Orinda City Council
February 6, 2024

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, February 6, 2024
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 02.06.24
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 discontinued for the foreseeable future.
7:00 PM - REGULAR SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Brandyn Iverson, Inga Miller, Janet Riley Vice Mayor Latika Malkani, Mayor Darlene Gee
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
City Council
Agenda Page 2 02.06.24
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. Certificate of Recognition to Orinda Garden Club for Renovation of Plant Areas in Lower Library Plaza
D.2. Proclamation Recognizing Black History Month in Orinda - February 2024
E. PUBLIC FORUM
The public forum provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of the City Council that is not on the agenda.

Additionally, a speaker has the option of addressing the Council on an item listed on the agenda, if the speaker will not be present when that agenda item is taken up. When an item is not listed on the agenda, State law prohibits Council discussion or action. Councilmembers may only “briefly respond” to statements made and questions posed. For example, State law allows Councilmembers to ask questions for clarification and provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. Additionally, consistent with the “Matters Initiated” rule contained in its Policies and Procedures Manual, the Council may also direct staff to report back and/or place a matter on a future agenda for discussion.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. January 23, 2024 Regular Meeting
F.2. Approve Plans for New Accessible Parking Space in Theater Square District, and Approve Plans for Crosswalk Improvements in Various Locations
Recommendation:

Approve Plans for the following improvements: (1) New accessible parking space on Moraga Way in Theater Square District (2) Two new crosswalks on Glorietta Blvd. (3) Improvements to existing crosswalks on Orinda Way G. PUBLIC HEARING
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. SSTOC Request for a Community Survey
Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 3 02.06.24
Review, discuss, and consider the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission’s (SSTOC) recommendation: To authorize staff to undertake a professional community survey regarding wildfire prevention and resilience in order to benchmark community members’ knowledge, attitudes, needs, and barriers to implementing defensible space and home hardening retrofits to protect lives, property, and the City. The SSTOC recommends the online/opt-in hybrid approach described in the attached Recommendation from SSTOC. Should the Council agree with the recommendation, an appropriation, from Measure R in the amount needed to undertake the approach should be included as part of the approval.

H.2. Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems
Recommendation:

Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction, if Any.

H.3. Legislative Advocacy Approach Options
Recommendation:

Receive Report, Discuss, and provide Direction, if any.

H.4. Formation of a Limited Duration Council Infrastructure Committee Recommendation:

Approve Formation of a Limited Duration Council Infrastructure Committee to Operate as a Brown Act Body and Appoint Two (2) Members H.5. Consider any Amendments and Adopt City Council Policy & Procedures Manual
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 01-24 adopting the City Council Policies and Procedures Manual
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. CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, annual performance evaluation of City Attorney Osa Wolff
City Council
Agenda Page 4 02.06.24
M. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 7:00 PM.

Please visit the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org to view the City Council Calendar.

I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this special meeting agenda has been posted at least 24 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way.

Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org. At least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, this agenda was also delivered to and received by each member of the City Council as well as each local newspaper, radio station and television station requesting written notice of special meetings.

I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this regular meeting agenda has been posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way. Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org
~ Notices ~
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in Court to certain City decisions that require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you file a challenge in Court, you may be limited by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to those issues raised in connection with the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting. For information on the next City Council meeting, please call 925.253.4221 or visit the 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. January 23, 2024 Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.1
Packet Pg. 5
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 14 01.23.24
JANUARY 23, 2024

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Brandyn Iverson, Inga Miller, Janet Riley Mayor Darlene Gee, Vice Mayor Latika Malkani
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Gee.

C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
City Manager Biggs asked to move up the City Manager’s Report to be heard after Item D; Items for the Good of the City.

MOTION by Councilmember Riley, and seconded by Councilmember Iverson, to adopt the agenda, as amended. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Introduction of Interim Planning Director Robert Reber City Manager Biggs introduced the City’s Interim Planning Director Robert Reber, noting he is working out of retirement from the City of Hercules, and he provided a brief overview of Mr. Reber’s prior experience, educational accomplishments, and background.

Mayor Gee and Councilmembers welcomed Mr. Reber to the City.

Robert Reber stated he enjoyed working with Mr. Biggs in Hercules, and is excited to be working with the City of Orinda. He recognized Drummond Buckley and his team and is happy to be considered for ensuring a smooth transition for whoever is selected as the City’s permanent Planning Director.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 14 01.23.24
D.2. Introduction of New Businesses: Saint Anthony’s, Silver Fox Barber Co, Boo Loo Lounge
City Manager Biggs introduced the item.

Assistant Planner Darin Hughes stated there are two businesses that were not able to attend tonight, which is Silver Fox Barber Co., run by Dave Clark in Theater Square, and he provided an overview of his services and experience in Rockridge. The second new business is Boo Loo Lounge which is in front of the theater, run by Maxton Kennedy who has run several tiki bars in the Bay Area and in Louisiana.

He introduced Tony from Saint Anthony’s which is a great thrift shop and he is located at Village Square.

Tony from Saint Anthony’s said they have been in Orinda for 4 months, have had a great response for donations from people, and they are looking to create a larger space to create a re-use center, with art supplies, and a Lego and game room for people to come in.

Mayor Gee and Councilmembers welcomed Tony from Saint Anthony’s, and wished success for all businesses.

J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Biggs announced that last week, there was an armed robbery at the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot. These instances are rare and is actively being investigated. Staff will advance the Public Safety Committee’s report in February to share information with the community, and he recognized the Police Department’s work.

Police Chief Sullivan provided a report of the armed robbery which occurred in the bank parking lot. No one was injured, it is an active investigation, and police are following up on leads and suspects. Shortly after this incident, the City of Lafayette also had a robbery inside one of their banks which is completely unrelated, and they have no reason to believe it is associated with any other crime that has occurred at this time. The City continues to be extremely safe, crime statistics have gone down, and they rarely see robberies or strong-arm robberies.

Councilmember Miller said this was unusual because it involved multiple people around the victim. She wondered if any tips are offered by police.

Chief Sullivan reported that social media postings relayed incorrect information. He clarified the victim was not surrounded by subjects and police believe there were other people in the suspect’s vehicle. He recommended if someone sees something suspicious to call police immediately.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 14 01.23.24
Vice Mayor Malkani said the Chief spoke to the Miramonte Parent’s Club about the responsible gun ownership and storage ordinance. She has seen more queries about whether crime has increased or not, and wondered if it might be beneficial to do some public education around crime and things people can do to avoid being a victim.

Chief Sullivan said he can, and commented on the number of emails requesting this. A week ago, they held Coffee with the Cops which they can hold monthly, and also requested was a Town Hall regarding crime and what residents can do to prevent crime.

He also recommends Neighborhood Watch Programs because crime is deterred by having watchful neighbors. Residents can call the non-emergency number of 925-646- 2441.

E. PUBLIC FORUM
City Clerk Smith noted that staff received a couple of Public Forum comments which have been given to the Council and have been posted on the City’s website.

Juliet Don, Executive Director, Orinda Chamber of Commerce, welcomed the three new businesses, acknowledged that Saint Anthony’s is already a Chamber member, and noted a ribbon-cutting ceremony and mixer was held last fall and encourage the other businesses to join the Chamber. She also welcomed Robert Reber to Orinda as the Interim Planning Director and look forward to the opportunity to work with him.

Regarding the City Council Committee Appointment Liaison List, they support continuation of Vice Mayor Malkani as their Chamber liaison. She asked for correction to the agenda packet, stating their Chamber Board meetings are held the third Wednesday of the month at 4:00 p.m. and not on Tuesday mornings. Lastly, the Chamber congratulates City Manager Biggs on his impending retirement and looks forward to working with his successor.

Michael Brinkerhoff, 500 block of Miner Road, said he counted 117 signs when he pulled out of his driveway to Camino Pablo, and commented this is a lot of signs, a lot of money, and thinks $200,000 for signs on the side of Miner Road where you cannot park is excessive. He suggested a way to de-sign the City, given people are smart in Orinda.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gee asked if Councilmembers or the public wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Miller requested removal of Item F.4.

F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. January 9, 2024 Regular Meeting
F.2. Adoption of Ordinances relating to the Development and PreAnnexation Agreement and the Final Development Plan Amendment for the Wilder Project in Gateway Valley
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 14 01.23.24
Recommendation:

Adopt Ordinance No. 24-01, waiving second reading, An Ordinance approving the Ninth Amendment to the Development and Pre-Annexation Agreement for the Wilder Project in Gateway Valley and Adopt Ordinance No. 24-02, amending the Gateway Valley (Wilder) Final Development Plan to Clarify the Application of Zoning Standards to the Property F.3. Approve list of streets for the Annual 2024 Pavement Rehabilitation Project and approve $200,000 Road Project Funding Nomination to California Transportation Commission (CTC) for 2024 SB 1 Local Partnership Program formulaic funds for the 2024 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 4178.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Council approve the list of streets for the Annual 2024 Pavement Rehabilitation Project; and authorize the City Manager to execute and submit the Funding Nomination packet to the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
MOTION by Councilmember Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Riley, to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.2 and F.3. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

Item Removed from Consent Calendar:

F.4. City Council Committee Appointment/Liaison List for 2024 Recommendation:

Confirm Mayor Gee's recommended nominations for the City Council Committee Appointment / Liaisons for 2024.

Councilmember Miller voiced support of the list for 2024 and said it has been a pleasure to serve as a liaison to the SSTOC. She suspects there are many Councilmembers who want to participate in the group and work towards making the City more fire-safe, and is looking forward to returning to serve on the Downtown Committee.

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

MOTION by Councilmember Miller, and seconded by Councilmember Riley, to approve Consent Calendar Item F.4. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

G. PUBLIC HEARING – None.

H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Proposed Solid Waste Rate Adjustments for Orinda Residential and Commercial Customers for March 1, 2024 to February 28, 2025 Recommendation:

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 14 01.23.24
Staff recommends that the City Council review, discuss, and receive public input on the proposed solid waste rate adjustments. The input will be provided to Orinda Board Members on the RecycleSmart JPA (Councilmember Miller and Councilmeber Riley), for the JPA consideration of rate adjustments to be effective March 1, 2024. As proposed the adjustment is a 4.8% increase, including an increase in the vehicle impact/street maintenance component levied as a regulatory fee. The increase is based on container size and for most residential customers it is estimated to increase monthly garbage rates by an additional $2.50 - $2.85 per month.

City Manager Biggs gave the staff report and overview of the proposed solid waste rate adjustment for the Council’s review, and he described the process of the JPA’s consideration of the adjustments to be effective March 1, 2024.

Councilmember Riley stated they seek to keep the rate as even as possible over the years so a spike would not occur when they potentially get a new hauler in 2027.

Vice Mayor Malkani referred to page 62 of the packet and mention that the JPA consultants have calculated a 3.43% rate increase for operating cost, and reserves is

1.37%. She asked and confirmed the recommendation for the rate increase is consistent with what the consultants have recommended. She thanked Councilmembers Riley and Miller for their work as representatives on the JPA.

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

Councilmember Miller commented that the rates were reviewed and they believe the increase was fair.

Mayor Gee stated this is an item that will be recommended back to the JPA Board. She thinks given the economic climate the increase seems reasonable and thanked Councilmembers Miller and Riley for their work.

Vice Mayor Malkani said she has noticed and has heard that service is improving and confirmed complaints have been reduced and operations are a lot better.

H.2. Red Flad Days Parking Restrictions and Evacuation Route Update Recommendation:

Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction, if any.

City Manager Biggs gave the staff report and overview of the matter, stating the item arose from Council discussion on an item that would have corrected the existing traffic order for Miner Road where a section was left out. The City is updating the evacuation guide but the existing guide directs people to their primary exit point.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 14 01.23.24
Assistant Engineer Kevin McCourt gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding Red Flag Day parking restrictions. Typically, the fire season is June through November and there are about 20-30 days per year considered Red Flag Days which can vary. When implemented, Orinda experienced about 14 events spanning over 30 days and over the last 2 years there was only one combined event.

Three criteria trigger a Red Flag event by the National Weather Service: 1) Relative humidity of 15% or less with sustained winds of 25 mph or greater or frequent wind gusts of 35 mph or greater for a duration of 6 hours; 2) relative humidity of 10% or less for 10 hours or more or widespread and/or significant dry lightning; and 3) If the Fire Chief declares a Red Flag Day in response to any extreme hazard.

He presented El Toyonal and Loma Vista parking restrictions, the El Toyonal Parking and Access Study by W-Trans, and signage placed throughout the street based upon MOFD input in August of 2020. He described segments of signage, the Red Flag Warning Day procedure, issues surrounding limited staff for parking enforcement, call outs on the weekend, issues with residents receiving notifications, and issues with finding parking. He then described Red Flag Day policies, locations of MOFD warning signs, Red Flag outreach.

Mr. McCourt then presented the City current project of evacuation routes in Zone Haven in North Orinda. On June 7, 2022 the Council requested staff create an expanded program based on evacuation routes for northern Orinda, and on July 19, 2022, the Council approved Red Flag sign installation on key evacuation routes and accepted the map of the proposed streets to receive new signs. Miner Road was left off the list and it was continued without action during the December 5, 2023 meeting. Staff would bring this back to the Council as well as other changes. Current implementation includes 270 signs installed for 6.5 miles of road based upon criteria that affects sign placement, and he reviewed installations on Dalewood Drive, Sundown Terrace, and El Toyonal.

Mr. Biggs said this is a local determination about Red Flag Parking Day restrictions, with the goal of minimizing any potential incidents during an evacuation. The Safety Element calls for expansion of Red Flag Days into other areas, and the City began with El Toyonal as a pilot project and then moved to Miner Road.

Mayor Gee referred to the expanded program the Council approved and asked and confirmed with Mr. Biggs that all signs have been installed. He noted they wanted to ensure the signs meet the federal and state guidance in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), that it is enforceable, and that risk was assessed and the City relies on its engineers in designing the system.

Mayor Gee referred to the slide showing the map listing all streets in the expanded program, and she confirmed all signs have been installed on these streets.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 14 01.23.24
Councilmember Riley asked if Zone Haven recommends more streets than the Council decided, and Mr. Biggs said in the Safety Element there is a more expansive evacuation route map, but not all of those are in very high fire severity zones. So, the evacuation map is much more complete now than what is captured here.

Mayor Miller asked if this allows the city to ticket or towing, and Mr. McCourt stated it is just for citations. The Municipal Code would need to be amended if the Council wished to do something of that nature.

Councilmember Miller said they have what was described as a donut on Lombardi. She recalled there is also a segment in the middle of Miner Road which has a different name.

Somehow it was not on an evacuation route.

Mr. Biggs pointed to the red map and the evacuation route in the Safety Element includes all of Miner Road, but people have the choice of going out one way or the other, so they did not show it as a complete segment. People know how to get to one point or another, and they will be told which direction to go based on resources deployed and where a fire is.

Councilmember Miller asked if vehicles could be towed. Police Chief Sullivan said in the situation where the vehicle was cited, the officer could have towed the vehicle but it was addressed at that time. The Vehicle Code does allow for vehicles to be towed when they are blocking the roadway unnecessarily.

Councilmember Riley asked if this is also true for a parked car on Red Flag Day. Mr.

Biggs said it would not be done under the Red Flag provisions but under the Municipal Code, and the City is not going to be sending tow trucks up into an evacuation zone during an event.

Vice Mayor Malkani asked what would be the impact of fewer signs on enforcement. Mr.

McCourt said he thinks there is a larger basis for whoever receives the citation to fight it.

If there is not a sign within a relative short distance, it will be overturned, and this is why they choose to use the 200 feet.

Vice Mayor Malkani asked if it be 200 feet to have any enforcement of citations or she said if it is not 200 feet and citations are given she asked if people can just not pay them, or were there other options. Mr. Biggs said many people dispute parking tickets because they argue they could not see the sign or it was too far away and they get thrown out in court, so it can vary. The City tries to do it on the basis it is enforceable, reduces liability, and meets the manual standard of 200 feet, but again, it is not black and white.

Mayor Gee said she would assume most people understand engineering is always done to criteria and standards and the City in this case has used the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD. All agencies that have streets install signage in alignment with that manual. If not in alignment with that manual, where does that leave things.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 14 01.23.24
City Attorney Osa Wolff said this has been a staff-driven process and no one has asked her to research this as to whether there is a legal standard about spacing, towing, etc.

Engineering staff has sought advice from consultants and these are the results. She could perform research on this, but has not done so to date.

