents to MOFD for approval.

Fire Code section 503.4 provides that “Fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner.” Moreover, section 503.4.1 states that “traffic calming devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official.” At this point, it is unknown whether MOFD will reject the proposed speed cushions and on what grounds.

Based on MOFD’s prior feedback, however, such denial could be based on MOFD staff’s opinion that speed cushions should only be installed if they are offset. MOFD staff may also feel speed cushions would unreasonably impede certain emergency vehicles even though Dalewood Drive would not be entirely unobstructed/blocked.

In the event that MOFD rejects the application and does not approve the speed cushions, City Council could consider submitting a request for appeal to the MOFD Board of Directors. Staff is requesting the City Council authorize the City Manager to submit the request for an appeal with the MOFD Board.

H.1
Packet Pg. 70
Under the Fire Code, an appeal must be “based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equivalent or better form of construction is proposed.” In other words, on appeal, the City would need to establish that (1) the fire code official has incorrectly interpreted the Fire Code or applicable rules, (2) the Fire Code does not apply, or (3) the proposed measure is an equal or better form of construction to the fire code official’s position.

The City’s argument on appeal to the MOFD Board would depend on the ultimate ground(s) for any denial by MOFD staff. The appeal might, for example, focus on the overall safety benefit of the proposed speed cushions, the limited delay experienced by emergency vehicles, and why offsetting the speed cushions (as suggested by MOFD staff) is not a workable solution.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon City Council approval, City Staff will resubmit the Traffic Calming Measure Permit Checklist and supporting documents to MOFD for approval (Attachment C). If the application is approved by MOFD, staff will purchase the materials and install the traffic calming measures on Dalewood Drive in approximately two to three months.

If the resubmittal package is rejected by MOFD staff, City staff will submit the request for appeal to the MOFD Board of Directors within 10 days from notice of rejection.

FISCAL IMPACT:

City staff does not anticipate any fees for submitting to MOFD or appealing to the MOFD Board. If MOFD staff approves the installation of the speed cushions, the proposed cushions, signing and striping improvements are estimated to cost $12,000.

The cost of these improvements will be expensed from CIP Project #4107 – Traffic Calming Improvements Program.

The total appropriation in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 for Project #4107 is $30,000, from Gas Tax (Fund #200). Expenditures of approximately $15,500 have been made to date toward other traffic calming related tasks and after the installation of the Dalewood Drive traffic calming improvements $2,500 will remain for the current fiscal year.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. ATTACHMENT A Dalewood Drive Traffic Calming Plan
B. ATTACHMENT B Prior Discussions of Dalewood Traffic Calming Request C. ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
H.1
Packet Pg. 71
Prepared By: Ryan Okane,
Approved by:

H.1
Packet Pg. 72
Proposed Speed
Cushion Location
Proposed Speed Cushion Warning
Sign location
• 540 and 539 Dalewood Drive • 460 and 457 Dalewood Drive • 395 and 392 Dalewood Drive H.1.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: ATTACHMENT A Dalewood Drive Traffic Calming Plan (3245 : MOFD Attachment C
MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Traffic Calming Improvements (Speed Cushions) along Dalewood Drive Table of Contents
Dalewood MOFD Transmittal 2023-12-06

1.0 2023 MOFD Application for Plan Review

2.0 MOFD Traffic Calming Measure Permit Checklist

2.1 NTMP Prerequisites for Speed Cushions

2.2 Dalewood Drive Speed Cushion Location Map

2.3 2022-08 Dalewood WB Traffic Data

2.4 2022-11 Dalewood EB Traffic Data

3.0 Prior MOFD Submittals with Supporting Documents and Responses

3.1 City of Orinda Plan Submittal to MOFD 2021-01-29

3.2 MOFD comments on September 20, 2021

3.3 Dalewood Drive Speed Cushion Prereq Traffic Analysis Memo 2022-02-10

3.4 MOFD Fire Apparatus Access Road Obstruction Permit Response 2022-03-11

3.5 Additional Dalewood Drive Data Email 2022-03-25

3.6 Winnacker Email Response 2022-03-25
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on

TRANSMITTAL
PUBLIC WORKS & Engineering Services
To: David Winnacker, Fire Chief, Moraga Orinda Fire District From: T. Ryan O’Kane, Senior Engineer, Public Works and Engineering Date: December 6, 2023
Re: Dalewood Drive Speed Cushion Traffic Calming Measure Resubmittal Dear Fire Chief Winnacker,
This package is a resubmittal of the request for speed cushions at 3 locations on Dalewood Drive. The Prerequisites for Speed Cushions from the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) have been addressed and data from two recent deployments of the Orinda Police Department’s radar speed feedback sign providing traffic volumes, 85th percentile, and education and enforcement efforts are provided in this package.

City Council and Staff is requesting MOFD review and approval of the 3 speed cushions on Dalewood Drive near the following locations (also shown in the attached location map):

Location 1: 540, 539 Dalewood Drive
Location 2: 460 and 457 Dalewood Drive
Location 3: 395 and 392 Dalewood Drive
City staff also requests recent emergency response times to be provided by MOFD to determine if response times have changed.

We look forward to working with you on this traffic calming request.

Sincerely,
T. Ryan O’Kane
Senior Engineer, City of Orinda
Attachments:

1.0 2023 MOFD Application for Plan Review

2.0 MOFD Traffic Calming Measure Permit Checklist

2.1 NTMP Prerequisites for Speed Cushions

2.2 Dalewood Drive Speed Cushion Location Map

2.3 2022-08 Dalewood WB Traffic Data

2.4 2022-11 Dalewood EB Traffic Data

3.0 – Prior MOFD Submittals with Supporting Documents and Responses

3.1 City of Orinda Plan Submittal to MOFD 2021-01-29

3.2 MOFD comments on September 20, 2021

3.3 Dalewood Drive Speed Cushion Prereq Traffic Analysis Memo 2022-02-10

3.4 MOFD Fire Apparatus Access Road Obstruction Permit Response 2022-03-11

3.5 Additional Dalewood Drive Data Email 2022-03-25

3.6 Winnacker Email Response 2022-03-25
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on □ □ □
I I
Moraga-Orinda Fire District
Office of the Fire Marshal

PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION
EFFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 2023

ALL FIELDS MUST BE COMPLETED TO BE FILLED OUT BY MOFD
MOFD CASE/PERMIT #
This sheet is promulgated pursuant to the California Fire Code (CFC) as adopted by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District. The Moraga-Orinda Fire District by ordinance requires a fire district plan review be conducted during the planning application process and prior to start of construction. Please complete this application (all fields MUST be completed) and submit with plans and specifications or project information.

Project/Residence Name APN # (Required)
Project Address City Zip
Occupancy Class Square Footage Fire Sprinklers (For Sprinkler Permit Only) YES NO
Fire Alarm (For Fire Alarm Permit Only)
YES NO

SUBMITTED BY
Applicant Name Business Name
Applicant Phone Number Applicant Mobile Number Applicant Fax Number Business Address City Zip
Applicant E-mail Address Contractor License # License Exp. Date

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ENTER A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

FOR ALL SPRINKLER AND FIRE ALARM SUBMITTALS

NUMBER OF NEW/MODIFIED SPRINKLER HEADS NUMBER OF NEW/MODIFIED ALARM DEVICES Type of Plan Review
 New Construction Preliminary Planning Review and Site Access Review  Fire Protection Systems (Commercial) - Tenant improvement (2 inspections)

Building Construction (Residential and Commercial) – NEW Building or Addition (Residential 1 inspection, Commercial 2 inspections)
 Fire Protection Miscellaneous
 Building Construction (Commercial) – Tenant Improvement (1 inspection)  Tanks/Piping
 Fire Alarm System (1 inspection)  Special Hazard – Hazardous Materials  Fire Protection Systems (Residential) - New/Modify
(2 inspections)  Miscellaneous – Plan Resubmittal and As-Built Plans  Fire Protection Systems (Commercial) - NEW
(2 inspections)  Residential Remodel/Addition
 Other
NOTE: Fees are due upon submittal of the Plan Review application. Projects with outstanding fees are subject to a “Hard Hold” by the building department having jurisdiction, meaning all inspections and/or tests will not be conducted until such time plan review fees have been paid. Plan review fees outstanding may be subject to a late fee. Plan review fees 180 days past due shall void the Fire District’s review of the submitted set of plans and necessitate a new submittal. Once reviewed, a set of plans is valid for 180 days from date of review. For building permits the applicant is referred to the building department having jurisdiction.