Mr. Biggs said cities sometimes get sued because evacuations have not been successful such as in Lahaina and Paradise, so this is not just about physical improvements but whether the City is doing all it can. If the neighborhood really does not want it and the Council decides not to have signs in the area, at least the City did its best efforts to try to ensure safety.

Mayor Gee asked if the City has received any more feedback from the El Toyonal neighborhood which is the neighborhood that has had the most tested usage. She has not seen any emails or concerns raised from that neighborhood.

Mr. Biggs said he has not and the expansion was viewed as a success in El Toyonal. He would note that in the last 2 years they have only had 1 Red Flag Day. When it was busier, they did get people complaining about getting citations, lack of parking, but it seemed the majority of residents were happy with the program.

Councilmember Riley referred to the W-Trans study done in 2020 and said this company was hired to focus on that El Toyonal neighborhood in the study. The report said they recommended prohibiting all stopping and all parking in that area to maximize safety during an evacuation, but this was not done for any other neighborhood. So, she asked if that was not needed this time or she asked if the City had enough expertise based on that hands-on experience.

Mr. Biggs said they launched off of that hands-on experience but they had a separate engineering firm that designed the project; CSW. The Council eventually did not approve the program on no parking and no stopping. There can be 5-minute unloading and things like that, so in looking at other Red Flag programs, generally it prohibits parking in those designated areas.

Councilmember Riley said at that time, residents drove this initiative, so the Council decided to not have residents give input before the City launched it in other areas. Mr.

Biggs said this was on the basis that the pilot was successful.

Vice Mayor Malkani said there was some discussion before that although Dalewood is a wide street that there was concern on the part of MOFD that it would need to be free of vehicles because it would be used for a staging area. In her mind, that was suggested but never clarified to her. She therefore wondered if they received clarification whether that was a position of MOFD or if the Fire Chief has waived in on Dalewood recently.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 14 01.23.24
Mr. Biggs said that statement was made, but this was shared by someone in the community. He asked the Fire Chief about it at their joint staff meeting in January. The Fire Chief said he has no official position on Red Flag Days and that he would not plan on using any areas of staging area because those are decisions made on the day and in the field. So, it was not directly responded to other than he did not want to weigh in on the matter.

Mayor Gee opened the Public Forum.

Bill Eggler voiced opposition to signs for Red Flag Days, believes they are confusing to the public, said roads are narrow and vehicles cannot park on them, the flip signs must be managed by the Public Works Department staff which will likely require more staff, and he questioned who would enforce this, and asked the City to terminate the Red Flag Days and have signs removed.

Liz Boyle described instances of flipped signs on Dalewood and Happy Valley and Sundown Terrace and her frustration in trying to get someone from the Fire and Police Departments to flip them back, given the days were not Red Flag Days. Signs are too small, need a directional arrow and towing enforcement warnings to be enforceable.

Lombardi needs signs in the place they do not have them because people park their cars in this narrow road all the time and El Toyonal is an awful place for fire danger and the City should have some signs there. She lastly presented results of the pilot for the El Toyonal, which was not good.

Lisa Rudolph said the El Toyonal project was requested by the residents and had a community forum to share concerns. She asked why neither one of those ever occurred for the Dalewood area. She is not against the Red Flag signs and no parking but Dalewood is specifically a place where they are not needed. This decision to expand the program is based on science and research, yet the width of the road was never taken into consideration. She also thinks the Red Flag Warning Days and actual evacuations and the need to tow vehicles are confusing. Very few people park on Dalewood and if there is a fire, no cars will be parking there.

Sandy Pearson, Miner Road, said she is a strong supporter of this program and knows El Toyonal needed some help. She drove up Claremont Avenue and there would be no way for a fire truck to get up there with any parking along the road. The Honey Hill, Charles Hill, and the Miner Road section above Lombardi Lane should not have been included, noted street width was not used as criteria, and there has never been any parking problems on Honey Hill or Charles Hill because they are wide. There are over 28 signs over a 2 mile stretch on El Toyonal and she believes there are 40 signs on Honey Hill in one-half mile which is unnecessary, and she asked the program to be modified.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 14 01.23.24
Councilmember Miller said she is hearing they need the number of signs and some larger numbers of signs in some areas, thinks it is worth continuing to review this to ensure they have too many signs in one area versus another. The community has become more attuned to fire risks, how to prevent fires, to evacuate if there is a fire, and the City is charged with making sure people get out. The City should make sure people know when there is a Red Flag Day because this is a matter of life and death.

She then spoke about implementing the program in El Toyonal, recognition of the fact the Council could not have a conversation with every neighborhood in town regarding installation of signage, and priority to do this first on evacuation routes to make the biggest difference, and questioned installation of signs on wide roads.

Councilmember Iverson said part of the reason she wanted to bring this up was to talk about frustrations voiced when signs were going up on Dalewood and Sundown Terrace.

All Councilmembers drove that neighborhood, talked with people, and she did not think the signs made sense. She is hopeful for Public Works to do a ground up analysis that assesses whether a sign is needed or not, wondered if they should remove some signs that are overkill, recognizing that fire safety is the priority here.

Councilmember Riley said the number one goal is evacuation but she is thinking about how to reduce the number of signs. The point of the multiple signs is to conform with the code so if the citation is challenged, then they can say they followed the code and did what they were supposed to do. The goal is evacuation, so she questioned why they care if they lose the petty fight over a citation after the fact. Therefore, she thinks they might not be so concerned about the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD.

Vice Mayor Malkani said in general she thinks having no parking on Red Flag Days on narrow roads, especially evacuation routes, is a very good idea and it is something that is a priority. However, she feels she cannot give more direction on what to do without more information. She is still not sure of the purpose of having signs on wide roads. This requires a conversation with the Fire Chief and may be something to be addressed in the 2x2 meeting.

The reason there are citations is because they have a deterrent effect because they do not want people parking on the street on roads in a manner on Red Flag Days that will impede residents from being able to evacuate and which will impede fire trucks from getting in. So, if the number of signs relates to whether they can tow a vehicle early in the day and not during the event, then maybe they do need the number of signs. That question is not clear to her yet either, so she would like more information before making modifications.

Councilmember Miller spoke about a trip to Los Angeles in Bronson Canyon near Hollywood Hills, and displayed pictures to look at what people do sometimes with parking, which is shocking.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 14 01.23.24
Mayor Gee said she is willing to revisit the criteria of how the City is implementing this.

Along with Councilmember Miller she was on the Council that made the decision to move forward with what they did. They made that decision because of the urgency of fire concern and danger in Orinda. They hear about it every day and it was not possible to hold a Town Hall with all streets on every evacuation route in the community. Frankly, if they had tried, it would not have been successful either. She is willing to revisit it.

Additionally, no one needs to worry about taxpayer dollars for signs because they likely can be used somewhere else in town, but she thinks they should revisit the criteria. She does not have any immediate feelings about what the criteria should be. It makes sense on a street where someone could not park a car under any circumstances, they probably do not need a sign. She was unsure about widths of streets and is puzzled as to why Dalewood is so distraught because she has driven it multiple times. But, she is also willing to entertain maybe it is not appropriate and they should take the width of the street into account. They all know what they are trying to achieve and do not care about the citation. They are trying to prevent disaster and frankly, driving around town, people need direction, and thinks the issue needs to be revisited to try to maintain balance.

Mayor Gee said because they have a lengthy Closed Session tonight, if agreeable to the Council and staff, she recommended tabling Items H.3 and H.4 and continuing them to another meeting. Councilmembers and staff concurred.

H.3. Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems
Recommendation:

Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction, if Any.

This item was continued to a future meeting.

H.4. Legislative Advocacy Approach Options
Recommendation:

Receive Report, Discuss, and provide Direction, if any.

This item was continued to a future meeting.

H.5. City Manager Recruitment Services
Recommendation:

Form a City Council Ad Hoc Committee of two (2) Members to review Executive Search Proposals and make a recommendation to the Council as to which firm to retain, or any alternative course which may be determined by the Council.

Mayor Gee announced the Council has held multiple discussions with City Manager Biggs, are sorry to be losing him, understands why, and he will be retiring from the City and the Council needs to find a replacement.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 14 01.23.24
Human Resources Manager Ginger Staton gave the staff report and overview of the matter. Mr. Biggs’ employment agreement ends on June 20, 2024 and noticed there was a slight error on the staff report which identified 2023. On December 19th, staff put out an RFP for executive recruiters for the City Manager position and 3 firms responded by the January 2nd deadline; Bob Murray and Associates, Jacob Green and Associates, and Peckham and McKinney.

Mayor Gee is recommending the Council form an ad-hoc committee to interview the 3 firms and make a recommendation. If the Council wishes, they could take a different approach and ask the ad-hoc committee to move things forward quicker. Once a firm is chosen, each Councilmember will be interviewed by the search firm in preparation for the recruitment process.

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

Mayor Gee said the options are if the Council agrees with having an ad-hoc committee to do the screening of the recruitment firms to make a recommendation, who is on the ad-hoc committee, and whether the Council would like the ad-hoc committee to make a recommendation and return to the Council before taking any action or whether the Council is comfortable with the ad-hoc committee’s recommendation moving forward without bringing it back to the full Council.

Councilmembers all agreed that the ad-hoc committee could choose the recruitment firm, and the Council can weigh in on the advertising and selection process with the recruitment firm.

Mayor Gee stated it is customary for the Mayor to be part of the ad-hoc committee, and she suggested the Vice Mayor, or Councilmember Riley or Iverson serve as the second member.

The Council agreed that Vice Mayor Malkani will serve as the second ad-hoc committee member.

Mayor Gee confirmed the ad-hoc committee will interview the 3 recruitment firms, select who to retain, and then return to start the recruitment process.

MOTION by Councilmember Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Riley, to form a City Council Ad Hoc Committee of Mayor Gee and Vice Mayor Malkani to interview the 3 Executive Search Firms and make a recommendation to retain one of the firms, and then work with them to make the next process steps with the full City Council. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

City Manager Biggs thanked the Council, said it was a difficult decision, said he has enjoyed his time working with wonderful staff, the Council, and the community.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 13 of 14 01.23.24
I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Vice Mayor Malkani reported on an Emmynominated show called, Indian Matchmaking. The matchmaker spoke to the Orinda Rotary Club last week because she was staying in Orinda, and is friends with a resident.

Councilmember Iverson reported a 2x2 meeting was held and they discussed evacuation which they will push forward with planning exercises and communications.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – Mayor Gee said she would like to initiate a motion to create an ad-hoc subcommittee to evaluate both public and private options for better integrating and maintaining our community infrastructure. She proposed it be a 2-person subcommittee, subject to Brown Act rules to allow for public participation with an initial term through December 2024. After December 2024, it will sunset unless extended by the Council and she is proposing the initial members of the ad-hoc subcommittee be herself and Vice Mayor Malkani.

Even after achieving one of the most impressive road and drainage rehabilitation programs in the Bay Area, Orinda still has a patchwork quilt of co-mingled public and private roads and drainage facilities. Additionally, there are many drainage elements subject to private maintenance that are often not well maintained, leaving neighborhoods at risk for flooding and drainage failures. Private road and drain concerns affect at least 20% of Orinda’s residents and remain one of the most divisive issues in the community. While there have been past efforts to consider solutions, none of them have ever achieved implementation. While this is an extremely complicated topic that has no easy solutions, she believes it is one that is important to many members of the community and deserves a fresh look.

She also believes there will be areas where the effort for a new evaluation will take more than staff resources and require consultant support. In those instances, the full Council would need to take action based on the subcommittee’s recommendation. Infrastructure is a huge asset, and while often thought of as a liability due to the substantial capital and maintenance cost, it is the most serious investment in safety, property protection, and quality of community life in any community. Infrastructure development and maintenance has been a long-standing governmental responsibility to ensure consistent standards.

She has always believed for 9 full years on the Council and voiced that a better integrated and maintained City infrastructure will need additional monies beyond what is currently available; however, she has also believed the Orinda community should have the information to thoroughly understand what the benefits and costs of a more integrated and better maintained system would be and the opportunity to vote on whether they support doing that.

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

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 14 of 14 01.23.24
MOTION by Mayor Gee, and seconded by Vice Mayor Malkani, to create an ad-hoc subcommittee of Mayor Gee and Vice Mayor Malkani to evaluate both public and private options for better integrating and maintaining the Orinda community infrastructure; that it be a 2-person subcommittee, subject to Brown Act rules to allow for public participation with an initial term through December 2024; and that after December 2024, it will sunset unless extended by the Council. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

L. CLOSED SESSION

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS of Closed Session Matters

3. 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: Rains, et al v. City of Orinda (Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. C20-01893).

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 potential case).

C. 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.

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
There was no reportable action taken.

M. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:18 p.m. to the next Regular Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 06, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. ______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2024 (3292 : City Council Minutes) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: February 6, 2024
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Approve Plans for New Accessible Parking Space in Theater Square District, and Approve Plans for Crosswalk Improvements in Various Locations RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Plans for the following improvements: (1) New accessible parking space on Moraga Way in Theater Square District (2) Two new crosswalks on Glorietta Blvd. (3) Improvements to existing crosswalks on Orinda Way
BACKGROUND:

Accessible parking in the Theater District
At its October 17, 2023 meeting, City Council reviewed accessible parking in the Theater District, in response to a Matters Initiated item at the September 5, 2023 City Council meeting. Staff was directed to eliminate a non-conforming on-street accessible space on Bryant Way, and to design a new accessible space in the area to offset the loss. Staff was also directed to bring the proposed design for the new space to City Council for review. Attachment A is a map of the accessible parking spaces in the study area.

New Crosswalks on Glorietta Blvd.

The city applied for a TDA (Transportation Development Act) grant in January 2024 for extending the Glorietta pedestrian pathway (on the southbound side of the road) from Overhill Rd. to the north city limits, based on TSAC review of potential projects. During the resident outreach that Staff conducted, there was a strong interest in providing crosswalks at certain intersections in the near future. Staff did not include such crosswalks in the TDA grant since the project implementation would be at least two years away.

Crosswalk Improvements on Orinda Way
During City Council review of the Vista Verde project in August 2022, questions were raised about the existing crosswalks at the intersection of Irwin Way and Orinda Way.

Irwin Way is controlled by a Stop sign, while the crosswalk crossing Orinda Way is uncontrolled. A question was raised as to potential need of enhancements such as RRFB’s (rectangular rapid flashing beacons).

DISCUSSION:

Accessible parking in the Theater District
The non-conforming space on Bryant Way has been eliminated, and re-striped to an unrestricted on-street parking space. Staff engaged AMG, an on-call traffic engineering F.2
Packet Pg. 20
firm, to review potential locations and perform design work to add the new accessible space. Attachment B is the Plan for a new space fronting 21 Moraga Way. Note that it includes striping work at an existing space across the street at 50 Moraga Way, in order to relocate an existing motorcycle parking space from 21 Moraga Way.

New Crosswalks on Glorietta Blvd.

AMG was also engaged to assess the proposed two new crosswalks on Glorietta Blvd., located at the Tee intersection with Meadow View Rd. (eastern leg) and the Tee intersection with Meadow Park Ct. Their assessment report (Attachment C) includes plans for striping and signing the two locations on pages 8-9.

Crosswalk Improvements on Orinda Way
In response to questions raised, Staff researched the history of the crosswalk on Orinda Way at Irwin Way and reviewed similar crosswalks on Orinda Way to the south of this location, near the community center and the library. Staff determined that all of the four uncontrolled crosswalks should be evaluated by a traffic engineer, and therefore we engaged AMG to evaluate these crosswalks. AMG also reviewed a fifth crosswalk in this stretch of Orinda Way, near the community center, which is controlled by Stop signs.

AMG’s January 17, 2024 report (Attachment D) describes their evaluation. It concluded that no RRFB’s were warranted, but did recommend additional advance signage, and enhanced striping for the crosswalks. The plans are included in the report on pages 15 -16.

Design Immunity
City Council approval of the above referenced plans is recommended, in accordance with design immunity defense requirements listed under California Government Code Section 830.6.

NEXT STEPS:

Staff will hire an appropriate contractor to perform said improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of the above referenced work is estimated to be $40,000. No new appropriations are necessary as staff will be utilizing existing funding from CIP 4074 (ADA Compliance), CIP 4107 (Traffic Calming), and the General Fund operating budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Theater District Parking Spaces_v3
B. Moraga Wy ADA Parking-signed
C. Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan D. Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed
F.2
Packet Pg. 21
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.2
Packet Pg. 22
7 9
6 6 5
2 2
7+1
161+2
10+1
3 MORAGA WAY

BROOKWOOD
ROAD
BRYANT
WAY

NORTHWOOD
DRIVE

THEATER
SQUARE

PARKING
(323+8)
2004 Study
13 +
Loading
Zone

PARKING SPACES - THEATER DISTRICT (E) ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE (E) ON-STREET PARKING
(E) OFF-STREET PARKING
24+1
18+1
8 25+2
16+1
16+2
3+1
161+2
24+1
Relocate
(E) Motorcycle
Parking Spot
Add (N)
Accessible Parking
(See Detail Plan)
(E) Existing
(N) New/Proposed
Adjust Excess Aisle Space,
Relocate Motorcycle
Parking (See Detail Plan)
Non-Conforming
Space (Eliminated)
F.2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Theater District Parking Spaces_v3 (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) F.2.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Moraga Wy ADA Parking-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Technical Memorandum
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com
To: Ryan O’Kane, Senior Engineer
Public Works & Engineering Department
From: Joy Bhattacharya, PE &
Andrea Flores, EIT
Address: 22 Orinda Way
Orinda, California 94563
Email: [email protected] Date: January 25, 2024
Subject: Glorietta Boulevard Crosswalk Location Assessment Introduction
This brief technical memorandum summarizes the results of the Glorietta Boulevard Crosswalk Location Assessment prepared by AMG for two intersections on Glorietta Boulevard in the City of Orinda. Exhibit 1 below shows the study intersections. The two study intersections are Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow Park Court and Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow View Road. The intersection of Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow View Road is split into two T-intersections. As shown in Exhibit 1, a crosswalk was not warranted for the northern Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow View Road intersection.

Exhibit 1: Project Study Intersections
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Technical Memorandum
Glorietta Boulevard Crosswalk Location Assesment
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate existing safety concerns at the study intersections and recommend improvements to enhance the safety of pedestrians at both intersections. Pedestrians are allowed to cross Glorietta Boulevard even though the study intersections are uncontrolled and unmarked along Glorietta Boulevard. However, installing a painted crosswalk will improve safety for pedestrians crossing Glorietta Boulevard at both intersections. This assessment will include our recommendations on crosswalk locations at both intersections.

Existing Roadway Infrastructure
Glorietta Boulevard is a bi-directional two-lane north-south roadway in the City of Orinda connecting Alcalanes Road and Moraga Way. The posted speed limit within the study area is 25 miles per hour (mph). There are currently five marked crosswalks and no sidewalks along the entire 1.6 mile roadway.

Currently, there are pedestrian safety signs installed along Orinda Way at all the marked crosswalks.

Collision Analysis
Collision Data from the past five years (January 2018 to December 2022) was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). The number of collisions found at both intersections was zero. Although no recorded incidents occurred at either intersection, the city has received complaints from residents that crossing these intersections feels unsafe. Pedestrian activity is noticeable at these intersections and installing safety features is needed.

Field Review
AMG conducted field observation of both intersections to evaluate traffic conditions, roadside conditions, safety issues, and potential pedestrian conflicts.

At the Glorietta Blvd & Meadow Park Court intersection, there is a stop control for traffic traveling westbound along Meadow Park Court. There are no marked crosswalks, sidewalks, or curb ramps at this intersection. The speed limit approaching the intersection on Glorietta Blvd is 25 mph. Potential conflicts at this intersection include sight visibility issues from drivers coming out of their driveways on Glorietta Boulevard near the intersection. Another sight visibility issue stems from the horizontal curve to the south of the intersection, about 160 feet south of the intersection. Vehicles coming in the northbound direction drive along this curve as they approach the intersection and have limited sight visibility of the intersection. This curve also contains vegetation and trees that further hinder sight visibility. Exhibit 2 shows the existing conditions at this intersection.

Exhibit 2: Existing Conditions at the Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow Park Court Intersection F.2.c
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Technical Memorandum
Glorietta Boulevard Crosswalk Location Assesment
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com

The Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow View Road intersection consists of two locations (T-intersections), the northern location consists of a western leg, and the southern location consists of an eastern leg. There is stop control for vehicles at the T-legs along both Meadow View Road roadways. There are no marked crosswalks, sidewalks, or curb ramps at either intersection. The speed limit approaching the intersections on Glorietta Blvd is 25 mph. Potential conflicts at both intersections include sight visibility issues from drivers coming out of their driveways on Glorietta Boulevard near the intersection. Another sight visibility issue at the northern intersection stems from the horizontal curves to the north of the intersection. Vehicles driving in the southbound direction drive along these curves as they approach the northern Glorietta Blvd & Meadow View Road intersection. Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 show the existing conditions at this intersection.

At both study intersections, considerable pedestrian activity was observed. It would take pedestrians about five seconds to find a gap in traffic to cross Glorietta Boulevard at both intersections. It was also observed that both study intersections served as school bus pick-up/drop-off locations. Many students were observed crossing Glorietta Boulevard and waiting at both intersections for the bus.

Exhibit 3: Existing Conditions at the northern Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow View Road intersection Exhibit 4: Existing Conditions at the southern Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow View Road intersection F.2.c
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Technical Memorandum
Glorietta Boulevard Crosswalk Location Assesment
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com

Crosswalk Location and Pedestrian Enhancement Recommendations AMG utilized the collision analysis and the field review to recommend the crosswalk locations and pedestrian enhancements at the study intersections. The full concept plan for both study intersections is shown in Appendix A.

At the Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow Park Court intersection, the marked crosswalk is recommended to be painted across the northern approach on Glorietta Boulevard as shown in Exhibit 5. By installing the crosswalk at this location, potential conflicts between vehicles making a left turn on Meadow Park Court onto Glorietta Boulevard are eliminated. Placing the crosswalk across the northern approach at this intersection also removes potential sight visibility issues caused by the curve to the south of the intersection.

Additional enhancements at this intersection include yield markings placed 20 to 50 feet before the crosswalk in both directions to instruct drivers to yield to pedestrians crossing, R1-5a signs instructing vehicles to yield to pedestrians, and a striping detail at the northeast corner of the intersection to protect pedestrians from potential vehicles that are at the stop. Pedestrian Crossing markings and Pedestrian Crossing ahead advanced warning signs (W11-2 and W16-9p) are placed ahead of the intersections to warn drivers of upcoming crosswalk in advance.

Exhibit 5: Crosswalk Location and additional enhancements at the Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow Park Court intersection
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Technical Memorandum
Glorietta Boulevard Crosswalk Location Assesment
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com

At the Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow View Road intersection, the marked crosswalk is recommended to be painted across the northern approach on Glorietta Boulevard in the southern intersection as shown in Exhibit 6. By installing the crosswalk at this location, potential conflicts between vehicles making a left turn on Meadow View Road onto Glorietta Boulevard are eliminated. Placing the crosswalk across the northern approach on the southern intersection also removes potential sight visibility issues caused by the curves to the north of the intersection. Additional enhancements at this intersection include yield markings placed 20 to 50 feet before the crosswalk in both directions to instruct drivers to yield to pedestrians crossing, R1-5a signs instructing vehicles to yield to pedestrians, and a striping detail at the northeast corner of the intersection to protect pedestrians from potential vehicles that are at the stop. Pedestrian Crossing markings and Pedestrian Crossing ahead advanced warning signs (W11-2 and W16-9p) are placed ahead of the intersections to warn drivers of upcoming crosswalk in advance.

Exhibit 6: Crosswalk Location and additional enhancements at the southern Glorietta Boulevard & Meadow View Road intersection
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Technical Memorandum
Glorietta Boulevard Crosswalk Location Assesment
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com

Conclusion
The following points are the results and recommendations of the Crosswalk Location Assessment • Crosswalk #1 (Glorietta Blvd & Meadow Park Court)
o Crosswalk location across the northern approach
o Yield Markings and R1-5a signs to warn drivers to yield to pedestrians on the crosswalk o Striping Detail on the northeast corner to provide pedestrians protection from vehicles approaching the stop on Meadow Park Court
o Advanced Pedestrian Crossing markings and warning signs to warn drivers of upcoming pedestrian crossing.
• Crosswalk #2 (Glorietta Blvd & Meadow View Road)
o Crosswalk location across the northern approach
o Yield Markings and R1-5a signs to warn drivers to yield to pedestrians on the crosswalk o Striping Detail on the northeast corner to provide pedestrians protection from vehicles approaching the stop on Meadow View Road
o Advanced Pedestrian Crossing markings and warning signs to warn drivers of upcoming pedestrian crossing
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com
Appendix A
Crosswalk Locations and Pedestrian Improvements Concept Plan F.2.c
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) PED
PED
STOP
XING
XING
STOP
STOP
PROJECT NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

FURNISH AND INSTALL "PED" AND "XING" PAVEMENT MARKINGS PER CALTRANS SHEET A24DFURNISH AND INSTALL W11-2 & W16-9 SIGNS ON NEW POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY LADDER CROSSWALK PER CALTRANS SHEET A24FFURNISH AND INSTALL R1-5a SIGN ON NEW POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL WHITE THERMOPLASTIC YIELD MARKINGS PER CALTRANS SHEET A24GFURNISH AND INSTALL 6" WHITE THERMOPLASTIC STRIPINGFURNISH AND INSTALL STRIPING DETAIL 27B PER CALTRANS SHEET A20B GLORIETTA BLVD. N MEADOW PARK CT.

GLORIETTA BLVD & MEADOW PARK CT

CROSSWALK DESIGN PLAN
CONSTRUCTION NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING STRIPING IN PLACE.

2. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE CURRENT CITY OF ORINDA STANDARDS.

3. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE 2022 CALTRANS STANDARDS.

4. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE LATEST 2014 CA MUTCD STANDARDS.

BENCH MARK

CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING DEPT.

CITY OF ORINDA
CASE
SHEET __________ OF __________
DWG.

BY APP.

SCALE

REVISED
DESIGNED J. BHATTACHARYA
NO.

CHECKEDDRAWN
DATE
A. FLORESJ. BHATTACHARYA
01-17-24
FINAL 2

GLORIETTA BLVD CROSSWALK

LOCATION ASSESSMENT
N/A SS-1
MEADOW PARK CT. GLORIETTA BLVD.
1 N
N
REMOVAL NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPING DETAIL 22
1 JOY BHATTACHARYA, P.E. RCE 68,928
VICE PRESIDENTADVANCED MOBILITY GROUP (AMG)PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:

DATE
SIVAKUMAR NATARAJAN, P.E. RCE 74,789CITY ENGINEERCITY OF ORINDA APPROVED BY:

DATE
1/17/2024
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) STOP
STOP
PED
XING
PED
XING
STOP
STOP
GLORIETTA BLVD. N MEADOW VIEW RD.

GLORIETTA BLVD & MEADOW VIEW RD

CROSSWALK DESIGN PLAN

BENCH MARK

CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING DEPT.

CITY OF ORINDA
CASE
SHEET __________ OF __________
DWG.

BY APP.

SCALE

REVISED
DESIGNED J. BHATTACHARYA
NO.

CHECKEDDRAWN
DATE
A. FLORESJ. BHATTACHARYA
01-25-24
FINAL 2

GLORIETTA BLVD CROSSWALK

LOCATION ASSESSMENT
N/A SS-2
MEADOW VIEW RD.

N
GLORIETTA BLVD.
2 PROJECT NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

FURNISH AND INSTALL "PED" AND "XING" PAVEMENT MARKINGS PER CALTRANS SHEET A24DFURNISH AND INSTALL W11-2 & W16-9p SIGNS ON NEW POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL HIGH VISIBILITY LADDER CROSSWALK PER CALTRANS SHEET A24FFURNISH AND INSTALL R1-5a SIGN ON NEW POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL WHITE THERMOPLASTIC YIELD MARKINGS PER CALTRANS SHEET A24GFURNISH AND INSTALL 6" WHITE THERMOPLASTIC STRIPING CONSTRUCTION NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING STRIPING IN PLACE.

2. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE CURRENT CITY OF ORINDA STANDARDS.

3. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE 2022 CALTRANS STANDARDS.

4. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE LATEST 2014 CA MUTCD STANDARDS.

MEADOW VIEW RD.

N
1 REMOVAL NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPING DETAIL 22
SIGN LEGEND:

R1-5a
W11-2
W16-9P
F.2.c
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Glorietta Blvd Crosswalk Location Assessment 1-25-2024 -signed plan (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Technical Memorandum
Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com
To: Sivakumar Natarajan, PE
City Engineer, City of Orinda
From: Joy Bhattacharya, PE &
Andrea Flores, EIT
Address: 22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Email: [email protected] Date: January 17, 2024 Subject: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
Introduction
This technical memorandum summarizes the results of the feasibility study conducted for crosswalk improvements along Orinda Way from Irwin Way to the Orinda Library Parking lot as shown in Figure 1.

Along this section of Orinda Way, there are five crosswalks to facilitate safe pedestrian access, as shown in Figure 1 and described below. One of these (location #3), located adjacent to the Community Center, is controlled by Stop signs.
• Crosswalk #1: Irwin Way - standard white striped crosswalk on decorative brick surface • Crosswalk #2: Adjacent to Community Park steps near tennis court - standard white striped crosswalk on decorative brick surface
• Crosswalk #3: Adjacent to Community Center – wide white striped crosswalk on decorative inlaid concrete and brick surface. Intersection is controlled by stop signs. • Crosswalk #4: Adjacent to Library – wide white striped crosswalk on decorative inlaid concrete and brick surface.
• Crosswalk #5: Adjacent to Library Parking Garage - standard white striped crosswalk on decorative brick surface
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

The purpose of this study is to evaluate existing safety concerns at the crosswalks across Orinda Way and recommend improvements to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists at the intersections.

Measures evaluated in this study include pedestrian safety enhancements and Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) warrant evaluation. Appendix A shows the concept plan of the recommended improvements.

Figure 1: Project Study Locations
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Existing Roadway Infrastructure & Traffic Operations
Orinda Way is a bi-directional two-lane north-south roadway in the City of Orinda connecting Camino Pablo with several roadways including Camino Sobrante, Irwin Way, and Santa Maria Way/Altarinda Road. The posted speed limit within the study area is 25 miles per hour (mph). There are currently five crosswalks at the study intersections across Orinda Way with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps and truncated domes. Additionally, there are curb extensions at both of the decorative crosswalk locations and the Orinda Way/Tennis Courts and Orinda Way/Library uncontrolled marked crosswalk locations.

There is on-street parking and angled parking along Orinda Way throughout the study area. There are no bicycle facilities present near the study area. Continuous sidewalks are present in both directions along Orinda Way and Irwin Way. Currently, there are pedestrian safety signs installed along Orinda Way at all the crosswalks except for the decorative crosswalk at the library in the southbound direction and at the uncontrolled crosswalk near the library parking lot in both directions.

Data Collection
AMG collected intersection turning movement counts (TMC) on Tuesday, September 26, 2023, for the three (3) uncontrolled marked crosswalk locations during the weekday a.m. (7:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.) and p.m. (2:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.) peak periods. It should be noted that the data was collected during these specific times to capture entrance and dismissal times of nearby Holden High School and The Orinda Pre-School. Appendix B contains the existing traffic counts.

The data collected was utilized to evaluate the feasibility of various measures such as RRFB’s and other pedestrian crossing treatments to enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists at the intersections.

Analysis
AMG utilized the collected traffic data and conducted a crosswalk analysis at the three uncontrolled marked crosswalk locations using the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD 2014 7th Edition), Federal Highway Administration’s Crosswalk Installation Guidelines, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report - Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings was used for the analysis.

Additionally, AMG conducted collision analysis for the most recent five years from January 2018 to December 2022. AMG also conducted field observations at the three uncontrolled marked crosswalk locations to detect any potential conflicts and safety issues. Visual assessment was conducted at the two decorative crosswalk locations to detect any potential safety improvements. The field observations/visual assessments and analysis results are summarized below.

Field Observations & Visual Assessments:

Field observations and visual assessments were conducted on Thursday, September 21, 2023, during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods. The purpose of this field review was to analyze any potential conflicts, safety issues, and existing roadway conditions, and to propose any potential improvements.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Orinda Way & Irwin Way
Several pedestrians, children, and seniors were observed crossing both crosswalks at the intersection. It would take pedestrians about five to ten seconds to find a gap in traffic to cross along Orinda Way.