Signature of Owner/Applicant: Date: ___________________________________ Moraga-Orinda Fire District | 1280 Moraga Way | Moraga, California 94556 | 925.258.4599| www.mofd.org H.1.c
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on H.1.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on

PUBLIC WORKS & Engineering Services
To: David Winnacker, Fire Chief, Moraga Orinda Fire District From: Ryan O’Kane, Senior Engineer, Public Works and Engineering Reviewed by: Siva Natarajan, City Engineer
Date: December 5, 2023
Re: Dalewood Drive: NTMP Prerequisites for Speed Cushions Overview:

The City received a Traffic Calming Request dated April 24, 2019 requesting speed cushions on Dalewood Drive. The Dalewood request met the speed cushion prerequisites described in the NTMP.

City Staff and the Neighborhood Advisory Team (NAT) completed the steps in the Council Approved process necessary for the final Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) review and recommendation to City Council. This document provides background and summarizes the traffic analysis for the Prerequisites for Speed Cushions from the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP).

Background:

After the traffic calming request was received and evaluated by City Staff, petitioners from the Dalewood neighborhood attended a TSAC meeting to discuss Level 1, 2, and 3 traffic calming options.

At the November 18, 2019 TSAC meeting, committee members recommended Level 3 measures may be appropriate and that City Staff should move forward with scheduling the first neighborhood meeting.

In July 2020, Staff hosted the 1st Neighborhood Meeting and formation of the NAT after mailing out meeting notifications to property owners along Dalewood Drive. A plan was developed for 3-4 speed cushions.

Staff prepared a draft traffic calming plan and worked directly with the NAT to confirm the quantity and location of the proposed traffic calming improvements. On December 14, 2020 Staff hosted the 2nd Neighborhood Meeting, which was preceded with another meeting notification to the residents. Staff presented the traffic calming plan to all of the attendees of the meeting and solicited additional feedback.

Three locations for proposed speed cushions were decided based on feedback from the NAT.

On March 15, 2021, the TSAC reviewed the proposed traffic calming plan proposed by the NAT and did not have any comments. Since the plan contained speed cushions, the City would need to poll all property owners within 40 feet of the proposed speed cushion locations and then conduct a Level 3 neighborhood vote of all fronting property owners along the affected street. The TSAC made a recommendation by unanimous vote to proceed with the polling.

After some minor adjustments, houses within 40-feet of the proposed speed cushions were sent a ballot on May 17, 2021. Eight houses received the ballot and 100% of the property owners within 40-feet of the speed cushions voted “yes” for the speed cushions.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on

After the completion of the 40-foot vote, the neighborhood ballot letter was mailed on June 4, 2021 to 65 houses in the Dalewood Drive neighborhood to complete the Neighborhood Advisory Vote for Level 3 measures. As stated in the NTMP, 50% of households on the affected street must respond to the Advisory Vote and 60% of responding households must be in favor. The results included responses from 52 houses with 42 “yes” votes received and 10 “no” votes. 80% of the households responded and 81% of the responses received were in favor of the speed cushions.

City staff presented the vote tally to the TSAC at the August 16, 2021 meeting. TSAC recommended the Dalewood speed cushions be presented to City Council for approval. In preparation of the City Council approval (final step), Staff requested that Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) review the proposed speed cushion locations on Dalewood Drive. In response to City Staff’s request, MOFD provided comments on September 20, 2021. MOFD requested a resubmittal to include:

1. An itemized response letter;

2. Revised electronic plans with all the revisions clouded; and a new permit application.

3. MOFD also requested revising the installation by offsetting the cushions at each location by at least 20-feet.

City Staff resubmitted the Dalewood Speed Cushion package to MOFD on February 10, 2022. Orinda Public Works and Engineering did not want to offset the speed cushions due to the possibility of vehicles crossing the centerline to weave between the speed cushions but did address the other requests in the resubmittal. On March 11, 2022, a response was provided from MOFD that did not approve the “request for a permit to obstruct a fire apparatus access road.” Three reasons were provided for the response including:

1. Documented speed is three mph below the NTMP speed cushion prerequisite threshold.

2. There are no documented attempts to address the issue through education or enforcement.

3. Emergency response times to the area in question exceed benchmark, average, and LEMSA mandates.

On March 25, 2022, staff submitted additional information showing that the speed threshold for Orinda's Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) was met. In an email later the same day, MOFD acknowledged that the speed thresholds had been met but stated that enforcement documentation was lacking and did not want to move forward with an engineering solution before having exhausted education and enforcement options.

A Zoom meeting was held on April 21, 2022 with City Manager David Biggs, Fire Chief David Winnacker, Police Chief Ryan Sullivan, and Senior Engineer Scott Christie to discuss traffic calming measures, including speed cushions, and also the concept of raised crosswalks and intersection speed tables. MOFD reiterated the rejection of the request for speed cushions on Dalewood Drive.

This resubmittal to MOFD addresses the documented speed with recent data from two recent deployments of the Orinda Police Department’s radar speed feedback sign as well as providing education and enforcement efforts. Please see the Prerequisites for Speed Cushions amended April 2022 in the current NTMP on the following pages.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on

Prerequisites for Speed Cushions (NTMP, Amended April 2022)

1. Speed cushions are generally not appropriate in the subject area unless one or more of the following conditions are met:
• Traffic speeds at the 85th percentile exceeding the posted limit by more than 5 miles per hour;
85th percentile data collected November 10, 2022: 33 mph. This criteria is met. • One or more accidents in three years attributed to excess speed; No traffic related accidents occurred in past three years. This criteria is not met. • A high presence of pedestrians, children, or bicycles are documented by a traffic volume count or by staff.

Based on staff observations and comment from residents, Dalewood has a significant amount of pedestrian use. This criteria is met.

2. Prior to the first staff conducted neighborhood meeting for the speed cushion request, City staff shall conduct an analysis, including a field review, to ascertain the nature of the problem and evaluate site conditions.

Between April 24, 2019 when the traffic calming request was made to the first neighborhood meeting was held on July 17, 2020, City Staff conducted an assessment of the traffic calming measures consistent with the NTMP policies as the City has defined them, to analyze the request from the Dalewood community to reduce vehicular speeds along Dalewood Drive.

Engineering studies by outside consultants were performed for a few of the previous speed cushion requests elsewhere in the City, at an estimated cost of $3,000 to $5,000 each, and found that speed cushions were acceptable. Public Works and Engineering decided that it was not necessary to expend the limited traffic calming program budget on such engineering studies going forward, and city staff has been able to perform necessary reviews, study the problem and propose solutions. The engineering studies did not address emergency vehicle delay. This is consistent with the Program guide as noted in Step 5 on page 5: “Depending on the complexity of the problem, traffic studies by a professional transportation or traffic engineer may also be needed.” Calming traffic using speed cushions on a residential road is not a complex engineering issue. This criteria is met.

3. Speed cushions will not be considered on arterial streets.

Dalwood Drive is designated as a Local Street.