Vehicles approaching both crosswalks would yield to pedestrians most of the time. The nearest controlled crosswalk is located about 230 feet north of the intersection at Orinda Way/Camino Sobrante.

No sight distance issues were observed near either crosswalk, although there were some visibility issues at the crosswalk along Orinda Way due to sun glare. During the a.m. peak, it was hard to see pedestrians crossing the crosswalk when coming from Orinda Way/Camino Sobrante intersection due to the rising sun.

Currently, there is advanced pedestrian signage notifying drivers of the crosswalks at the intersection.

It was observed that the pedestrian crossing warning sign was obstructed by a tree, making it hard for drivers to see the sign as shown in Figure 2. Trimming that tree would improve driver visibility of the sign.

Figure 2: Warning Signage at Orinda Way & Irwin Way
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Orinda Way & Tennis Courts
Pedestrians and children were observed crossing the crosswalk. It would take pedestrians about five seconds to find a gap in traffic to cross the intersection. Vehicles approaching the crosswalk would yield to pedestrians most of the time. The nearest controlled crosswalk is located about 250 feet south of the intersection (Orinda Way & Community Center decorative crosswalk).

Potential pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at this intersection come from the angled on-street parking adjacent to the crosswalk as seen in Figure 3. Distracted drivers backing up from a parking spot might not see pedestrians crossing the crosswalk. Another potential pedestrian-vehicle conflict arises from the Bank of America and Rite Aid driveways. The crosswalk is located between both driveways, where distracted drivers may not see pedestrians crossing. Additionally, there were some visibility issues during the a.m. peak, as it was hard to see pedestrians crossing the crosswalk when coming from Orinda Way/Irwin Way due to sun glare. Currently, there is advanced pedestrian signage notifying drivers of the crosswalk at the intersection.

Figure 3: Orinda Way & Tennis Courts Intersection
Rite Aid
Driveway
Bank of America
Driveway
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Orinda Way & Community Center (Decorative Crosswalk)
Pedestrians, children, and seniors were observed crossing the crosswalk. Currently, there is no advanced pedestrian signage intimating drivers of the crosswalk at the intersection because it is a twoway stop controlled intersection. Vehicles would yield to pedestrians all the time because the intersection is stop-controlled. Potential pedestrian-vehicular conflicts arise from the nearness of the Rite Aid and Community Center driveways to the crosswalk as shown in Figure 4. Several potential pedestrian-vehicular conflicts were observed at the unmarked Community Center Driveway crossing.

Installing a marked crosswalk at this location would greatly improve pedestrian safety and driver awareness.

Figure 4: Orinda Way & Community Center Intersection
Rite Aid
Driveway
Community
Center
Driveway
Community Center
Driveway Crossing
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Orinda Way & Library (Decorative Crosswalk)
Pedestrians, children, and seniors were observed crossing the crosswalk. It would take pedestrians about five seconds to find a gap to cross the intersection. Vehicles approaching the crosswalk would yield to pedestrians most of the time. The nearest controlled crosswalk is located about 300 feet north at the intersection of Orinda Way & Community Center. Currently, there is no advanced pedestrian signage notifying drivers of the crosswalk at the intersection in the northbound direction as shown in Figure 5. It was observed that providing such treatment would greatly improve driver awareness.

Figure 5: No advanced warning sign at the Orinda Way & Library Intersection F.2.d
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Orinda Way & Library Parking
Pedestrians and seniors were observed crossing the crosswalk. It would take pedestrians about five to ten seconds to find a gap to cross the intersection. Vehicles approaching the crosswalk would yield to pedestrians most of the time. The nearest controlled crosswalk is located about 490 feet south at the intersection of Orinda Way & Santa Maria Way.

Potential pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at this intersection come from the angled on-street parking adjacent to the crosswalk. Distracted drivers backing up from a parking spot might not see pedestrians crossing the crosswalk as shown in Figure 6. Currently, there is no advanced pedestrian signage intimating drivers of the crosswalk at the intersection. It was observed that providing such treatment would greatly improve driver awareness.

Figure 6: Orinda Way & Library Parking Intersection
Angled
Parking
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Collision Analysis
AMG reviewed collision data from SWITRS – Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System and TIMSTransportation Injury Mapping System for the study intersection from January 2018 to December 2022.

There was one collision reported at the intersection of Orinda Way and Irwin Way during this period. It involved a pedestrian that was crossing on the crosswalk while the driver was driving at unsafe speed; the pedestrian was severely injured.

Pedestrian Delay Analysis
AMG utilized NCHRP Report 562, Worksheet 1 for vehicle speeds of 35 mph or less to evaluate the feasibility of installing applicable traffic control devices and pedestrian crossing treatments. As summarized in Table 1, total pedestrian delays lower than 1.3 hours and high or low motorist compliance corresponds to standard crosswalk treatments. Total pedestrian delay between 1.3 and 5.3 hours with high or low motorists’ compliance or total pedestrian delay between 5.3 and 21.3 hours with high motorist compliance corresponds to “Active” or “Enhanced” treatment along with the standard crosswalk treatment. Total pedestrian delay between 5.3 and 21.3 hours with high or low motorists’ compliance or total pedestrian delay higher than 21.3 hours with low motorist compliance corresponds to HAWK signal or Pedestrian Beacon treatment.

Table 1: NCHRP 562 - Treatments based on Total Pedestrian Delay and Expected Motorist Compliance Total Pedestrian Delay,
Dp (from 4h) and
Motorist Compliance,
Comp (from 5a)
Treatment Category Treatment Description
Dp ³ 21.3 h (Comp = high
or low) OR

5.3 h £ Dp < 21.3 h and
Comp = low
RED
This category includes those devices
that display a circular red indication
(signal or beacon) to motorists at the
pedestrian location.

1.3 h £ Dp < 5.3 h (Comp =
high or low) OR

5.3 h £ Dp < 21.3 h and
Comp = high

ACTIVE OR

ENHANCED
Active: Also called “active when
present,” this category includes those
devices designed to display a warning
only when pedestrians are present or
crossing the street.

Enhanced: This category includes
those devices that enhance the visibility
of the crossing location and pedestrians
waiting to cross. Warning signs,
markings, or beacons in this category
are present or active at the crossing
location at all times.

Dp < 1.3 h (Comp = high
or low) CROSSWALK
This category encompasses standard
crosswalk markings and pedestrian
crossing signs, as opposed to unmarked
crossings.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

AMG conducted a.m. and p.m. peak hour analysis using NCHRP 562, Worksheet 1: Peak Hour, 35mph or less. Certain peak hours were chosen for analysis, based on the highest pedestrian crossing demand.

Field observations at the study intersection showed motorist compliance to pedestrians crossing Orinda Way. The critical gap required for pedestrians to walk, and the average and total pedestrian delay experienced at the study crosswalks were calculated. Based on the pedestrian delay calculated using Worksheet 1, included in Appendix C, the total pedestrian delay at the study intersections is below 1.3 hours as shown in Table 2. According to NCHRP 562, total pedestrian delay below 1.3 hours corresponds to standard crossing treatment enhancements at the intersection. This means that installing a marked crosswalk at the intersection is sufficient treatment and installing other enhancements is not necessary.

Table 2: Critical Gap and Average & Total Pedestrian Delay at the Study Intersections Crosswalk Peak
Hour
Number of
Pedestrians
Critical Gap
required
(secs)
Average
Pedestrian Delay
(secs/ped)
Total Pedestrian
Delay (hours)
Orinda/Irwin A.M. 17 13.3 14.2 0.1
Orinda/Tennis P.M. 5 8.1 5.1 0.0
Orinda/Library A.M. 5 9.9 11.6 0.0
Traffic Control Warrant Evaluation
AMG utilized NCHRP Report 562 – Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings for recommendations to enhance safety at the study intersection. AMG also utilized the NCHRP Report 562 guidelines, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), 2014 Edition, Revision 7 guidelines, and Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Crosswalk Installation Guidelines – Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, to evaluate the feasibility of installing RRFB treatments at the study intersections. Appendix D contains all relevant guidelines utilized for analysis.

Pedestrian Hybrid (HAWK) Beacons, Pedestrian Signals or RRFB Analysis Typically, the guidelines for Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid (HAWK) Beacons, Pedestrian Signals, or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) are based on existing pedestrian counts, width of crossing distance and speed of roadway.

Based on the intersection TMC’s collected for the study and the highest pedestrian crossing demand shown in Table 2, there were approximately 17, 5, and 5 pedestrians crossing the Orinda/Irwin, Orinda/Tennis Courts, and Orinda/Library Parking crosswalks respectively.

The average vehicle traffic volume on major street approaches is approximately 355, 399, and 509 vehicles per hour (vph) on Orinda Way for the Orinda/Irwin, Orinda/Tennis Court, and Orinda/Library Parking intersections during the peak hour specified in Table 2.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

The length of the crosswalks across Orinda Way is approximately 36, 18, and 24 feet on Orinda/Irwin, Orinda/Tennis Court, and Orinda/Library Parking respectively. The posted speed limit along Orinda Way is 25 mph. These criteria fall below the minimum pedestrian volume thresholds specified in CA MUTCD as illustrated in Figure 7.

Therefore, based on the review of referenced guidelines and existing traffic data collected, installation of pedestrian hybrid (HAWK) beacons or pedestrian signals or RRFB signs is not justified across Orinda Way at any study intersections at this time.

Additionally, AMG utilized the FHWA guidelines for crosswalks at uncontrolled locations to determine what traffic control devices or pedestrian crossing treatments are feasible at the study intersections.

Based on the number of travel lanes (two lanes), median type (no raised median), speed limit (25 mph), and typical ADT (approximately 2,900 vehicles on Orinda Way per Replica Data1 ), all the study
intersections are candidates for marked crosswalks and other pedestrian crossing treatments.

Other Safety Treatments and Recommendations
Though RRFB installation is not recommended, the NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings and the FHWA Crosswalk Installation Guidelines – Safety Effects of Marked vs.

Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations recommend alternative treatments to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility.
1 Replica uses activity-based travel models that simulate the movements of residents, visitors, and commercial vehicles in a given area. Data outputs can be queried down to the network link level. Replica is a nationwide activity-based model updated each week with near-real-time data on mobility, consumer spending, and land use at census-tract-level level.

Orinda Way & Irwin Way
Orinda Way & Tennis Court
Orinda Way & Library Parking
Figure 7: CA MUTCD Pedestrian Beacon Guidelines
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Based on existing roadway configuration, field review, and collision analysis, the installation of advanced yield pavement markings and “Yield Here to Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs are recommended on Orinda Way at the Orinda Way & Irwin Way intersection. Due to its proximity to two schools and a senior housing facility, AMG recommends upgrading the existing marked crosswalk to yellow highvisibility retroreflective crosswalk markings at this intersection. Installing curb extensions at this intersection can be considered to further enhance the pedestrian crossing in the future after periodic monitoring of pedestrian activities at the intersection.

Based on existing roadway configuration and field review, upgrading the existing marked crosswalk to high-visibility retroreflective crosswalk markings is recommended on Orinda Way at the Orinda Way & Tennis Court intersection.

Based on input received from the City and field review, visibility of pedestrians at the Orinda Way & Library Parking is a concern. AMG recommends upgrading the existing marked crosswalk to highvisibility retroreflective crosswalk markings and installing advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2, W16-7p, and W16-9p). Additionally, it is recommended to install “Ped Xing” pavement legends on Orinda Way, approaching the intersection from both directions.

Based on field review, AMG recommends the following treatments at the decorative crosswalks:
• Orinda Way & Community Center
o Install Crosswalk Markings at the Community Center driveway entrance crosswalk near the Orinda Way & Community Center intersection to improve pedestrian safety and improve driver awareness.
o Consider installing higher voltage/brighter lights at the intersection. • Orinda Way & Library
o Install advance pedestrian warning signs (W11-2, W16-7p, and W16-9p). o Consider installing higher voltage/brighter lights at the intersection.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
January 17, 2024

Conclusion
Based on the results of the analysis, HAWK or RRFB treatments are not warranted at any of the study intersections based on CA MUTCD and NCHRP Report 562. This is primarily due to the low traffic volumes on the major street and the relatively short length of the crosswalks. However, AMG recommends the following pedestrian treatments at the study intersections (Table 3):

Table 3: Pedestrian Crossing Treatments and other Recommendations Crosswalk Treatments
Orinda/Irwin
- Install Advanced Yield Pavement Markings
- Install “Yield Here to Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs
- Upgrade Existing Crosswalk Markings to High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings - Trim branches that obscure visibility of Existing Advanced Pedestrian Warning signs Orinda/Tennis - Upgrade Existing Crosswalk Markings to High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings Orinda/Community
Center
- Install High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings at the Community Center Dwy entrance - Consider installing higher voltage/brighter lights to better illuminate crossing Orinda/Library - Install Advanced Pedestrian Warning (W11-2) & (W16-7p & W16-9p) signs - Consider installing higher voltage/brighter lights to better illuminate crossing Orinda/Library
Parking
- Install “PED XING” Pavement Markings
- Install Advanced Pedestrian Warning (W11-2) & (W16-7p & W16-9p) signs - Upgrade Existing Crosswalk Markings to High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings F.2.d
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com
Appendix A – Recommended Pedestrian Treatment Plan
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) STOP
STOP
XING
PED
PED
XING
PROJECT NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

FURNISH AND INSTALL WHITE THERMOPLASTIC YIELD MARKINGS PER CALTRANS SHEET A24GFURNISH AND INSTALL R1-5a SIGN ON NEW POLEREPLACE EXISTING W11-2 & W16-7P SIGN AND FURNISH AND INSTALL R1-5a SIGN ON EXISTING POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL WHITE HIGH VISIBILITY LADDER CROSSWALK PER CALTRANS SHEET A24FFURNISH AND INSTALL W11-2 & W16-7P SIGNS ON NEW POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL W11-2 & W16-7P SIGNS ON EXISTING POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL W11-2 & W16-9P SIGNS ON NEW POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL "PED" AND "XING" PAVEMENT MARKINGS PER CALTRANS SHEET A24D

ORINDA WAY
N

IRWIN WAY

RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS

AT STUDY CROSSWALKS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING
STRIPING IN PLACE.

2. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE CURRENT
CITY OF ORINDA STANDARDS.

3. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE 2023
CALTRANS STANDARDS.

4. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE LATEST
2014 CA MUTCD STANDARDS.

BENCH MARK

CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING DEPT.

CITY OF ORINDA
CASE
SHEET __________ OF __________
DWG.

BY APP.

SCALE

REVISED
DESIGNED J. BHATTACHARYA
NO.

CHECKEDDRAWN
DATE
A. FLORESJ. BHATTACHARYA
01-17-24
FINAL 2

ORINDA WAY PEDESTRIAN

CROSSING EVALUATION
N/A SS-1
1 REMOVAL NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

TRIM BRANCHES THAT OBSCURE EXISTING ADVANCED

PEDESTRIAN WARNING SIGN

ORINDA WAY

ORINDA WAY

IRWIN WAY
1 N
N
TENNIS
COURTS

LIBRARY

PARKING
N
R1-5a W11-2
W16-7p W16-9p
JOY BHATTACHARYA, P.E. RCE 68,928
VICE PRESIDENTADVANCED MOBILITY GROUP (AMG)PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:

DATE
SIVAKUMAR NATARAJAN, P.E. RCE 74,789CITY ENGINEERCITY OF ORINDA APPROVED BY:

DATE
1/17/2024
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) PED
PROJECT NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

FURNISH AND INSTALL WHITE HIGH VISIBILITY LADDER CROSSWALK PER CALTRANS SHEET A24F

CONSIDER REPLACING EXISTING STREETLIGHTS WITH MORE LUMINOUS BULBS TO ILLUMINATE CROSSING FURNISH AND INSTALL W16-9P SIGN BELOW EXISTING W11-2 SIGN ON EXISTING POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL W11-2 & W16-9P SIGNS ON NEW POLEFURNISH AND INSTALL W11-2 & W16-7P SIGNS ON NEW POLE MOVE EXISTING W11-2 SIGN AND EXISTING POLE TO NEW LOCATION AND INSTALL W16-7P BELOW EXISTING W11-2 SIGN

RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS

AT DECORATIVE STUDY CROSSWALKS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES (THIS SHEET ONLY):

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING STRIPING IN
PLACE.

2. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE CURRENT CITY OF ORINDA
STANDARDS.

3. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE 2022 CALTRANS
STANDARDS.

4. PLANS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE LATEST 2014 CA MUTCD
STANDARDS.

BENCH MARK

CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING DEPT.