4. Speed cushions are generally not suitable for collector streets, but may be considered for collector streets if all the following criteria are satisfied:
• Total traffic volume is less than 3000 vehicles per day; • Grade is less than 8% at the location of the proposed speed cushion; • Posted or prima facie speed limit is 25 mph or less;
• Street curvature is no less than 250 foot radius and sight distance is adequate for the prevailing speed prior to speed cushion installation;
• Any drainage impact can be adequately addressed and mitigated; • The Orinda Police Department and Moraga Orinda Fire District have been advised of the specific proposal and offered the opportunity to comment.

Dalwood Drive is designated as a Local Street.

5. Speed cushions will be considered on residential streets only where all the following conditions are met:
• Total traffic volume is less than 3000 vehicles per day; Dalewood Drive meets this criteria with an average of 975 vehicles per day.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on

• Grade is less than 8% at the location of the proposed speed cushion; Dalewood Drive meets this criteria with roadway slopes of approximately 3% to 6%. • Posted or prima facie speed limit is 25 mph or less;
Dalewood Drive meets this criteria with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. • Street curvature is no less than 250 foot radius and sight distance is adequate for the prevailing speed prior to speed cushion installation;
Dalewood Drive meets this criteria. The speed cushions are proposed on straight sections of the roadway. Site distance is adequate.
• Any drainage impact can be adequately addressed and mitigated; Dalewood Drive meets this criteria. Speed cushions are 6-feet wide by 6-feet in length and are not placed within the gutter flowline where drainage is conveyed. • The Orinda Police Department and Moraga Orinda Fire District have been advised of the specific proposal and offered the opportunity to comment.

Dalewood Drive has met this criteria with this second resubmittal to MOFD for review. In April of 2021, the Police Chief was advised and offered no comment.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Proposed Speed
Cushion Location
Proposed Speed Cushion Warning
Sign location
• 540 and 539 Dalewood Drive • 460 and 457 Dalewood Drive • 395 and 392 Dalewood Drive H.1.c
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents Enforcement Priorities Report
End: 2022-08-29
Times: 0:00-23:59
Start: 2022-08-23
Rank Results By: 85% Speed
Speed Range: 1 to 150
Violation Threshold: Speed Limit +10
Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB
# Site Day of
Week Time SpeedLimit
Average
Speed
Average
Violator
Speed
85%
Speed
Average #
Vehicles
Average #
Violators
1 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Thu 19:00 -
20:00 25 25.0 39.0 32.0 60 2
2 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Fri 21:00 -
22:00 25 26.0 44.0 32.0 33 3
3 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Fri 22:00 -
23:00 25 23.0 51.0 32.0 31 1
4 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sat 19:00 -
20:00 25 25.0 36.0 32.0 49 1
5 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sat 17:00 -
18:00 25 25.2 39.5 31.2 105 2
6 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sun 19:00 -
20:00 25 25.0 36.0 31.0 42 3
7 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sun 17:00 -
18:00 25 24.0 39.7 31.0 102 6
8 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sun 10:00 -
11:00 25 25.0 36.0 31.0 56 1
9 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sun 14:00 -
15:00 25 24.7 n/a 31.0 68 0
10 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Tue 6:00 -
7:00 25 24.0 n/a 31.0 25 0
11 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Wed 15:00 -
16:00 25 23.0 36.0 31.0 81 2
12 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Wed 16:00 -
17:00 25 24.0 37.0 31.0 80 3
13 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Wed 18:00 -
19:00 25 25.0 38.0 31.0 57 2
14 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Wed 20:00 -
21:00 25 26.0 n/a 31.0 22 0
15 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Thu 16:00 -
17:00 25 25.0 36.8 31.0 147 6
16 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Thu 17:00 -
18:00 25 24.0 37.0 31.0 168 3
17 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Thu 18:00 -
19:00 25 24.0 40.5 31.0 114 4
18 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Fri 19:00 -
20:00 25 24.0 42.5 31.0 62 2
19 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sat 12:00 -
13:00 25 23.0 38.0 31.0 98 4
20 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sat 11:00 -
12:00 25 24.1 37.0 30.3 76 2
21 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Mon 7:00 -
8:00 25 23.0 36.0 30.0 83 2
22 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sun 13:00 -
14:00 25 23.0 36.0 30.0 103 5
23 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Sun 11:00 -
12:00 25 23.0 36.0 30.0 105 1
24 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Wed 9:00 -
10:00 25 23.0 n/a 30.0 67 0
25 Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB Wed 12:00 -
13:00 25 22.4 36.0 30.0 76 1
Generated by Ryan Sullivan on 06-08-2023
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Speed Effectiveness Report
Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB
End: 2022-08-29
Times: 0:00-23:59
Start: 2022-08-23
Time View: By Hour (Avg Volumes)
Speed Range: 1 to 150
Medium Risk Threshold: Speed Limit + 10
High Risk Threshold: Speed Limit + 20
Time Speed
Limit
Sign
Mode
Compliant
Avg
Final
Speed
Compliant
Change
in
Speed
Low
Risk
Avg Final
Speed
Low
Risk
Change
in Speed
Medium
Risk Avg
Final
Speed
Medium
Risk
Change
in Speed
High
Risk
Avg Final
Speed
High
Risk
Change
in Speed
% of
Vehicles
Slowed
0:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.3 0.5 28.8 0.6 43.0 0.0 n/a n/a 18.5%
1:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 21.1 -0.2 30.6 -0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 17.5% 2:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 10.3 0.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 50.0 3.0 0.0%
3:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 15.8 -0.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 33.3%
4:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 19.9 -0.4 28.0 1.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 25.0%
5:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 17.1 0.3 27.9 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 40.1%
6:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 17.3 -0.1 29.4 0.6 37.7 -1.0 n/a n/a 27.1% 7:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 19.3 0.2 28.9 0.7 36.6 0.6 46.0 1.0 24.8% 8:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 19.0 0.5 28.6 1.3 37.5 0.3 n/a n/a 19.7%
9:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 19.2 0.5 29.0 1.5 37.5 0.8 n/a n/a 18.8%
10:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.5 0.2 29.1 1.1 39.0 0.6 n/a n/a 22.9%
11:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.4 0.4 29.3 1.5 36.5 1.8 n/a n/a 21.1%
12:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.3 0.1 29.1 1.4 37.9 2.5 n/a n/a 18.3%
13:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.2 0.5 28.8 1.1 36.0 1.2 n/a n/a 18.7%
14:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.6 0.5 29.3 1.4 37.0 2.0 n/a n/a 16.6%
15:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.6 0.6 28.7 1.2 36.4 4.2 n/a n/a 18.8%
16:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.8 0.2 29.1 0.8 36.7 3.0 n/a n/a 20.1%
17:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 19.5 0.4 29.5 0.7 38.3 0.8 46.0 0.0 19.8% 18:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 19.6 0.2 29.1 0.6 37.0 2.0 51.0 5.0 22.4% 19:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 19.7 0.4 29.2 0.5 37.3 2.1 47.0 2.0 23.7% 20:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 20.9 -0.2 28.9 0.8 38.0 2.7 n/a n/a 25.9% Generated by Ryan Sullivan on 06-08-2023
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Speed Effectiveness Report
Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB
End: 2022-08-29
Times: 0:00-23:59
Start: 2022-08-23
Time View: By Hour (Avg Volumes)
Speed Range: 1 to 150
Medium Risk Threshold: Speed Limit + 10
High Risk Threshold: Speed Limit + 20
Time Speed
Limit
Sign
Mode
Compliant
Avg
Final
Speed
Compliant
Change
in
Speed
Low
Risk
Avg Final
Speed
Low
Risk
Change
in Speed
Medium
Risk Avg
Final
Speed
Medium
Risk
Change
in Speed
High
Risk
Avg Final
Speed
High
Risk
Change
in Speed
% of
Vehicles
Slowed
21:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 20.2 0.2 29.3 0.4 39.3 -0.3 51.0 1.0 23.1% 22:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 18.8 0.4 29.6 0.7 38.0 1.8 58.7 -0.3 22.8% 23:00 25
Display Off,
Speed Display 20.1 -0.5 29.1 0.0 36.0 5.0 n/a n/a 30.4% Generated by Ryan Sullivan on 06-08-2023
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Volume by Time
Dalewood/Amber Valley, WB
End: 2022-08-29Times: 0:00-23:59Start: 2022-08-23
Time View: By Day (Total Volumes)
Speed Bins: Size 10, Range 1 to 150
Date 00: 00 01: 00 02: 00 03: 00 04: 00 05: 00 06: 00 07: 00 08: 00 09: 00 10: 00 11: 00 12: 00 13: 00 14: 00 15: 00 16: 00 17: 00 18: 00 19: 00 20: 00 21: 00 22: 00 23: 00 Total 08-23 0 0 0 1 2 3 25 85 69 61 69 71 88 68 62 87 85 80 55 50 35 18 8 4 102608-24 3 0 0 5 2 9 18 74 76 67 80 87 76 77 52 81 80 67 57 45 22 13 10 0 100108-25 0 0 0 2 2 5 37 75 67 66 47 57 63 50 96 127 147 168 114 60 50 14 13 6 126608-26 11 4 2 0 4 8 24 93 128 95 98 88 103 121 132 119 116 150 174 62 40 33 31 19 165508-27 2 6 3 0 0 6 11 26 48 103 101 76 98 97 102 128 101 105 63 49 25 26 16 21 121308-28 5 4 2 0 2 4 8 18 43 65 56 105 97 103 68 93 89 102 65 42 29 17 10 6 103308-29 6 3 0 4 0 5 29 83 81 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 218 Total 27 17 7 12 12 40 152 454 512 464 451 484 525 516 512 635 618 672 528 308 201 121 88 56 7412 Generated by Ryan Sullivan on 06-08-2023
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Enforcement Priorities Report
End: 2022-11-17
Times: 0:00-23:59
Start: 2022-11-10
Rank Results By: 85% Speed
Speed Range: 1 to 150
Violation Threshold: Speed Limit +10
Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB
# Site Day of
Week Time SpeedLimit
Average
Speed
Average
Violator
Speed
85%
Speed
Average #
Vehicles
Average #
Violators
1 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Sat 17:00 -
18:00 25 25.0 39.3 33.0 39 3
2 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Mon 20:00 -
21:00 25 28.1 39.5 32.3 24 2
3 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Mon 19:00 -
20:00 25 26.0 n/a 31.0 28 0
4 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Mon 15:00 -
16:00 25 26.0 45.5 31.0 82 2
5 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Tue 12:00 -
13:00 25 24.0 38.0 31.0 74 3
6 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Tue 15:00 -
16:00 25 26.0 37.0 31.0 69 1
7 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Wed 7:00 -
8:00 25 26.0 37.0 31.0 42 2
8 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Thu 12:00 -
13:00 25 26.0 37.0 31.0 146 2
9 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Thu 16:00 -
17:00 25 26.0 38.0 31.0 224 5
10 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Sat 11:00 -
12:00 25 26.0 n/a 31.0 38 0
11 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Sat 13:00 -
14:00 25 26.0 39.5 31.0 56 2
12 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Tue 8:00 -
9:00 25 25.6 36.0 30.6 62 3
13 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Fri 13:00 -
14:00 25 25.0 n/a 30.5 55 0
14 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Thu 11:00 -
12:00 25 26.5 n/a 30.5 160 0
15 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Mon 6:00 -
7:00 25 25.0 n/a 30.0 20 0
16 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Sun 10:00 -
11:00 25 25.0 n/a 30.0 36 0
17 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Sun 15:00 -
16:00 25 24.0 n/a 30.0 45 0
18 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Wed 12:00 -
13:00 25 26.0 n/a 30.0 65 0
19 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Thu 7:00 -
8:00 25 25.0 37.0 30.0 50 2
20 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Thu 10:00 -
11:00 25 25.0 n/a 30.0 151 0
21 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Thu 13:00 -
14:00 25 26.0 37.0 30.0 197 5
22 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Thu 15:00 -
16:00 25 26.0 37.0 30.0 215 4
23 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Fri 6:00 -
7:00 25 26.0 36.0 30.0 37 1
24 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Fri 18:00 -
19:00 25 28.0 41.7 30.0 24 3
25 Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB Sat 8:00 -
9:00 25 27.0 39.0 30.0 26 2
Generated by Ryan Sullivan on 06-08-2023
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Speed Effectiveness Report
Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB
End: 2022-11-17
Times: 0:00-23:59
Start: 2022-11-10
Time View: By Hour (Avg Volumes)
Speed Range: 1 to 150
Medium Risk Threshold: Speed Limit + 10
High Risk Threshold: Speed Limit + 20
Time Speed
Limit
Sign
Mode
Compliant
Avg
Final
Speed
Compliant
Change
in
Speed
Low
Risk
Avg Final
Speed
Low
Risk
Change
in Speed
Medium
Risk Avg
Final
Speed
Medium
Risk
Change
in Speed
High
Risk
Avg Final
Speed
High
Risk
Change
in Speed
% of
Vehicles
Slowed
0:00 25 Speed Display 24.0 -1.0 29.3 0.7 n/a n/a 52.0 -2.0 40.0% 1:00 25 Speed Display 15.4 -1.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40.0% 2:00 25 Speed Display 24.0 2.0 29.0 -2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 50.0% 3:00 25 Speed Display 16.0 0.5 28.0 -2.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a 40.2% 4:00 25 Speed Display 17.6 1.2 26.7 -1.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 44.4% 5:00 25 Speed Display 17.8 -2.6 27.8 -1.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 59.5% 6:00 25 Speed Display 22.0 -1.6 28.6 -0.1 36.0 0.0 n/a n/a 47.1% 7:00 25 Speed Display 20.3 -0.6 28.4 0.1 38.1 1.6 n/a n/a 37.9% 8:00 25 Speed Display 20.7 -0.6 28.4 0.2 37.6 0.6 n/a n/a 45.5% 9:00 25 Speed Display 19.1 -0.8 28.2 -0.1 36.0 -0.5 n/a n/a 43.7% 10:00 25 Speed Display 20.4 -0.9 28.2 -0.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 49.3% 11:00 25 Speed Display 20.9 -1.0 28.6 -0.4 38.0 0.5 n/a n/a 50.9% 12:00 25 Speed Display 20.3 -1.4 28.7 -0.6 37.7 -0.2 n/a n/a 51.9% 13:00 25 Speed Display 20.0 -1.2 28.7 -0.6 37.5 0.5 n/a n/a 50.1% 14:00 25 Speed Display 20.7 -1.2 28.4 -0.6 36.9 -1.1 n/a n/a 55.3% 15:00 25 Speed Display 21.1 -1.3 28.7 -1.1 37.8 0.4 47.0 -1.0 59.0% 16:00 25 Speed Display 21.4 -1.4 28.6 -0.5 38.4 0.0 n/a n/a 55.7% 17:00 25 Speed Display 20.7 -1.3 28.6 -0.6 38.3 -0.7 n/a n/a 53.2% 18:00 25 Speed Display 20.0 -1.7 28.6 -0.4 37.8 -0.4 49.0 -3.0 54.8% 19:00 25 Speed Display 21.3 -2.1 28.9 -1.1 36.0 -2.0 n/a n/a 59.3% 20:00 25 Speed Display 19.8 -1.8 28.8 -0.4 39.7 -0.3 n/a n/a 50.8% 21:00 25 Speed Display 21.2 -1.6 29.2 -1.4 38.5 0.0 n/a n/a 55.9% 22:00 25 Speed Display 21.6 -2.7 29.0 -1.0 41.0 1.0 n/a n/a 72.5% 23:00 25 Speed Display 19.5 -2.2 28.5 -3.3 37.2 0.4 51.0 1.0 51.8% Generated by Ryan Sullivan on 06-08-2023
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Volume by Time
Dalewood/Amber Valley, EB
End: 2022-11-17Times: 0:00-23:59Start: 2022-11-10
Time View: By Day (Total Volumes)
Speed Bins: Size 10, Range 1 to 150
Date 00: 00 01: 00 02: 00 03: 00 04: 00 05: 00 06: 00 07: 00 08: 00 09: 00 10: 00 11: 00 12: 00 13: 00 14: 00 15: 00 16: 00 17: 00 18: 00 19: 00 20: 00 21: 00 22: 00 23: 00 Total 11-10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 011-11 2 0 0 6 5 9 37 53 52 75 46 57 59 55 79 81 70 53 24 17 17 18 21 4 84011-12 1 0 0 6 3 5 14 35 26 38 57 38 55 56 59 54 35 39 30 n/a 21 12 14 15 61311-13 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 15 18 36 36 37 50 43 45 45 37 46 37 17 12 17 7 5 51011-14 1 0 2 0 4 3 20 47 69 55 52 52 54 57 51 82 97 58 40 28 24 10 6 0 81211-15 0 0 0 3 1 1 15 46 62 67 47 53 74 60 65 69 73 64 51 30 11 10 3 0 80511-16 1 0 0 0 5 5 21 42 62 52 53 80 65 85 74 102 84 74 43 33 25 15 3 1 92511-17 0 5 0 0 0 3 13 50 60 69 151 160 146 197 192 215 224 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1485 Total 5 5 2 15 18 32 121 288 349 392 442 477 503 553 565 648 620 334 225 125 110 82 54 25 5990 Generated by Ryan Sullivan on 06-08-2023
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Proposed Speed Cushion Location
Proposed Speed Cushion Warning
Sign location
• 532, 531, and 539 Dalewood Drive
• 460 and 457 Dalewood Drive
• 395 and 392 Dalewood Drive
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents West Coast Code Consultants, Inc.
5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 510, San Ramon, CA 94583
T | 925.275.1700  F | 925.275.0600
www.WC-3.com
September 20, 2021
Larry Theis Moraga–Orinda Fire – FIRST FIRE REVIEW
22 Orinda Way MOFPD Number: 21-2911
Orinda, CA 94563 WC3Job Number: NA
Email: [email protected]