CITY OF ORINDA
CASE
SHEET __________ OF __________
DWG.

BY APP.

SCALE

REVISED
DESIGNED J. BHATTACHARYA
NO.

CHECKEDDRAWN
DATE
A. FLORESJ. BHATTACHARYA
01-17-24
FINAL 2

ORINDA WAY PEDESTRIAN

CROSSING EVALUATION
N/A SS-2
2 COMMUNITY

CENTER LIBRARY

ORINDA WAY

COMMUNITY
CENTER DWY.

LIBRARY
DWY.

N

EXISTING POLE

LOCATION

NEW POLE

LOCATION
N
N
W11-2
W16-7p W16-9p
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com
Appendix B – Existing Traffic Counts
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-080280-001 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 2 154 34 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0 163 8 1 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 20 0 27
0 002
000 00 15 0 46
002 0 TEV 433 0 464 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.85 0.87
302 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 1 6 231 15 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 10 125 30 AM
0 NONE
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM 254
Orinda Way & lrwin Way
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Orinda Way Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 9/26/2023

PEAK HOURS
2:30 PM - 05:30 PM
09:00 AM - 10:00 AM 152 7:30 AM - 10:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
23 0 64
Totals (AM) 181 Total Bikes (AM)
lrwin Way

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
lrwin Way
14 0 6

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 203

NORTHBOUND
Orinda Way
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
8 0
7 14
0 10
50 890
9 4
0 7
6 0
2 00 000 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
000
040
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
011
20 0
2 15
0 2
01638
623115
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
27 2
3 46
0 0
215434
1012530
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-080280-002 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 4 167 0 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 9 172 1 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 603
0 000
000 00 000
9 0 19 0 TEV 357 0 438 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.90 0.99
11 0 14 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 1 210 6 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 4 155 4 AM
0 NONE
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM 235
Orinda Way & Tennis Court/Orinda Community Park
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Orinda Way Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 9/26/2023

PEAK HOURS
2:30 PM - 05:30 PM
09:00 AM - 10:00 AM 167 7:30 AM - 10:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
704
Totals (AM) 186 Total Bikes (AM)
Tennis Court/Orinda Community Park

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Tennis Court/Orinda Community Park
8 0 10

CONTROL
No Control
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 178

NORTHBOUND
Orinda Way
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
5 0
7 4
0 5
30 230
2 9
0 10
13 0
9 00 000 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
130
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
020
6 0
14 0
0 19
91721
12106
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
3 0
11 0
0 9
41670
41554
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-080280-003 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 11 198 4 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 18 244 4 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 601
0 000
000 00 21 0 3
205 0 TEV 520 0 635 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.94 0.96
408 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 2 34 285 8 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 1 21 249 26 AM
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 296
Orinda Way & Library/Library Parking
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Orinda Way Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 9/26/2023

PEAK HOURS
2:30 PM - 05:30 PM
09:00 AM - 10:00 AM 252 7:30 AM - 10:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
12 0 30
Totals (AM) 275 Total Bikes (AM)
Library/Library Parking

EASTBOUND
32 0 52WESTBOUND
Library/Library Parking

CONTROL
No Control
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 206

NORTHBOUND
Orinda Way
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
3 0
1 1
0 2
00 000
0 17
0 20
14 0
10 10 320 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
020
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
020
6 0
8 21
0 5
182444
342858
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
1 0
4 3
0 2
111984
2124926
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com
Appendix C – NCHRP 562 Guidelines & Worksheet 1 Analysis Results
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 2a 17
3a 355
3b 664
3c 664
3d 664
4a 36
4b 3.5
4c 3.0
4d 13.3
4e 355
4f 0.099
4g 14.2
4h 0.1
5 a High
Total Pedestrian Delay, Dp (from 4h ) and Motorist
Compliance, Comp (from 5a )
Dp  21.3 h (Comp = high or low) OR

5.3 h  Dp  21.3 h and Comp = low

1.3 h  Dp  5.3 h (Comp = high or low) OR

5.3 h  Dp  21.3 h and Comp = high
Dp  1.3 h (Comp = high or low)
AM Peak Period requires Standard Crosswalk Treatments
WORKSHEET 1: PEAK-HOUR, 35 MPH (55 KM/H) OR LESS
Analyst and Site Information
Analyst: Andrea Flores
Analysis Date: 10/25/2023
Data Collection Date: 09/26/2023
Major Street: Orinda Way
Minor Street or Location: Irwin Way
Peak Hour: A.M. Peak Hour
Step 1: Select worksheet (speed reflects posted or statutory speed limit or 85th percentile speed on the major street):
a) Worksheet 1 – 35 mph (55 km/h) or less
b) Worksheet 2 – exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h), communities with less than 10,000, or where major transit stop exists Step 2: Does the crossing meet minimum pedestrian volumes to be considered for a TCD type of treatment? Peak-hour pedestrian volume (ped/h), Vp
If 2a  20 ped/h, then go to Step 3.

If 2a  20 ped/h, then consider median refuge islands, curb extensions, traffic calming, etc. as feasible.

Step 3: Does the crossing meet the pedestrian volume warrant for a traffic signal? Major road volume, total of both approaches during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-s Minimum signal warrant volume for peak hour (use 3a for Vmaj-s), SC SC = (0.00021 Vmaj-s 2 – 0.74072 Vmaj-s +
734.125)/0.75
OR [(0.00021 3a 2
– 0.74072 3a + 734.125)/0.75]
If 3b  133, then enter 133. If 3b  133, then enter 3b .

If 15th percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s), then reduce 3c by up to 50 percent; otherwise enter 3c.

If 2a  3d, then the warrant has been met and a traffic signal should be considered if not within 300 ft (91 m) of another traffic signal.

Otherwise, the warrant has not been met. Go to Step 4.

Step 4: Estimate pedestrian delay.

Pedestrian crossing distance, curb to curb (ft), L
Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s), Sp
Pedestrian start-up time and end clearance time (s), ts Critical gap required for crossing pedestrian (s), tc = (L/Sp) + ts OR [(4 a/4b ) + 4c )] Major road volume, total both approaches or approach being crossed if median refuge island is present during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-d
Major road flow rate (veh/s), v = Vmaj-d/3600 OR [4e/3600 ] Average pedestrian delay (s/person), d p = (e v tc – v t c – 1) / v OR [ (e 4f x 4d – 4f x 4d – 1) / 4f ] Total pedestrian delay (h), Dp = (dp  Vp)/3,600 OR [(4g 2a )/3600] (this is estimated delay for all pedestrians crossing the major roadway without a crossing treatment – assumes 0% compliance). This calculated value can be replaced with the actual total pedestrian delay measured at the site.

Step 5: Select treatment based upon total pedestrian delay and expected motorist compliance.

Expected motorist compliance at pedestrian crossings in region, Comp = high or low Treatment Category
(see Descriptions of Sample Treatments for examples)
RED

ACTIVE OR

ENHANCED

CROSSWALK
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 2a 5
3a 399
3b 629
3c 629
3d 629
4a 18
4b 3.5
4c 3.0
4d 8.1
4e 399
4f 0.111
4g 5.1
4h 0.0
5 a High
Total Pedestrian Delay, Dp (from 4h ) and Motorist
Compliance, Comp (from 5a )
Dp  21.3 h (Comp = high or low) OR

5.3 h  Dp  21.3 h and Comp = low

1.3 h  Dp  5.3 h (Comp = high or low) OR

5.3 h  Dp  21.3 h and Comp = high
Dp  1.3 h (Comp = high or low)
PM Peak Period requires Standard Crosswalk Treatments

CROSSWALK
Pedestrian start-up time and end clearance time (s), ts Critical gap required for crossing pedestrian (s), tc = (L/Sp) + ts OR [(4 a/4b ) + 4c )] Major road volume, total both approaches or approach being crossed if median refuge island is present during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-d
Major road flow rate (veh/s), v = Vmaj-d/3600 OR [4e/3600 ] Average pedestrian delay (s/person), d p = (e v tc – v t c – 1) / v OR [ (e 4f x 4d – 4f x 4d – 1) / 4f ] Total pedestrian delay (h), Dp = (dp  Vp)/3,600 OR [(4g 2a )/3600] (this is estimated delay for all pedestrians crossing the major roadway without a crossing treatment – assumes 0% compliance). This calculated value can be replaced with the actual total pedestrian delay measured at the site.

Step 5: Select treatment based upon total pedestrian delay and expected motorist compliance.

Expected motorist compliance at pedestrian crossings in region, Comp = high or low Treatment Category
(see Descriptions of Sample Treatments for examples)
RED

ACTIVE OR

ENHANCED
Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s), Sp
Peak-hour pedestrian volume (ped/h), Vp
If 2a  20 ped/h, then go to Step 3.

If 2a  20 ped/h, then consider median refuge islands, curb extensions, traffic calming, etc. as feasible.

Step 3: Does the crossing meet the pedestrian volume warrant for a traffic signal? Major road volume, total of both approaches during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-s Minimum signal warrant volume for peak hour (use 3a for Vmaj-s), SC SC = (0.00021 Vmaj-s 2 – 0.74072 Vmaj-s +
734.125)/0.75
OR [(0.00021 3a 2
– 0.74072 3a + 734.125)/0.75]
If 3b  133, then enter 133. If 3b  133, then enter 3b .

If 15th percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s), then reduce 3c by up to 50 percent; otherwise enter 3c.

If 2a  3d, then the warrant has been met and a traffic signal should be considered if not within 300 ft (91 m) of another traffic signal.

Otherwise, the warrant has not been met. Go to Step 4.

Step 4: Estimate pedestrian delay.

Pedestrian crossing distance, curb to curb (ft), L
Step 2: Does the crossing meet minimum pedestrian volumes to be considered for a TCD type of treatment? WORKSHEET 1: PEAK-HOUR, 35 MPH (55 KM/H) OR LESS
Analyst and Site Information
Analyst: Andrea Flores
Analysis Date: 10/25/2023
Data Collection Date: 09/26/2023
Major Street: Orinda Way
Minor Street or Location: Tennis Courts
Peak Hour: P.M. Peak Hour
Step 1: Select worksheet (speed reflects posted or statutory speed limit or 85th percentile speed on the major street):
a) Worksheet 1 – 35 mph (55 km/h) or less
b) Worksheet 2 – exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h), communities with less than 10,000, or where major transit stop exists F.2.d
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 2a 5
3a 509
3b 549
3c 549
3d 549
4a 24
4b 3.5
4c 3.0
4d 9.9
4e 509
4f 0.141
4g 11.6
4h 0.0
5 a High
Total Pedestrian Delay, Dp (from 4h ) and Motorist
Compliance, Comp (from 5a )
Dp  21.3 h (Comp = high or low) OR

5.3 h  Dp  21.3 h and Comp = low

1.3 h  Dp  5.3 h (Comp = high or low) OR

5.3 h  Dp  21.3 h and Comp = high
Dp  1.3 h (Comp = high or low)
AM Peak Period requires Standard Crosswalk Treatments

CROSSWALK
Pedestrian start-up time and end clearance time (s), ts Critical gap required for crossing pedestrian (s), tc = (L/Sp) + ts OR [(4 a/4b ) + 4c )] Major road volume, total both approaches or approach being crossed if median refuge island is present during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-d
Major road flow rate (veh/s), v = Vmaj-d/3600 OR [4e/3600 ] Average pedestrian delay (s/person), d p = (e v tc – v t c – 1) / v OR [ (e 4f x 4d – 4f x 4d – 1) / 4f ] Total pedestrian delay (h), Dp = (dp  Vp)/3,600 OR [(4g 2a )/3600] (this is estimated delay for all pedestrians crossing the major roadway without a crossing treatment – assumes 0% compliance). This calculated value can be replaced with the actual total pedestrian delay measured at the site.

Step 5: Select treatment based upon total pedestrian delay and expected motorist compliance.

Expected motorist compliance at pedestrian crossings in region, Comp = high or low Treatment Category
(see Descriptions of Sample Treatments for examples)
RED

ACTIVE OR

ENHANCED
Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s), Sp
Peak-hour pedestrian volume (ped/h), Vp
If 2a  20 ped/h, then go to Step 3.

If 2a  20 ped/h, then consider median refuge islands, curb extensions, traffic calming, etc. as feasible.

Step 3: Does the crossing meet the pedestrian volume warrant for a traffic signal? Major road volume, total of both approaches during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-s Minimum signal warrant volume for peak hour (use 3a for Vmaj-s), SC SC = (0.00021 Vmaj-s 2 – 0.74072 Vmaj-s +
734.125)/0.75
OR [(0.00021 3a 2
– 0.74072 3a + 734.125)/0.75]
If 3b  133, then enter 133. If 3b  133, then enter 3b .

If 15th percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s), then reduce 3c by up to 50 percent; otherwise enter 3c.

If 2a  3d, then the warrant has been met and a traffic signal should be considered if not within 300 ft (91 m) of another traffic signal.

Otherwise, the warrant has not been met. Go to Step 4.

Step 4: Estimate pedestrian delay.

Pedestrian crossing distance, curb to curb (ft), L
Step 2: Does the crossing meet minimum pedestrian volumes to be considered for a TCD type of treatment? WORKSHEET 1: PEAK-HOUR, 35 MPH (55 KM/H) OR LESS
Analyst and Site Information
Analyst: Andrea Flores
Analysis Date: 10/25/2023
Data Collection Date: 09/26/2023
Major Street: Orinda Way
Minor Street or Location: Library Parking
Peak Hour: A.M. Peak Hour
Step 1: Select worksheet (speed reflects posted or statutory speed limit or 85th percentile speed on the major street):
a) Worksheet 1 – 35 mph (55 km/h) or less
b) Worksheet 2 – exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h), communities with less than 10,000, or where major transit stop exists F.2.d
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Advanced Mobility Group | 3003 Oak Rd, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 www.amobility.com
Appendix D – All Relevant Guidelines
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 65 Introduction
These guidelines provide general recommendations on
pedestrian crossing treatments to consider at unsignalized intersections; in all cases, engineering judgment should be used in selecting a specific treatment for installation. The following guidelines build on the recommendations of several studies and focus on unsignalized intersections. They do not apply to school crossings. Considerations (in addition to the procedure provided in these guidelines) should be used where a pedestrian treatment could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex geometrics, or traffic signals.

System of Treatments
The installation of a pedestrian crossing treatment alone does not necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians unless that device shows a red indication to the motorist. Therefore, treating a location to improve pedestrian access or safety should include several components. For example, in addition to traffic control devices (TCDs) such as signs or markings, geometric improvements (e.g., refuge island, roadway narrowing, and curb extensions) may be used to shorten the crossing distance (and hence the exposure time for the pedestrian). Traffic calming may be used to slow vehicle speeds near the pedestrian crossing.

Overview of Procedure
Figure A-1 provides an overview of the procedure. Tables A-1 and A-2 list the variables needed for the evaluation and the calculations that are to be performed, respectively.

Step 1: Select Worksheet
Two worksheets are available–a worksheet for speeds of 35 mph (55 km/h) or less and a worksheet for speeds that exceed 35 mph (55 km/h) where the community has a population of less than 10,000 or where a major transit stop exists. The first step is to select the appropriate worksheet. The speeds represent the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th percentile speed on the major street, whichever is higher. The worksheets available are • Worksheet 1: 35 mph (55 km/h) or less (see Figure A-2) and
• Worksheet 2: exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h), in communities with less than 10,000 in population, or where a major transit stop exists (see Figure A-3).

Step 2: Check Minimum Pedestrian Volume
The minimum pedestrian volume for a peak-hour evaluation is 20 pedestrians per hour for both directions (14 ped/h if the major road speed exceeds 35 mph [55 km/h]). If fewer pedestrians are crossing the street, then geometric improvements (rather than signs, signals, or markings) such as traffic calming, median refuge islands, and curb extensions, are alternatives that can be considered.

Step 3: Check Signal Warrant
The MUTCD signal warrants are checked in Step 3 to
determine whether to consider a signal at the site. The signal warrant procedures recommended in this step (which will be considered as changes to the MUTCD by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) more closely align the Pedestrian Signal Warrant with the current (2003) Peak-Hour Signal Warrant for vehicles (with adjustment
made to reflect the counting of pedestrians crossing the major roadway from both approaches rather than only the highest approach as used in the vehicle signal warrant). The worksheets include equations that can determine the minimum required number of crossing pedestrians for a given majorroad vehicle volume.