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED
Re: Plan Review: Traffic Calming
Address: Dalewood Drive (Near 392/395, 457/460 and 539/540), Orinda, CA Dear Larry:

West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. (WC3) has completed the first review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the Moraga – Orinda Fire Protection District:

1. Drawings: Dated 1/29/2021, by Company.

The 2019 California Fire and Building Codes (as amended by the State of California and adopted by the Fire District), as well as applicable NFPA Standards, were used as the basis of our review. Our comments follow on the attached list.

Please submit the following documents:
• An itemized response letter.
• Revised electronic plans with all the revisions clouded. Note: Hard copy plans are not accepted. • A new permit application- required for processing.

Submit the revised plans and application online at https://www.mofd.org/business/submitting-plans.

The plans will be processed after the application, revised plans and fee are received.

Sincerely,
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. (WC3)
Fire Plan Review By:

Scott McMillan - Fire Protection Engineer
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Traffic Calming Moraga–Orinda Fire – FIRST FIRE REVIEW
Dalewood Drive MOFPD Number: 21-2911
September 20, 2021 WC3Job Number: NA

Fire Plan Review Comments
GENERAL INFORMATION:

A. The following comments are referred to the 2019 California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the State of California) as well as applicable NFPA Standards.

B. Respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter.

Indicate which details, specification, or calculation shows the required information. Your complete and clear responses will expedite the re-check and hopefully, approval of this project.

FIRE COMMENTS:

F1. The speed cushions shall be offset a minimum of 20 feet (CFC 503.4.1).

If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Scott McMillan ([email protected]) for fire plan review comments via email or telephone (925) 275-1700. [End]
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on

MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS & Engineering Services
IAL
To: David Biggs, City Manager
From: Kevin McCourt, Public Works and Engineering Services Reviewed by: Scott Christie, Acting Public Works Director Date: February 10, 2022
Re: Dalewood Drive Speed Cushion Prerequisite Traffic Analysis As requested by the Moraga Orinda Fire Department (MOFD), this memo summarizes the traffic analysis performed to determine if the subject proposed speed cushion prerequisites are met.

BACKGROUND:

The City received a Traffic Calming Request dated April 24, 2019 proposing 3 speed cushion locations on Dalewood Dr. The request was processed in the order received and was therefore not immediately addressed, however it did progress in accordance with the process set forth in the adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management Program guide. A flow chart showing the process is attached.

The Dalewood request met the prerequisites as described below and completed the steps in the process necessary for the final TSAC review. TSAC recommended the Dalewood speed cushions at their July 19, 2021 meeting. In preparation of the final step (City Council approval), Staff requested that MOFD review the proposed locations for the Dalewood Dr. speed cushions.

In response to City Staff’s request, MOFD provided comments on September 20, 2021 which requested revising the installation by offsetting the cushions by at least 20 ft.

There are currently eight existing speed cushion locations throughout Orinda (see attached Map).

There are 13 pending speed cushion requests. Due to the lengthy process, which allows veto authority for all residents within 40 feet of a proposed cushion location, many of the requests will not be implemented.

According to information on the Federal Highway Administration website (attached), “In Danville, California it was found that no delay occurred in response time with speed cushions, compared to a 10 to 15 second delay observed with speed humps.” Traffic Analysis of Prerequisites for Proposed Dalewood Speed Cushions Location 1: 540, 539 Dalewood Drive
Location 2: 460 and 457 Dalewood Drive
Location 3: 395 and 392 Dalewood Drive
(refer to attached location map)
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on

1. Speed cushions will not be considered on arterial streets. Speed cushions arc generally not suitable for collector streets, but may be considered for collector streets if all the following criteria are satisfied. Dalewood Drive meets this criteria and is designated as a local street

2. Speed cushions will be considered on residential streets (including, where appropriate, collector streets) only where all the following conditions are met:
• total traffic volume is less than 3000 vehicles per day; West of Amber Valley (2014): 1,323 (Meets Criteria)
• grade is less than 8% at the location of the proposed speed cushion; Location 1: 4.2%; Location 2: 1.3%; Location 3: 3.3% (Meets Criteria) • posted or prima facie speed limit is 25 mph or less; Yes: Prima Facie 25 MPH (Entire Roadway)
• street curvature is no less than 250 foot radius and sight distance is adequate for the prevailing speed prior to speed cushion installation; Location 1, 2, and 3: Meets Criteria
• any drainage impact can be adequately addressed and mitigated; Drainage impact is minimal
• the Orinda Police Department and Moraga Orinda Fire District have been advised of the specific proposal and offered the opportunity tocomment.

Police Chief was advised and offered no comment. A Traffic Officer regularly attends the TSAC meetings and provides input on traffic calming concerns. MOFD review comments were provided as noted above.

3. Prior to consideration of the request or proposal for speed cushions by the TSAC, City staff shall conduct a traffic study to ascertain the nature of the problem. Part of this study will include the assessment of potential traffic diversion from the street in question to another street.

City staff reviewed the request, which is common and does not require a detailed engineering study by a traffic engineer. In a few cases in the past, engineering studies were done (at an estimated cost of $3,000 to $5,000 each), and found speed cushions acceptable. The engineering studies did not address emergency vehicle delay. It was decided that it was not necessary to expend the limited traffic calming program budget on such engineering studies going forward, and city staff was able to perform necessary review and study of the problem and proposed solution. This is consistent with the Program guide as noted in Step 5 on page 5:
“Depending on the complexity of the problem, traffic studies by a professional transportation or traffic engineer may also be needed.” Calming traffic using speed cushions on a residential road is not complex.

Traffic diversion: Minimal impact, may divert to El Nido Ranch or HWY 24; Main issue is wide roadway.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on

4. Speed cushions are generally not appropriate unless a speeding problem is documented by one or more of the following means or there is high presence of pedestrians or children:
• traffic speeds at the 85th percentile exceeding the posted limit by more than 7 miles per hour. 2011 Speed Survey: 85th percentile - 30MPH • two or more accidents in three years attributed to excess speed. According to residents, there have been several in the last three years (Non verifiable on TIMS)
• Based on staff observations and comment from residents, Dalewood has a significant amount of pedestrian use.

The meeting minutes for past discussions on Dalewood Drive can all be found here:
https://www.cityoforinda.org/AgendaCenter/Traffic-Safety-AdvisoryCommittee-14 Dalewood Drive Meeting Minute Dates of note: 10/18/2021 (MOFD Requirement Discussions), 08/16/2021 (Neighborhood vote and TSAC Recommendation Discussion), 05/17/2021 (40 Foot vote update and change of location), 02/22/2021 (Discussion Item to Move to the 40’ vote), 01/25/2021, 12/21/2020, 11/16/2020 (Discussion of the NAT meetings), 08/17/2020 1st neighborhood meeting (7/29/2020) update.

Attachments:

Flow Chart of Process
Orinda Map of Existing Speed Cushions
Excerpt from FHWA website
Dalewood speed cushion location map
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Moraga-Orinda Fire District | 1280 Moraga Way | Moraga, California 94556 | 925.258.4599 | Fax 925.376.1699 | www.mofd.org VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL ([email protected])
March 11, 2022
David Biggs, City Manager
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
CASE NUMBER: 21-2911
RE: Fire Apparatus Access Road Obstruction Permit
Dear Mr. Biggs,
Staff has reviewed your request for a fire apparatus road obstruction. We share the City of Orinda’s commitment to public safety and strive to balance the competing requirements for traffic safety and timely response and egress. Please note MOFD’s review of this application does not include an evacuation analysis as this is a police department function. Should the City desire the Moraga-Orinda Fire District’s (MOFD) input on evacuation-specific concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

In order to quantify the traffic safety issue being addressed by the proposed obstruction, MOFD requested the following information identified in the City of Orinda Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan:

1. City of Orinda traffic study

2. Traffic Volume

3. Speed Study showing traffic at the 85th percentile exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 7 mph

4. Verification of two or more traffic accidents attributed to excessive speed in the previous three years

5. Presence of pedestrians or children

6. Summary of education efforts undertaken to address the issue

7. Summary of enforcement efforts undertaken to address the issue The following information was provided via email on 2/14/2022 and is included as Attachment A:

1. 2011 speed study showing 85th percentile at 30 mph

2. Accidents attributed to speed - None verified

3. Presence of pedestrians or children - Anecdotal resident reports and staff observation of pedestrians with no reference to volume and time of day

4. Education efforts – No information provided

5. Enforcement efforts- No information provided
Moraga-Orinda Fire District
Office of the Fire Marshal
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Case Number: 21-2911

Moraga-Orinda Fire District | 1280 Moraga Way | Moraga, California 94556 | 925.258.4599 | Fax 925.376.1699 | www.mofd.org Staff requested confirmation of the 2011 speed study, and the 2014 traffic volume data remained a relevant indicator of current conditions. No response was received, and City staff indicated further information would not be provided.

As a result, staff conducted an analysis of the permit request based on the information provided and listed above.

Staff further conducted a review of MOFD emergency response times and volume. This information was presented to the Traffic Safety Oversight Commission on 2/28/2022. The presentation is included as Attachment B.

MOFD’s district-wide benchmark response time is 7:00, and average engine response time is 4:46, with ambulance response time at 5:41. Further, for emergency medical service calls, maximum response times cannot exceed 11:59 per Contra Costa County Local Emergency Medical Services Agency (LEMSA). Due to the outlying nature of the area in question, response times from 2016-Feb 2022 significantly exceeded benchmark, district-wide average, and LEMSA maximum times. Details are included in the table below:

With the information provided, the following is noted:

1. Documented speed is three mph below the NTMP speed cushion prerequisite threshold.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Case Number: 21-2911

Moraga-Orinda Fire District | 1280 Moraga Way | Moraga, California 94556 | 925.258.4599 | Fax 925.376.1699 | www.mofd.org

2. There are no documented attempts to address the issue through education or enforcement.

3. Emergency response times to the area in question exceed benchmark, average, and LEMSA mandates.

As a result, MOFD does not approve your request for a permit to obstruct a fire apparatus access road. Should additional information become available or alternate measures be requested, staff stands ready to review any future proposals. To aid in this review, please find a Fire Apparatus Access Road Obstruction Permit Checklist attached as Attachment C to facilitate the rapid review of future permit requests.

Sincerely,
Jeff Isaacs,
Fire Marshal
Enclosures (3):

Attachment A: Email dated 2/17/2022 from David Biggs, City Manager, City of Orinda Attachment B: Presentation to the Traffic Safety Oversight Commission on 2/28/2022 Attachment C: Fire Apparatus Access Road Obstruction Permit Checklist H.1.c
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on From: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Winnacker, David <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Christie <[email protected]>; Kevin Marstall ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Ryan Sullivan <[email protected]>; Isaacs, Jeff <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: memo re Dalewood speed cushions traffic analysis Hi Chief –
My team and I have discussed your additional questions and trying to respond to them seems at this point to be counterproductive. We have licensed professional engineers on our staff who have conducted an assessment consistent with our policies as we have defined them. They have determined that the request meets our requirements and all prerequisites have been met. From our perspective, our process is complete, and it addresses any code requirements for which the City is responsible and are concerned with from a streets and traffic engineering perspective. While we are happy to collaborate more on traffic calming, and to have the Fire District staff engage more with the TSAC, it seems that the Fire District needs to define what information would allow you to make your determinations from a Fire Code perspective and to undertake that analysis yourselves.

At this point, we don’t believe that our efforts to try to provide additional information on our process will somehow address what concerns the Fire District may have. We provided what information we have in a written form as requested by the City Council. I hope that, and whatever independent assessment you may undertake, will allow you to make a decision on the matter for the Fire District.

I am heading out shortly for an extra-long weekend given the President’s Day holiday, but would be happy to talk with you next week regarding the matter further.

Regards,
David
From: Winnacker, David [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:36 AM
To: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Christie <[email protected]>; Kevin Marstall ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Ryan Sullivan <[email protected]>; Isaacs, Jeff <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: memo re Dalewood speed cushions traffic analysis Attachment A
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
David,
Thank you for sending. Please clarify the following:

1. From question #2- Is the 2014 traffic study current enough to be relevant? If so, what is the generally recognized timeframe within which a survey is still valid?

2. From question #4- Is it city staff’s position that the requirement is met via the “or” of high presence of pedestrians or children and that the speed survey and accident standards are not applicable? If so, what is the definition of “high presence of pedestrians or children” and how was this verified? To ensure we are reading the information the same way, please confirm that the 2011 study showing 30mph at 85th percentile does not meet the speed standard included in the NTMP.

3. From the enforcement and education question- what efforts has PD advised the TSOC on and what records are there of enforcement efforts specifically hours an officer has been posted in the area, citizen contacts, citations issued, and observed impacts of these efforts? Thank you,
Dave Winnacker
Fire Chief
Moraga-Orinda Fire District
From: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:17 AM
To: Winnacker, David <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Christie <[email protected]>; Kevin Marstall ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Ryan Sullivan <[email protected]> Subject: FW: memo re Dalewood speed cushions traffic analysis Hi Chief –
Please see Scott Christie’s comments below. I have also attached the speed study referred to in the prior response.