APPENDIX A
Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 66 Step 2. Does the crossing meet minimum
peak-hour pedestrian volumes to be
considered for a traffic control device type
of treatment?
NO
Consider median refuge islands, curb
extensions, traffic calming, etc. as
feasible. No traffic control devices
are recommended.

YES
Go to Step 3
Step 3. Does the crossing meet the
warrant for a traffic signal?
YES
Warrant met, consider traffic signal if
site is not within 300 ft (91 m) of
another signal.

NO
Go to Step 4
Step 4. Estimate pedestrian delay.

Step 5. Select treatment based upon total
pedestrian delay and expected motorist
compliance.

Step 1. Select worksheet based on (1) posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th percentile speed on the major street and (2) other conditions present:
a) Worksheet 1 - 35 mph (55 km/h) or less
b) Worksheet 2 - Exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h) or locations where the community has a less than 10,000 population or where a major transit stop is present Figure A-1. Flowchart for Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 67 INPUT VARIABLES TERM DISCUSSION

ROAD CHARACTERISTICS
Speed on the major
street (mph)
Smaj Use the major road posted or statutory speed limit for the facilities or, if available, the 85th percentile speed to determine which worksheet is applicable. Worksheet 1 is used when the speed is 35 mph (55 km/h) or less, while Worksheet 2 is used when the speed exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h).

Pedestrian crossing
distance (ft)
L Pedestrian crossing distance represents the distance that a pedestrian would need to cross before reaching either the far curb or a median refuge island. The distance would be between the near and far curbs if a painted or raised median refuge island is not present, or to the median refuge island if the island is present. Note if a parking stall is present, its width should be included in the crossing distance measurement. Crossing distance rather than number of lanes was selected for the procedure so that the extra time needed by a pedestrian to cross bike lanes, two-way left-turn lanes, wide lanes, etc. could be considered.

COUNTS
Peak-hour
pedestrian volume
crossing major
roadway (ped/h)
Vp Pedestrian volume is the number of
pedestrians crossing the major
roadway in a peak hour. The count
includes all pedestrian crossings of
the major roadway at the location.

Major road peak
hour vehicle
volume (veh/h)
Vmaj-s
Vmaj-d
Vehicle volume represents the number of vehicles and bicycles on both approaches of the major road during a peak hour. If a painted or raised median refuge island is present of sufficient size to store pedestrians (minimum of 6 ft [1.8 m] wide), then consider the volume on each approach individually. In the signal warrant calculations, use the volume on both approaches (Vmaj-s). For the delay calculations, the volume (Vmaj-d) would reflect either both approaches if a refuge island is not present or each approach individually if a refuge island is present.

LOCAL PARAMETERS
Motorist
compliance for
region (high or low)
Comp Compliance reflects the typical behavior of motorists for the site.

If motorists tend to stop for a pedestrian attempting to cross at an uncontrolled location, then compliance is “high.” If motorists rarely stop for a crossing pedestrian, then compliance is “low.” Pedestrian walking
speed (ft/s)
Sp Walking speed represents the speed of the crossing
pedestrians. Recent research has suggested walking speeds of

3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) for the general population and 3.0 ft/s (0.9 m/s) for the older population. If calculating for a site, determine the 15th percentile value of those using the crossing.

Pedestrian start-up
time and end
clearance time (s)
ts Start-up time is used in the calculation of the critical gap. A value of 3 s is suggested in the Highway Capacity Manual.

Table A-1. Input Variables for Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatment.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 68 CALCs TERM DISCUSSION
Signal
warrant
check
(ped/h)
SC Regression equations were determined for the plots shown in the 2003 MUTCD Figures 4C-3 and 4C-4. These equations can
calculate the minimum number of vehicles that would be needed at the given major road volume to meet the signal warrant. The recommendation made in 2006 to the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is that the vehicles signal warrants values for crossing two lanes be used as the pedestrian signal warrant values. Because the pedestrian signal warrant is to reflect total pedestrian crossings rather than just the number of pedestrians on the higher approach, the vehicle signal warrant values should be divided by 0.75 to reflect an assumed directional distribution split of 75/25. Different equations are provided for lowspeed and high-speed conditions. The worksheets provide instructions on checking the peak hour. Both the peak vehicle hour and the peak pedestrian hour may need to be checked.

Critical gap
(s)
Tc Critical gap is the time in seconds below which a pedestrian will not attempt to begin crossing the street. For a single pedestrian, critical gap (tc) can be computed using Equation 18-17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The equation includes consideration of the pedestrian walking speed (Sp), crossing distance (L), and start-up and end clearance times (ts).
tc = (L/Sp) + ts
Major road
flow rate
(veh/s)
v Flow rate is a measure of the number of vehicles per second (v).

For high-speed conditions, the number of vehicles is adjusted by dividing by 0.7. Flow rate is determined by:

Low speed: v = Vmaj-p/3600 high speed: v = (Vmaj-p/0.7)/3600 It is based on the major road volume (Vmaj-d), which is the total of both approaches (or the approach being crossed if median refuge island is present) during the peak hour (veh/h).

Average
pedestrian
delay
(s/person)
dp The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual includes Equation 18-21 that can be used to determine the average delay per pedestrian at an unsignalized intersection crossing (s/person).
dp = () e vt 1
v
1 c vt c − −
It depends upon critical gap (tc), the vehicular flow rate of the crossing (v), and the mean vehicle headway.

Total
pedestrian
delay
(ped-h)
Dp Total pedestrian delay (Dp) uses the average pedestrian delay (dp) and multiplies that value by the number of pedestrians (Vp) to determine the total pedestrian delay for the approach.

Dp = (dp × Vp)/3,600
Table A-2. Calculations for Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatment.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 69 WORKSHEET 1: PEAK-HOUR, 35 MPH (55 KM/H) OR LESS
Analyst and Site Information
Analyst:

Analysis Date:

Data Collection Date:

Major Street:

Minor Street or Location:

Peak Hour:

Step 1: Select worksheet (speed reflects posted or statutory speed limit or 85th percentile speed on the major street):
a) Worksheet 1 – 35 mph (55 km/h) or less
b) Worksheet 2 – exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h), communities with less than 10,000, or where major transit stop exists Step 2: Does the crossing meet minimum pedestrian volumes to be considered for a TCD type of treatment? Peak-hour pedestrian volume (ped/h), Vp 2a
If 2a ≥ 20 ped/h, then go to Step 3.

If 2a < 20 ped/h, then consider median refuge islands, curb extensions, traffic calming, etc. as feasible.

Step 3: Does the crossing meet the pedestrian volume warrant for a traffic signal? Major road volume, total of both approaches during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-s 3a Minimum signal warrant volume for peak hour (use 3a for Vmaj-s), SC SC = (0.00021 Vmaj-s2
– 0.74072 Vmaj-s + 734.125)/0.75
OR [(0.00021 3a2
– 0.74072 3a + 734.125)/0.75]
3b
If 3b < 133, then enter 133. If 3b ≥ 133, then enter 3b. 3c If 15th percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s), then reduce 3c by up to 50 percent; otherwise enter 3c. 3d
If 2a ≥ 3d, then the warrant has been met and a traffic signal should be considered if not within 300 ft (91 m) of another traffic signal. Otherwise, the warrant has not been met. Go to Step 4.

Step 4: Estimate pedestrian delay.

Pedestrian crossing distance, curb to curb (ft), L 4a
Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s), Sp 4b
Pedestrian start-up time and end clearance time (s), ts 4c Critical gap required for crossing pedestrian (s), tc = (L/Sp) + ts OR [(4a/4b) + 4c)] 4d Major road volume, total both approaches or approach being crossed if median refuge island is present during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-d
4e
Major road flow rate (veh/s), v = Vmaj-d/3600 OR [4e/3600] 4f Average pedestrian delay (s/person), dp = (ev tc – v tc – 1) / v OR [ (e4f x 4d – 4f x 4d – 1) / 4f ] 4g Total pedestrian delay (h), Dp = (dp × Vp)/3,600 OR [(4g×2a)/3600] (this is estimated delay for all pedestrians crossing the major roadway without a crossing treatment – assumes 0% compliance). This calculated value can be replaced with the actual total pedestrian delay measured at the site.
4h
Step 5: Select treatment based upon total pedestrian delay and expected motorist compliance.

Expected motorist compliance at pedestrian crossings in region, Comp = high or low 5a Total Pedestrian Delay, Dp (from 4h) and
Motorist Compliance, Comp (from 5a)
Treatment Category
(see Descriptions of Sample Treatments for examples)
Dp ≥ 21.3 h (Comp = high or low)
OR

5.3 h ≤ Dp < 21.3 h and Comp = low
RED

1.3 h ≤ Dp < 5.3 h (Comp = high or low)
OR

5.3 h ≤ Dp < 21.3 h and Comp = high
ACTIVE
OR

ENHANCED
Dp < 1.3 h (Comp = high or low) CROSSWALK
Figure A-2. Worksheet 1.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 70 WORKSHEET 2: PEAK-HOUR, EXCEEDS 35 MPH (55 KM/H)
Analyst and Site Information
Analyst:

Analysis Date:

Data Collection Date:

Major Street:

Minor Street or Location:

Peak Hour:

Step 1: Select worksheet (speed reflects posted or statutory speed limit or 85th percentile speed on the major street):
a) Worksheet 1 – 35 mph (55 km/h) or less
b) Worksheet 2 – exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h), communities with less than 10,000, or where major transit stop exists Step 2: Does the crossing meet minimum pedestrian volumes to be considered for a TCD type of treatment? Peak-hour pedestrian volume (ped/h), Vp 2a
If 2a ≥ 14 ped/h, then go to Step 3.

If 2a < 14 ped/h, then consider median refuge islands, curb extensions, traffic calming, etc. as feasible.

Step 3: Does the crossing meet the pedestrian volume warrant for a traffic signal? Major road volume, total of both approaches during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-s 3a Minimum signal warrant volume for peak hour (use 3a for Vmaj-s), SC SC = (0.00035 Vmaj-s2
– 0.80083 Vmaj-s + 529.197)/0.75
OR [(0.00035 3a2
– 0.80083 3a + 529.197)/0.75]
3b
If 3b < 93, then enter 93. If 3b ≥ 93, then enter 3b. 3c If 15th percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s), then reduce 3c by up to 50 percent; otherwise enter 3c. 3d
If 2a ≥ 3d, then the warrant has been met and a traffic signal should be considered if not within 300 ft (91 m) of another traffic signal. Otherwise, the warrant has not been met. Go to Step 4.

Step 4: Estimate pedestrian delay.

Pedestrian crossing distance, curb to curb (ft), L 4a
Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s), Sp 4b
Pedestrian start-up time and end clearance time (s), ts 4c Critical gap required for crossing pedestrian (s), tc = (L/Sp) + ts OR [(4a/4b) + 4c)] 4d Major road volume, total both approaches or approach being crossed if median refuge island is present during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-d
4e
Major road flow rate (veh/s), v = (Vmaj-d/0.7)/3600 OR [(4e/0.7)/3600] 4f Average pedestrian delay (s/person), dp = (ev tc – v tc – 1) / v OR [ (e4f x 4d – 4f x 4d – 1) / 4f ] 4g Total pedestrian delay (h), Dp = (dp × Vp)/3,600 OR [(4g×2a)/3600] (this is estimated delay for all pedestrians crossing the major roadway without a crossing treatment – assumes 0% compliance). This calculated value can be replaced with the actual total pedestrian delay measured at the site.
4h
Step 5: Select treatment based upon total pedestrian delay and expected motorist compliance.

Expected motorist compliance at pedestrian crossings in region, Comp = high or low 5a Total Pedestrian Delay, Dp (from 4h) and
Motorist Compliance, Comp (from 5a)
Treatment Category
(see Descriptions of Sample Treatments for examples)
Dp ≥ 21.3 h (Comp = high or low)
OR

5.3 h ≤ Dp < 21.3 h and Comp = low
RED
Dp < 5.3 h (Comp = high or low)
OR

5.3 h ≤ Dp < 21.3 h and Comp = high
ACTIVE
OR

ENHANCED
Figure A-3. Worksheet 2.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Step 4: Estimate Approach Pedestrian Delay
The average pedestrian delay equation from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is used to determine the approach pedestrian delay.

Step 5: Select Appropriate Treatment
The total pedestrian delay along with the expected compliance is used to determine the treatment category to consider for the site.

Example Using Guidelines
Known
Citizens have requested a pedestrian treatment at the 2700 block crossing of Elm Street. Known characteristics of the site include
• Four-lane road with no pedestrian refuge median;
• 56 ft (17 m) crossing distance;
• 35 mph (55 km/h) speed limit;
• During the peak pedestrian hour, 50 pedestrians counted when the major-road volume was 1,000 veh/h;
• During the peak vehicle hour, 20 pedestrians counted
when the major-road volume was 1,500 veh/h; and
• Motorists observed stopping for pedestrians, showing a “high” compliance.

The following assumptions were made:
• Walking speed is 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) and
• Start-up time is 3 seconds.

Calculations
Figure A-1 provides an overview of the procedure. Tables A-1 and A-2 list the variables needed for the evaluation and the calculations that are to be performed, respectively. The following are the procedures for this example:
• Step 1: Select Worksheet. Worksheet 1 is the applicable worksheet for a speed limit of 35 mph (55 km/h). Figure A-4 shows the worksheet with appropriate values for the example. Given that the assumed walking speed and the
crosswalk length match the values used to generate one of the figures included in the guidelines, that plot can be used rather than using Worksheet 1 to determine the suggested pedestrian treatment. Figure A-5 shows the plot.
• Step 2: Check Minimum Pedestrian Volume. The next
step is to determine if a minimum number of pedestrians are present at the site. Because more than 20 pedestrians are crossing the roadway during the peak hour, some form of a pedestrian treatment is suggested.
• Step 3: Check Signal Warrant. The minimum number of
pedestrians needed on the minor-road approach crossing
a four-lane roadway with 1,000 vehicles in the peak hour is 271. The number of crossing pedestrians (50) is less than the 271 value; therefore, a signal is not warranted under the pedestrian volume warrant. Checking the peak vehicle
hour provides the same result: a signal is not warranted under the pedestrian volume warrant.
• Step 4: Estimate Approach Pedestrian Delay. The average pedestrian delay equation was used to determine the total pedestrian delay. A total pedestrian delay value of 9.8 ped-h was calculated.
• Step 5: Select Appropriate Treatment. The motorist compliance observed at the site is “high.” With a total pedestrian delay value of 9.8 ped-h and a motorist compliance of high, the worksheet indicates that an “enhanced/active” device should be considered. Figure A-5 shows the solution using the major roadway volume of 1,000 veh/h and the
pedestrian volume of 50. The intersection of these two
lines (see circle in Figure A-5) results in the same finding:
“enhanced/active” device. The following section lists suggested treatments within the categories.

Descriptions of Sample
Treatments
The treatments included in these guidelines are divided into broad classes of elements and devices. Elements are used either uniquely or to supplement a device. A device represents the primary component of a pedestrian treatment.

The elements discussed here have been divided into two
categories:
• Supplemental Signs and Markings. This category is composed of applications of signs and markings beyond the standard crosswalk markings and pedestrian crossing signs discussed in the “Crosswalk” category of devices below. Items in this category include advance stop lines and advance signing.
• Geometric Elements. This category pertains to crosswalk elements that are permanent installations but are not signs, markings, or devices. These are elements installed based on engineering judgment rather than a warrant and include
items such as median refuge islands and curb extensions.

The devices discussed here have been divided into five
categories:
• Crosswalk.This category encompasses standard crosswalk markings and pedestrian crossing signs, as opposed to
unmarked crossings.
71 F.2.d
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 72 WORKSHEET 1: PEAK-HOUR, 35 MPH (55 KM/H) OR LESS
Analyst and Site Information
Analyst: Maria
Analysis Date: 1/19/06
Data Collection Date: 1/19/06
Major Street: Elm
Minor Street or Location: 2700 Block
Peak Hour: 5 to 6 pm
Step 1: Select worksheet (speed reflects posted or statutory speed limit or 85th percentile speed on the major street):
a) Worksheet 1 – 35 mph (55 km/h) or less
b) Worksheet 2 – exceeds 35 mph (55 km/h), communities with less than 10,000, or where major transit stop exists Step 2: Does the crossing meet minimum pedestrian volumes to be considered for a TCD type of treatment? Peak-hour pedestrian volume (ped/h), Vp 2a 50
If 2a ≥ 20 ped/h, then go to Step 3.