Based on the Council’s direction at their last meeting, we will be bringing back an amendment to our locally adopted process for Speed Cushions to simply the process and ensure it is in keeping with our current practice of relying upon our own internal engineering expertise. Also, the Council is looking towards us adopting a Vision Zero approach to traffic issues as many other communities in the Bay Area have, and that will likely see more efforts at traffic calming rather than less. In Contra Costa County, this is being led by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and their Executive Director recently made a presentation, attached, to our Council on the topic. Here is a link to information on that effort: https://link.edgepilot.com/s/44d03f0e/dWeb5SzAHEiSwf9Cp-iSFg? u=https://ccta.net/planning/countywide-vision-zero/
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on As we discussed briefly in our recent joint staff meeting, it would be great in the Fire District could engage more in the TSAC process so the community could see and understand the Fire District’s perspective’s first hand. Also, beyond this one case on Dalewood, it may make sense to discuss the whole concept of traffic calming and Vision Zero at some future time.

Regards,
David
From: Scott Christie
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 11:38 AM
To: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin McCourt <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: memo re Dalewood speed cushions traffic analysis David,
Here are some answers, shown below in blue.

Scott Christie, P.E.

Public Works/Engineering
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Phone: (925) 253-4219
General PW/Eng phone: (925) 253-4231
[email protected]
From: Winnacker, David [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 10:11 AM
To: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Christie <[email protected]>; Kevin Marstall ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Isaacs, Jeff <[email protected]> Subject: RE: memo re Dalewood speed cushions traffic analysis CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
David,
The provided information has been received and is being reviewed. Please clarify the following questions in-line in Red below:

2. Speed cushions will be considered on residential streets (including, where appropriate, collector streets) only where all the following conditions are met: • total traffic volume is less than 3000 vehicles per day; West of Amber Valley (2014): 1,323 (Meets Criteria) Is a 2014 traffic volume report still valid to this process and if so, what is the general criteria used to determine if a new H.1.c
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on report should be generated to capture current conditions? Additionally, a copy of the traffic volume report is requested. We believe it is valid ; clearly less than 3,000

4. Speed cushions are generally not appropriate unless a speeding problem is documented by one or more of the following means or there is high presence of pedestrians or children: • traffic speeds at the 85th percentile exceeding the posted limit by more than 7 miles per hour. 2011 Speed Survey:
85th percentile - 30MPH Does this meet the “by more than 7 miles per hour” standard? If so, how is the calculation made? As above, is a 2011 speed survey recent enough to determine the current traffic conditions?
• two or more accidents in three years attributed to excess speed. According to residents, there have been several in the last three years (Non verifiable on TIMS) What data is being used to meet the accident standard?
The criteria is met as it says “or” -here is full excerpt from the memo:

4. Speed cushions are generally not appropriate unless a speeding problem is documented by one or more of the following means or there is high presence of pedestrians or children:
• traffic speeds at the 85th percentile exceeding the posted limit by more than 7 miles per hour. 2011 Speed Survey: 85th percentile - 30MPH
• two or more accidents in three years attributed to excess speed. According to residents, there have been several in the last three years (Non verifiable on TIMS) •
Based on staff observations and comment from residents, Dalewood has a significant amount of pedestrian use.

Lastly, there are no references to Education and Enforcement actions included in the memo. Any additional information which can be provided regarding these efforts, specifically enforcement metrics to include hours officers have been posted in the area, traffic stops, citations issued and the observed impact these efforts have had on speeding would be very helpful. Not really a prerequisite but I suspect the residents did request information and enforcement prior to requesting the speed cushions. PD participates in TSAC and I believe has advised attendees on educational matters and enforcement efforts
Thank you,
Dave Winnacker
Fire Chief
Moraga-Orinda Fire District
From: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 8:57 AM
To: Winnacker, David <[email protected]>; Isaacs, Jeff <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Christie <[email protected]>; Kevin Marstall ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: memo re Dalewood speed cushions traffic analysis Good Morning Gentlemen –
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Please find attached the follow-up information which was requested in written form regarding the Dalewood Speed Cushions.

Please feel free to contact me, Scott, or Kevin, if you have any questions or need any further information.

Regards,
David
From: Scott Christie
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 6:19 PM
To: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin McCourt <[email protected]>
Subject: memo re Dalewood speed cushions traffic analysis David
Please see attached memo and the attachments.

Let me know if you would like any changes or have questions, and if not, please forward to the MOFD
Thanks
Scott Christie, P.E.

Public Works/Engineering
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Phone: (925) 253-4219
General PW/Eng phone: (925) 253-4231
[email protected]
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.

H.1.c
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Attachment B
1 Fire Apparatus Road
Obstructions
28 Feb 2022
• Upon receipt of a request from City Staff, MOFD reviews applications for obstruction of Fire Apparatus Access Roads • Chapter 5, Section 503 and Appendix D of the California Fire Code • Multiple roads required • Dead end roads require approved areas for turning around • Local amendments increase minimum road width to 28’ and at least (4) roads • A determination is made if the area is existing non‐conforming • Permits are required for obstruction or modification of a fire apparatus access road • For areas in the LRA Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or an SRA area with any Fire Hazard Severity Zone rating, California Code of Regulations Title 14 § 1273.00. Intent is reviewed: • Roads and driveways, whether public or private, unless exempted under 14 CCR § 1270.02(d), shall provide for safe access for emergency wildfire equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently, and shall provide unobstructed traffic circulation during a wildfire emergency consistent with 14 CCR §§ 1273.00 through 1273.09.

Process
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on 2 • Staff reviews relevant outputs of the NTMP directed traffic study • Traffic volume at less than 3000 vehicles/day
• Speed limit is 25 mph or less
• Traffic speeds at the 85th percentile exceeding posted limit by more than 7 mph
• Two or more accidents in three years attributed
to excess speed
• Staff reviews Education and Enforcement efforts
to ensure Engineering is being taken as a final
step in the process
NTMP Review
• Staff reviews response volume and times to the impacted area in order to provide context and appropriately weigh the competing elements of public safety
• Response time
• Egress time
• Traffic safety
Response Review
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on 3 Dalewood Case Study
• The area in question in an outlying
area with extended response times
which exceed MOFD’s benchmark
response time standard of 7:00
• District wide actual response time
significantly improves upon
benchmark with median response
times for ALS engines at 4:46 and
ALS ambulances at 5:41
*All times include call taking,
turnout, and travel time
Dalewood Case Study
• This area is served bya cross staffed
Engine/Ambulance at Station 45
(Orinda Way) and an Engine at
Station 43 (St Stephens) or mutual
aid from ConFire Station 16 (UHV)
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on 4 Dalewood Case Study
• In addition to the 7:00 benchmark
response standard, MOFD operates
under medical direction for EMS
calls witha LEMSA  requirement that
maximum response times be no
greater than 11:59
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on 5 2014 traffic study showing 1323 vehicles per day
X 2011 speed study showing 85th percentile at 30 mph
X Accidents attributed to speed‐ None verified
Presence of pedestrians or children‐ resident reports and staff observation of pedestrians with no reference to volume and time of day
X Education efforts‐ Information requested but not provided X Enforcement efforts‐ Information requested but not provided *Confirmation that the 2014 and 2011 studies are relevant‐ Requested but not provided
Dalewood Information Provided
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on Moraga-Orinda Fire District | 1280 Moraga Way | Moraga, California 94556 | 925.258.4599 | Fax 925.376.1699 | www.mofd.org

TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE PERMIT CHECKLIST
 Traffic volume _______________________ Date collected _____________  Posted speed limit ___________________
 Traffic speed at 85
th percentile ___________ Date collected _____________
 Accidents in previous three years attributed to excess speed _________________  Traffic engineer determination that site is suitable for proposed traffic calming measure:

Name_________________________ Title:____________________ Date:______________  Summary of education efforts:
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________  Summary of enforcement efforts:
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ *Please attach source document(s) for information listed above Completed By:

NAME:_____________________________ DATE: ______________________ PHONE:___________________________ EMAIL: ______________________ Moraga-Orinda Fire District
Office of the Fire Marshal
Attachment CH.1.c
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on From: David Biggs
To: Winnacker, David
Cc: Scott Christie; Kevin McCourt
Subject: Additional Dalewood Drive Data
Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 2:41:19 PM
Attachments: 2020 Dalewood Drive.xlsx
2019 Dalewood Drive.xlsx
Dalewood Drive.png
Hi Chief –
During our monthly coordinating meeting on March 7th, we mentioned that we had identified a data source that could provide validation for elements of the information we used to make our engineering assessment and field study of the Dalewood speed cushions. We have access to certain traffic data through a source that tracks vehicle use via cell phones. That system is called Streetlight Data, a subscription based commercial entity which uses open source data. We were able to produce a report for 2019 and 2020 which are attached and illustrated in the attached map. This data shows:
a. Maximum volume: 1272 vehicles per year. This is well below the 3,000 threshold listed under NTMP Prerequisites item 2.
b. Critical speed (85th percentile): 33 . This exceeds the 25mph speed limit. This meets one of the conditions under NTMP Prerequisites item 4, which states “traffic speeds at the 85th percentile exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 7 miles per hour” .

After March 7th, and prior to being able to share this promised data, we received your letter of March 11th.

I wold suggest that you review the additional information provided and then we set a time to discuss your letter and other concerns before we determine next steps. I am going to be on vacation next week, so perhaps we can look for dates and times starting the week of April 4th? Regards,
David Biggs
City Manager
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
(925) 253 4222
[email protected]
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on H.1.c
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Mode of Travel Zone Name Zone is Bi‐Direction Day Type Day Part Average Daily Segment Traffic (StL V85th Speed Percentile 95th Speed Percentile Personal Dalewood Drive / 7858554 / 3 yes 0: All Days (M‐Su) 01: 8:00am‐8:15am 92 33 35 Personal Dalewood Drive / 7858554 / 4 yes 0: All Days (M‐Su) 01: 8:00am‐8:15am 104 33 35 H.1.c
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Mode of Travel Zone Name Zone is Bi‐Direction Day Type Day Part Average Daily Segment Traffic (StL Volume) 85th Speed Percentile 95th Speed Percentile Personal Dalewood Drive / 7858554 / 7 yes 1: Weekday (M‐Th) 3: Mid‐Day (10am‐3pm) 352 33 42 Personal Dalewood Drive / 7858554 / 7 yes 2: Weekend Day (Sa‐Su) 0: All Day (12am‐12am) 1272 33 41 Personal Dalewood Drive / 7858554 / 7 yes 2: Weekend Day (Sa‐Su) 4: Peak PM (3pm‐7pm) 461 33 40 H.1.c
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD From: Winnacker, David
To: David Biggs
Cc: Scott Christie; Kevin McCourt; Isaacs, Jeff
Subject: RE: Additional Dalewood Drive Data
Date: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:55:07 PM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
David,
Thank you for sending and we appreciate the data to establish the speed thresholds are being met.

As you are able, the information regarding enforcement continues to be requested to ensure we are not moving to an engineering solution before having exhausted education and enforcement options.

Thank you,
Dave Winnacker
Fire Chief
Moraga-Orinda Fire District
image0 (002)
From: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 2:41 PM
To: Winnacker, David <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Christie <[email protected]>; Kevin McCourt <[email protected]> Subject: Additional Dalewood Drive Data
Hi Chief –
During our monthly coordinating meeting on March 7th, we mentioned that we had identified a data source that could provide validation for elements of the information we used to make our engineering assessment and field study of the Dalewood speed cushions. We have access to certain traffic data through a source that tracks vehicle use via cell phones. That system is called Streetlight Data, a subscription based commercial entity which uses open source data. We were able to produce a report for 2019 and 2020 which are attached and illustrated in the attached map. This data shows:
a. Maximum volume: 1272 vehicles per year. This is well below the 3,000 threshold listed under NTMP Prerequisites item 2.
b. Critical speed (85th percentile): 33 . This exceeds the 25mph speed limit. This meets one of the conditions under NTMP Prerequisites item 4, which states “traffic speeds at the 85th percentile exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 7 miles per hour” .

After March 7th, and prior to being able to share this promised data, we received your letter of March 11th.

I wold suggest that you review the additional information provided and then we set a time to discuss your letter and other concerns before we determine next steps. I am going to be on vacation next week, so perhaps we can look for dates and times starting the week of April 4th? Regards,
David Biggs
City Manager
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
(925) 253 4222
[email protected]
H.1.c
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: ATTACHMENT C MOFD Application Checklist and Supporting Documents (3245 : MOFD Resubmittal for Speed Cushions on City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: December 5, 2023
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Ratify Discontinuance of Remote Public Comment for the City Council and Planning Commission Meetings
RECOMMENDATION:

Ratify the City Manager’s Decision to Temporarily Discontinue Remote Public Comments, or Provide Other Direction As Appropriate
BACKGROUND: This item was considered at the City Council Meeting of November 7, 2023, and as there was a 2:2 split vote on the matter, with Council Member Riley absent, there was no action taken. As such, the matter is presented again for consideration. There was also a question about the fiscal impact of this possible decision. While staff will be prepared to elaborate further at the Council Meeting, the costs referred to at April 11, 2023, meeting which was attached as background, were the anticipated costs of supporting the use of Zoom and hybrid meetings. If the City does elect to temporarily discontinue public comment due to zoombombing, we would still continue to offer the hybrid format in order to allow staff and other invited guests to participate remotely, and would use Zoom for that purpose and as the vehicle to broadcast the meeting in conjunction with YouTube.

The discussion from the November 7th item as originally presented is set forth below:

There has been a dramatic increase in “Zoombombing” of public agency meetings in which multiple persons, both during public comment and while commenting on agenized items, utilize their time to make offensive and derogatory statements targeted to persons of color, the LGBTQ community, and various religious faiths. These comments are also often expletive-laden or obscene in nature. These comments are made by people appearing remotely and anonymously using fictitious names in those agencies which are using a hybrid format for their meetings.

Numerous cities in Contra Costa County and other parts of Bay Area have been subject to these Zoombombing incidents. While cities are limited by what they can do to address these instances given freedom of speech considerations, a variety of strategies have been used to mitigate the impact of these unfortunate and uncivil appearances.

The most effective strategy has been for public agencies to eliminate remote public appearances and participation. Meetings continue to be live-streamed or broadcast and those who wish to can attend and comment in person or can submit their comments in writing.

H.2
Packet Pg. 116
In order to avoid such an occurrence in Orinda, and to ensure our community and employees are not subjected to hate speech, the City Clerk and City Manager have proactively discontinued remote participation as of this Council meeting. The agenda has been modified to share this new approach and to advise those who wish to participate how they can participate and comment. This item seeks the City Council’s ratification of this action and we would plan to revisit the discontinuance prior to the end of March, 2024.

Also provided as additional background is the staff report and an excerpt from the meeting on April 11, 2023, at which time the Council opted to implement a hybrid meeting option.

NEXT STEPS: The City would share communication with the Orinda community on these changes.

FISCAL IMPACT: None as result of this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Agenda Item Hybrid Meeting April 11, 2023 and Minutes Excerpt Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

H.2
Packet Pg. 117