If 2a < 20 ped/h, then consider median refuge islands, curb extensions, traffic calming, etc. as feasible.

Step 3: Does the crossing meet the pedestrian volume warrant for a traffic signal? Major road volume, total of both approaches during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-s 3a 1000 Minimum signal warrant volume for peak hour (use 3a for Vmaj-s), SC SC = (0.00021 Vmaj-s2
– 0.74072 Vmaj-s + 734.125)/0.75
OR [(0.00021 3a2
– 0.74072 3a + 734.125)/0.75]
3b 271
If 3b < 133, then enter 133. If 3b ≥ 133, then enter 3b. 3c 271 If 15th percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s), then reduce 3c by up to 50 percent; otherwise enter 3c. 3d 271
If 2a ≥ 3d, then the warrant has been met and a traffic signal should be considered if not within 300 ft (91 m) of another traffic signal. Otherwise, the warrant has not been met. Go to Step 4.

Step 4: Estimate pedestrian delay.

Pedestrian crossing distance, curb to curb (ft), L 4a 56 Pedestrian walking speed (ft/s), Sp 4b 3.5
Pedestrian start-up time and end clearance time (s), ts 4c 3 Critical gap required for crossing pedestrian (s), tc = (L/Sp) + ts OR [(4a/4b) + 4c)] 4d 19 Major road volume, total both approaches or approach being crossed if median refuge island is present during peak hour (veh/h), Vmaj-d
4e 1000
Major road flow rate (veh/s), v = Vmaj-d/3600 OR [4e/3600] 4f 0.2 8 Average pedestrian delay (s/person), dp = (ev tc – v tc – 1) / v OR [ (e4f x 4d – 4f x 4d – 1) / 4f ] 4g 707 Total pedestrian delay (h), Dp = (dp × Vp)/3,600 OR [(4g×2a)/3600] (this is estimated delay for all pedestrians crossing the major roadway without a crossing treatment – assumes 0% compliance). This calculated value can be replaced with the actual total pedestrian delay measured at the site.
4h 9.8
Step 5: Select treatment based upon total pedestrian delay and expected motorist compliance.

Expected motorist compliance at pedestrian crossings in region, Comp = high or low 5a high Total Pedestrian Delay, Dp (from 4h) and
Motorist Compliance, Comp (from 5a)
Treatment Category
(see Descriptions of Sample Treatments for examples)
Dp ≥ 21.3 h (Comp = high or low)
OR

5.3 h ≤ Dp < 21.3 h and Comp = low
RED

1.3 h ≤ Dp < 5.3 h (Comp = high or low)
OR

5.3 h ≤ Dp < 21.3 h and Comp = high
ACTIVE
OR

ENHANCED
Dp < 1.3 h (Comp = high or low) CROSSWALK
Figure A-4. Example Problem – Crossing at Elm Street.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. • Enhanced. This category includes those devices that
enhance the visibility of the crossing location and pedestrians waiting to cross. Warning signs, markings, or beacons in this category are present or active at the crossing location at all times.
• Active. Also called “active when present,” this category includes those devices designed to display a warning only when pedestrians are present or crossing the street.
• Red.This category includes those devices that display a circular red indication (signal or beacon) to motorists at the pedestrian location.
• Signal. This category pertains to traffic control signals.

Synopses of Treatments
Synopses of selected pedestrian crossing treatments are presented in Table A-3.

Categories of Treatments
Tables A-4 through A-20 summarize information on examples of selected pedestrian crossing treatments. These summaries reflect the more common treatments being used and do not include every device or treatment available. The following summaries are intended to provide general descriptions of pedestrian crossing treatments that may be installed at intersections and/or midblock crossings; in all cases, engineering judgment should be used in selecting a specific treatment for installation.

The summaries are based on observations of installed
treatments and discussions with traffic engineers who have used or considered using one or more of the components.

This selection of pedestrian crossing treatments is not necessarily an all-inclusive list, nor is it intended to be. As technology changes and as more jurisdictions study ways to address the issue of pedestrian crossings, other treatments will likely be discussed and/or tested.

Additional Sources of Information on
Pedestrian Treatments
Additional information on treatments is available from the following references:
• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. U.S. DOT, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2003.

Available online at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/, accessed June 2, 2005.
• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
(called the Green Book). AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
2003.
• Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (called the Ped Guide). AASHTO, Washington,
D.C., July 2004.
• Zegeer, C. V., C. Seiderman, P. Lagerwey, M. Cynecki, M.

Ronkin, and R. Schneider. Pedestrian Facilities User Guide – Providing Safety and Mobility. FHWA-RD-01-102,
FHWA, Washington, D.C., March 2002.
73 No Treatment
Crosswalk
E/A*
E/A HC, Red LC*
Red
Signal (proposed for
MUTCD)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Major Road Volume - Total of Both Approaches (veh/h)
*E/A = Enhanced/Active, HC = High Compliance, LC = Low Compliance Pedestrian Volume Crossing Major Road (ped/h)
Figure A-5. Graphical Solution to Example Problem.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 74 Treatment Characteristics
Advance Signing ■ Provides additional notification to drivers that a crosswalk is near
Advance Stop Line
and Sign
■ Vehicle stop line is moved back from the crosswalk
Median Refuge
Island
■ Accessible pedestrian path within a raised median
Raised Crosswalk ■ Crosswalk surface elevated above driving lanes Curb Extension ■ Curb adjacent to crosswalk lengthened by the width of the parking lane
Roadway
Narrowing
■ Reduced lane widths and/or number of vehicle lanes
Markings and
Crossing Signs
■ Standard crosswalk markings and pedestrian crossing signs ■ Subject to MUTCD requirements
In-Street
Pedestrian
Crossing Signs
■ Regulatory signs placed in the street
■ Subject to MUTCD requirements
High-Visibility
Signs and
Markings
■ Warning devices placed at or in advance of the pedestrian crossing
■ Subject to MUTCD requirements
In-Roadway
Warning Lights
■ Amber flashing lights mounted flush to the pavement surface at the crossing location
Pedestrian
Crossing Flags
■ Square flags on a stick carried by pedestrians
■ Stored in sign-mounted holders on both sides of the street ■ Experimental; not currently in the MUTCD
Overhead Flashing
Amber Beacons
■ Mounted on mast arms that extend over the roadway or on signposts at the roadside
■ Pedestrian activated
■ Subject to MUTCD requirements
Pedestrian
Crosswalk Signal
■ Standard traffic signal at a pedestrian crosswalk
■ Pedestrian activated
Half Signal ■ Standard traffic signal on major road
■ Experimental; not currently in the MUTCD
HAWK Beacon
Signal
■ Combination of a beacon flasher and a traffic control signal ■ Dwells in a dark mode; pedestrian activated
■ Used exclusively in Tucson and Pima County, Arizona
■ Experimental; not currently in the MUTCD
Pedestrian Beacon ■ Proposed device; not currently in the MUTCD ■ Pedestrian activated
Traffic Signal ■ Standard traffic signal at an intersection or midblock location ■ Pedestrian phase typically activated by a pushbutton
■ Subject to MUTCD requirements
Table A-3. Synopsis of Crossing Treatments.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 75 Advance Signing
Advance signing is used to provide additional
notification to drivers that a crosswalk is near and
pedestrians may be crossing the roadway.

Advance signing may be used in a wide variety of
situations (intersections, midblock crossings,
school-related crosswalks, two-lane or multi-lane
roads, and divided or undivided roads), but they are
particularly useful at locations where a crosswalk
might be unexpected by approaching drivers.

Advance Sign with Advisory Speed Plaque for
School Crosswalk
Advance Sign for Midblock Crossing
• MUTCD Description: Nonvehicular signs may be used
to alert road users in advance
of locations where
unexpected entries into the
roadway or shared use of the
roadway by pedestrians,
animals, and other crossing
activities might occur. When
used in advance of a
crossing, non-vehicular
warning signs may be
supplemented with
supplemental plaques with
the legend AHEAD, XX FEET,
or NEXT XX MILES to provide
advance notice to road users
of crossing activity.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and
School signs and their related
supplemental plaques may
have a fluorescent yellowgreen background with a
black legend and border.
• MUTCD Guidance: When a
fluorescent yellow-green
background is used, a
systematic approach featuring
one background color within a
zone or area should be used.

The mixing of standard yellow
and fluorescent yellow-green
backgrounds within a selected
site area should be avoided.

Non-vehicular signs should be
used only at locations where
the crossing activity is
unexpected or at locations not
readily apparent.

Table A-4. Supplemental Signs and Markings: Advance Signing.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 76 Advance Stop Line and Sign
At midblock crossings and signalized or stopcontrolled approaches to intersections, the vehicle stop line can be moved farther back from the
pedestrian crosswalk for an improved factor of
safety and for improved visibility of pedestrians.

Advance stop lines are also applicable for nonsignalized crosswalks on multi-lane roads to ensure that drivers in all lanes have a clear view of a
crossing pedestrian.

Advance Stop Line on Multi-lane Approach to
Marked Crosswalk
Example of Increased Visibility to Pedestrians
from Advance Yield Line
• FHWA Ped Facilities Users
Guide Description: Advance
stop lines allow pedestrians
and drivers to have a clearer
view of each other and more
time in which to assess
intentions. The effectiveness
of this tool depends upon
whether motorists are likely to
obey the stop line, which
varies. In some places, the
stop line has been moved
back by 15 to 30 ft (4.6 to 9.1
m) relative to the marked
crosswalk with considerable
safety benefits for
pedestrians.
• MUTCD Guidance: If used,
stop and yield lines should be
placed a minimum of 4 ft
(1.2 m) in advance of the
nearest crosswalk line at
controlled intersections. If
used at an unsignalized
midblock crosswalk, yield
lines should be placed
adjacent to the Yield Here to
Pedestrian sign located 20 to
50 ft (6.1 to 15 m) in advance
of the nearest crosswalk line,
and parking should be
prohibited in the area
between the yield line and the
crosswalk.

Advance
Stop Line
Table A-5. Supplemental Signs and Markings: Advance Stop Line and Sign.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 77 Pedestrian Median Refuge Islands
Pedestrian median refuge islands are a roadway
design treatment that permits pedestrians to cross
one direction of street traffic at a time. Median
refuge islands are typically raised above the
roadway surface with an accessible pedestrian
path. In some cases they are offset to direct the
view of crossing pedestrians at the second direction
of street traffic. Two-way left-turn lanes and other
median treatments that vehicles routinely enter are
not considered appropriate refuge for pedestrians.

Pedestrian Median Refuge Island
Wide Median Refuge Island with Landscaping
• AASHTO Green Book
Description: A pedestrian
median refuge island is near a
crosswalk or bicycle path.

Raised-curb corner islands
and center divisional or
channelizing islands can be
used as refuge areas.

Refuge islands for bicyclists
and pedestrians crossing a
wide street, for loading or
unloading transit riders, or for
wheelchair ramps are used
primarily in urban areas.
• Green Book Guidance:

Refuge islands used by
bicyclists should be at least
6-ft (1.8-m) wide. Pedestrians
and bicyclists should have a
clear path through the island
with no obstructions such as
poles or sign posts.
• AASHTO Ped Guide
Guidance: Medians and
crossing islands should be at
least 6-ft (1.8-m) wide so that
more than one pedestrian can
wait and so that 2-ft (0.61-m)
detectable warnings can be
provided at both sides of the
island. Where practical, a
width of 8-ft (2.4-m) may be
provided to accommodate
wheeled devices and groups
of pedestrians and to provide
a pedestrian storage area
separated by at least 2-ft
(0.6-m) from the face of the
curb.

Table A-6. Geometric Element: Pedestrian Median Refuge Islands.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 78 Raised Crosswalks
Raised crosswalks are a supplemental element to
standard crosswalks. The crosswalk is installed on
a surface that is elevated above the surface of the
adjacent driving lanes. The elevated surface
attracts drivers’ attention and is intended to
encourage lower speeds by providing a visual and
tactile feedback when approaching the crosswalk.

Raised crosswalks may be a constant height for the
entire width of the roadway, or they may have gaps
to allow bicycles and motorcycles to pass through.

Raised Crosswalks with Supplemental Sign and
Flashing Beacon
Advance Warning Sign for Raised Crosswalk
(Not in 2003 MUTCD)
• AASHTO Ped Guide
Description: Raised
crosswalks (or speed tables)
are appropriate at midblock
locations on local streets,
collector roads, and other
locations such as airport dropoff and pick-up zones,
shopping centers, and
campuses. Raised
crosswalks can make
sidewalks accessible without
adding curb ramps.
• AASHTO Ped Guide
Guidance: Raised
crosswalks function as an
extension of the sidewalk and
allow pedestrians to cross at
close to a constant grade,
without the need for curb
ramps. They are suitable only
on low-speed local streets
that are not emergency
routes. Raised crossings
should have a parabolic
approach transition, raising
the vehicle at least 3-to-6-in
(152-mm) above the normal
pavement grade. The flat
section of the crossing table
should be 10-to-12-ft (3.7-m)
wide. They should be highly
visible and striped as a
midblock crossing. The
approach should be clearly
marked or constructed of a
contrasting pavement design
with a smooth and stable
surface. Detectible warnings
should be placed at the curb
lines.

Raised
Crosswalks
Table A-7. Geometric Element: Raised Crosswalks.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 79 Curb Extensions
Curb extensions provide pedestrian refuge and
shorten the crossing distance at crosswalks where
they are installed. They can also improve the sight
distance and sight lines for both pedestrians and
motorists. They prevent parked cars from
encroaching into the crosswalk area, and they can
create adequate space for curb ramps and
landings on narrow sidewalks. Curb extensions
are used adjacent to on-street parking, where the
curb is extended to a distance approximately equal
to the width of the parking lane. They can be used
at a crossing on one or both sides of the street.

Curb Extension with Bus Stop (Also Known as
a Bus Bulb) at Midblock Crossing
Curb Extension at Intersection
• AASHTO Ped Guide
Description: Curb extensions
reduce the crossing distance
for pedestrians, improve sight
distance for all users, and slow
down traffic. They narrow the
street to provide a visual
distinction to oncoming
motorists that they are
approaching a crossing.
• AASHTO Ped Guide
Guidance: Curb extensions
extend approximately 6 ft
(1.8 m) from the curb. When
used on arterials, the remaining
width should be adequate for
both motor vehicles and
bicycles. They may not be
needed or desirable on every
leg of an intersection if the
street is narrow, parking is not
permitted, or the extension
would interfere with a bicycle
lane or the ability of design
vehicles to make a right turn.
• TCRP Report 65 Evaluation
of Bus Bulbs Guidance:

Curb extensions with a bus
stop are appropriate where
there is on-street parking, high
levels of pedestrian activity
and/or bus patronage at the
bus stop, lower operating
speed, and two travel lanes per
direction (that allow passing of
stopped buses). Conditions
that could limit their use include
complex drainage patterns,
high bicycle traffic, and twolane streets.

Table A-8. Geometric Element: Curb Extensions.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 80 Roadway Narrowing
Roadway narrowing can be used for lowering
vehicle speeds and increasing safety in the areas
around pedestrian crossings, as well as
redistributing space to other users. Narrowing can
occur at selected locations along a corridor or over
the entire corridor itself. The physical and visual
characteristics of the roadway narrowing encourage
drivers to reduce their speeds, which can facilitate
pedestrian traffic in the area.

Roadway Narrowing on Suburban Collector
• FHWA Ped Facilities Users
Guide Description:

Roadway narrowing can be
achieved in several different
ways: a) reduce lane width
and stripe the excess with a
bicycle lane or shoulder, b)
remove travel lanes, or c)
physically narrow the street
by extending sidewalks and
landscape areas. This can
reduce vehicle speeds along
a roadway section and
enhance movement and
safety for pedestrians.

Bicycle travel will also be
enhanced and bicyclist safety
improved when bicycle lanes
are added.
• Bicyclists must be safely
accommodated. Bike lanes
or wide curb lanes are
needed if vehicle volumes are
high. Road narrowing must
also consider truck volumes
and access for school buses
and emergency services.

Before utilizing roadway
narrowing, users should
evaluate whether narrowing
may encourage traffic to
divert to other local streets in
the neighborhood.

Table A-9. Geometric Element: Roadway Narrowing.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 81 Markings and Crossing Signs
Standard crosswalk markings and pedestrian
crossing signs are described in the 2003 Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, in Section 3B.17
and Section 2C.41, respectively.

Markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are
crossing roadways by defining and delineating
paths on approaches to and within signalized
intersections, and on approaches to other
intersections where traffic stops. They also alert
road users of a pedestrian crossing point across
roadways not controlled by signals or Stop signs.

At non-intersection locations, markings legally
establish the crosswalk. Specific guidance on the
use of marked crosswalks is provided in FHWA-RD01-075. These FHWA guidelines may be used as a supplement to the guidelines for marked crosswalks
presented here.

Pedestrian crossing signs (W11-2) may be used to
alert road users in advance of locations where
unexpected entries into the roadway or shared use
of the roadway by pedestrians may occur.

W11-2 Crossing Sign with Crosswalk Markings
• MUTCD Markings Standard:

When crosswalk lines are
used, they shall consist of
solid white lines that shall not
be less than 6 in nor greater
than 24 in wide.
• MUTCD Markings
Guidance: Crosswalks
should be no less than 6 ft
(1.8 m) wide. Crosswalk lines
should extend across the full
width of pavement.

Crosswalks should be marked
at all intersections with
“substantial conflict” between
vehicles and pedestrians.
• FHWA Markings Guidelines:

Marked crosswalks alone
should not be installed at
unsignalized pedestrian
crossings when speeds are
greater than 40 mph.
• MUTCD Signs Standard:

When used at crossings,
pedestrian crossing signs
shall be supplemented with a
diagonal downward-pointing
arrow plaque showing the
location of the crossing.
• MUTCD Signs Guidance:

When used in advance of a
crossing, the W11-2 sign may
have a supplemental plaque
with the legend AHEAD or XX
FEET to provide advance
notice to road users of
crossing activity.

Table A-10. Crosswalk: Markings and Crossing Signs.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 82 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs
In-Street Pedestrian Crossing signs are regulatory
signs placed in the street (on lane edge lines and
road centerlines, or in medians). In-Street
Pedestrian Crossing signs are described in the
2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, in
Section 2B.12.

The In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign (R1-6 or R1-
6a) may be used to remind road users of laws
regarding right of way at an unsignalized pedestrian
crossing. The legend STATE LAW may be shown
at the top of the sign if applicable. The legends
STOP FOR or YIELD TO may be used in
conjunction with the appropriate symbol.

R1-6 R1-6a
In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs
• MUTCD Standard: The InStreet Pedestrian Crossing
sign shall not be used at
signalized locations. The
STOP FOR legend shall only
be used in states where the
state law specifically requires
that a driver must stop for a
pedestrian in a crosswalk. If
used, the In-Street Pedestrian
Crossing sign shall have a
black legend (except for the
red STOP or YIELD sign
symbols) and border on either
a white and/or fluorescent
yellow-green background. If
the In-Street Pedestrian
Crossing sign is placed in the
roadway, the sign support
shall comply with the
breakaway requirements of
the latest edition of
AASHTO’s specifications.
• MUTCD Guidance: If an
island is available, the InStreet Pedestrian Crossing
sign, if used, should be
placed on the island.
• MUTCD Option: The InStreet Pedestrian Crossing
sign may be used seasonally
to prevent damage in winter
because of plowing
operations and may be
removed at night if the
pedestrian activity at night is
minimal.

Table A-11. Enhanced Device: In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 83 Signs and High-Visibility Markings
Signs and high-visibility markings are warning
devices placed at or in advance of the pedestrian
crossing. They include fluorescent yellow-green
pedestrian crossing signs, other crossing signs,
high-visibility crosswalk markings, and other devices
that attempt to draw attention to the crossing. They
are used in much the same way as conventional
signs and markings, but the high-visibility
characteristics add prominence to the devices.

Pedestrian Sign (Not in 2003 MUTCD),
High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings, and
Reflectorized Bollards
• Signs: Enhanced versions of
standard signs may have a
fluorescent yellow-green
background, or they may have
a traditional yellow
background made of a
material that has higher
conspicuity. Other signs may
be experimental or may use
combinations of standard
signs and colors.
• High-Visibility Markings:

High-visibility markings are
similar to their conventional
counterparts but have a
higher conspicuity and/or
reflectorization. Markings
should be applied using the
same guidance as for
conventional markings
(should be no less than 6 ft
[1.8 m] wide, should extend
across the full width of
pavement, etc.).

Fluorescent Yellow-Green Sign with
Arrow Plaque, Crosswalk Markings,
Raised Pavement Markers, and
Example of Experimental Use of InStreet Pedestrian Crossing Sign Table A-12. Enhanced Device: Signs and High-Visibility Markings.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 84 In-Roadway Warning Lights
In-roadway warning lights at crosswalks provide
amber flashing lights that are mounted flush to the
pavement surface at the crossing location. The
flashing lights can be activated by either a
pushbutton or a passive detection technology, such
as bollards, video, or microwave sensors.

In Section 4L.01, the 2003 MUTCD describes inroadway warning lights at crosswalks as special types of highway traffic signals installed in the
roadway surface to warn road users that they are
approaching a condition on or adjacent to the
roadway that might not be readily apparent and
might require the road users to slow down and/or
come to a stop. This includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, situations warning of marked school
crosswalks, marked midblock crosswalks, marked
crosswalks on uncontrolled approaches, marked
crosswalks in advance of roundabout intersections,
and other roadway situations involving pedestrian
crossings.

In-Roadway Warning Lights at Midblock
Crosswalk
• MUTCD General Standard:

If used, in-roadway warning
lights at crosswalks shall not
exceed a height of 0.75 in
above the roadway surface.
• MUTCD Standard at
Crosswalks: In-roadway
warning lights at crosswalks
shall be installed only at
marked crosswalks with
applicable warning signs, not
at crosswalks controlled by
Yield signs, Stop signs, or
traffic control signals. They
shall be installed along both
sides of the crosswalk and
shall span its entire length.

They shall initiate operation
on pedestrian actuation and
cease at a predetermined
time after the pedestrian
actuation or, with passive
detection, after the pedestrian
clears the crosswalk. They
shall display a flashing yellow
signal indication when
actuated, the flash rate of
which shall be at least 50, but
not more than 60, flashes per
minute. There shall be at
least one in-roadway light per
lane of roadway, with a
minimum of two lights for a
one-lane one-way roadway
and a minimum of three lights
for a two-lane roadway. They
shall be installed outside the
crosswalk, within 3 ft (1 m) of
the crosswalk.

In-Roadway
Warning Light
Table A-13. Active Device: In-Roadway Warning Lights.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 85 Pedestrian Crossing Flags
Pedestrian crossing flags are flags of various colors
(typically orange, yellow, or fluorescent yellowgreen) mounted on a stick that is held by pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross the street. The flags are
typically stored in sign-mounted holders on both
sides of the street at crossing locations.

Pedestrian Crossing Flags Stored in SignMounted Holder • Pedestrian Usage:

Supplemental plaques may
be added at or near the flag
holders to explain to
pedestrians the proper usage
of the flags.
• Maintenance: Depending
on the location where flags
are used, flags will need to
be replaced periodically due
to normal wear and tear,
theft, and/or vandalism. The
frequency of replacement
depends largely on the
pedestrian volumes and
weather conditions at the
site. A supplemental plaque
may be installed near the flag
holder as a warning against
theft.

Supplemental Usage and Anti-theft Plaques
Table A-14. Active Device: Pedestrian Crossing Flags.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 86 Overhead Flashing Amber Beacons
Overhead flashing amber beacons are mounted on
mast arms that extend over the roadway at or in
advance of the crossing location. The flashing
beacons can be activated by either a pushbutton or a
passive detection technology, such as bollards,
video, or microwave sensors. Continuously flashing
beacons are not included in this category; they would
be more appropriately included in the “Enhanced”
category of devices.

The alternate flashing is preferred by some agencies
over the simultaneous flashing. A strobe pattern is
also achievable with light-emitting diode (LED)
modules and advance transportation controllers.

Overhead Flashing Amber Beacons with
Pedestrian Crossing Sign (Current Version of
Sign Does Not Include Crosswalk Markings)
• MUTCD Standard: A
warning beacon shall consist
of one or more signal
sections of a standard traffic
signal face with a flashing
circular yellow signal
indication in each section. It
shall be used only to
supplement an appropriate
warning or regulatory sign or
marker. The beacon shall
not be included within the
border of the sign except for
School Speed Limit sign
beacons. The clearance
above the pavement for
overhead beacons shall be
at least 15-ft (4.6-m) but not
more than 19-ft (5.8-m).
• MUTCD Guidance:

Warning beacons should be
operated only during those
hours when the condition or
regulation exists. Section
4K.03 of the 2003 MUTCD
mentions “emphasis for
midblock crosswalks” as a
specific application of
flashing beacons.

Overhead Flashing Amber
Beacons with Supplemental
Pedestrian Crossing Sign (Older
Version of Sign) and Mast-Arm
Mounted “PED XING” Sign (Not in
2003 MUTCD)
Table A-15. Active Device: Overhead Flashing Amber Beacons.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 87 Pedestrian Crosswalk Signal
A pedestrian crosswalk signal is a special traffic
control signal used in Los Angeles to encourage
pedestrians to use a crosswalk and to emphasize to
vehicles the importance and necessity of yielding to
pedestrians in the crosswalk. A pedestrian
crosswalk signal has been used in Los Angeles to
facilitate pedestrian crossings when other traffic
signal warrants were not met. The pedestrian phase
for a pedestrian crosswalk signal is activated by a
pushbutton. The cycle for vehicles consists of a
flashing red indication preceded by a yellow
clearance interval, similar to a standard traffic control signal. A pedestrian crosswalk signal dwells in
steady green (ball or arrow). It is generally
accompanied by a supplemental plaque indicating
the signal is intended for pedestrians using the
crosswalk and WAIT HERE pavement markings.
• Los Angeles Pedestrian
Crosswalk Signal: For
Los Angeles, a signal at
a midblock crossing can
be authorized for the
purpose of consolidating
midblock crossings to a
single, preferred point,
when the street is at least
50 ft (15 m) wide, the
nearest controlled
crossing is at least 300 ft
(91 m) away, and the
marked crosswalk
requirements are
satisfied (which includes
a criteria of 40 or more
pedestrians during peak
pedestrian hours).

Example of Los Angeles
Pedestrian Crosswalk
Signal with Supplemental
Signing (Not in 2003
MUTCD) on Mast Arm
(Note Green Arrow)

Dwells in Green
Arrow
Upon Activation,
Steady Yellow
for 3 to 6 s
Flashing Red
during Pedestrian
Interval
Example of Phasing for
Pedestrian Crosswalk
Signal
Table A-16. Red Device: Pedestrian Crosswalk Signal.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 88 Half Signals
A half signal (also known as an intersection
pedestrian signal) is a standard traffic signal with
red, yellow, and green indications that is located at
an intersecting cross street with Stop control. The
pedestrian phase for a half signal is typically
activated by a pushbutton. In the United States,
most half signals dwell in steady green, whereas
most half signals in British Columbia dwell in
flashing green.

Half signals are experimental and are not currently
included in the MUTCD. Permission for
experimentation is needed.

Intersection Pedestrian Signal (Half Signal)
• Guidance: Half signals are
used to provide signal control
for a pedestrian crossing the
major street while minimizing
delay for major street traffic
by retaining Stop sign control
on the minor street. This
treatment has been used at
locations where there is
heavy pedestrian demand to
cross the major street but the
side street traffic on the minor
approach is light. The lack of
signal control on the side
street does not attract more
traffic to the street as
conventional intersection
signals would.
• Installation and Operation:

The cost of installation is
significant. Drivers on side
streets may be confused
about right-of-way
assignment: the side street
right-of-way relies on gaps in
main street traffic to enter or
cross the main street. If the
crosswalk is clear, drivers on
side streets may use the gap
created by the signal to
proceed through the
intersection. This treatment
has been tested in several
cities including Portland,
Oregon; Seattle, Washington;
and Fairfax, Virginia.

Stop Sign on
Minor Approach
Signal Heads on
Major Approaches
Table A-17. Red Device: Half Signals.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 89 HAWK
A HAWK beacon signal provides yellow and red
indications. The current configuration for a HAWK is
two red lenses above a yellow lens in a “Mickey
Mouse Ears” format. The HAWK beacon signal, used
exclusively in Tucson and Pima County, Arizona,
dwells in a dark mode until activated by a pedestrian
by means of a pushbutton.

The HAWK is currently not included in the MUTCD.

Permission for experimentation is needed.

HAWK Signal
Close-Up of HAWK Signal Head
• Description: The objective
of a HAWK (high-intensity
activated crosswalk) signal is
to stop vehicles to allow
pedestrians to cross while
also allowing vehicles to
proceed as soon as the
pedestrians have passed. It
is a combination of a beacon
flasher and a traffic control
signal. This application
provides a pedestrian
crossing without signal
control for the side street.
• Operation: The inclusion of
the alternating flashing red
permits stop-and-go vehicle
operations after a pedestrian
has cleared the crosswalk.
• Observations: Drivers are
more likely to stop for a
device that displays a red
indication. Driver education
has been an active
component in those
communities using a HAWK
signal. Confusion may result
from the dark beacon signal
display, as drivers may
interpret it as a power
outage; however, that has
not been a problem where
implemented.

Table A-18. Red Device: HAWK Beacon Signals.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 90 Proposed Pedestrian Beacon
A pedestrian beacon is a proposed special highway
traffic control signal used at some locations for
pedestrians waiting to cross or crossing the street. A
pedestrian beacon is proposed to be considered for
installation at a midblock location that does not meet
other traffic signal warrants to facilitate pedestrian
crossings. The pedestrian phase for a pedestrian
beacon would be activated by a pedestrian. The red
portion of the cycle for vehicles consists of a sequence of a steady red indication (during the pedestrian
crossing interval) followed by flashing red indications (during the pedestrian clearance interval).

This device has been suggested to be included in
future editions of the MUTCD.

Dark until
Activated
Flashing Yellow for
3 to 6 s
Steady Yellow for
3 to 6 s
Steady Red
during Pedestrian
Interval
Alternating Flashing Red during
Pedestrian Clearance Interval

Example of Phase Sequence for a Pedestrian
Beacon
• Proposed Guidance for
the MUTCD: If a traffic
control signal is not
justified under the signal
warrants of Chapter 4C
and if gaps in traffic are not
adequate to permit
reasonably safe pedestrian
crossings, or if the speed
for vehicles approaching
on the major street is too
high to permit reasonably
safe street crossings for
pedestrians, or if
pedestrian delay is
excessive, installing a
pedestrian traffic control
signal should be
considered.
• Proposed Sign to
Accompany a Pedestrian
Beacon:

Table A-19. Red Device: Pedestrian Beacon.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 91 Traffic Control Signals
Standard traffic signals and warrants for their
consideration are described in the MUTCD. In
particular, Warrant 4 of the 2003 edition deals with
traffic signals for pedestrians.

The pedestrian volume signal warrant is intended for
application where the traffic volume on a major
street is so heavy that pedestrians experience
excessive delay in crossing the major street. A
signal may not be needed at the study location if
adjacent coordinated traffic control signals
consistently provide gaps of adequate length for
pedestrians to cross the street.

Traffic Control Signal with Pedestrian Crossing
Sign (Current Version of Sign Does Not Include
Crosswalk Markings)
Pedestrian Using Pushbutton Detector to
Activate WALK Indication at Traffic Control
Signal
• MUTCD Standard: The
need for a traffic control
signal at an intersection or a
midblock crossing shall be
considered if an engineering
study finds that the
appropriate criteria are met.

This warrant shall not be
applied at locations where
the distance to the nearest
traffic signal is less than
300 ft (91 m) unless the
proposed signal will not
restrict the progressive
movement of traffic.
• MUTCD Guidance: If at an
intersection, the signal
should be traffic actuated
and include pedestrian
detectors. If installed within
a signal system, the signal
should be coordinated. If at
a midblock crossing, the
signal should be pedestrian
actuated, parking and other
obstructions should be
prohibited for at least 100 ft
(31 m) in advance of and at
least 20 ft (6.1 m) beyond
the crosswalk, and the
installation should include
standard signs and
pavement markings.

Table A-20. Signal: Traffic Control Signals.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. • Lalani, N., and ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Task Force.

Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings.

ITE Informational Report, ITE, Washington, D.C., 2001.
• Zegeer, C., J. Stuart, and H. Huang. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2001. • PedSafe: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/
Illustrations of Guidelines
Graphs were generated to illustrate the guidelines for the readers and are included as Figures A-6 through A-19. These graphs should be used only when the major-road speed, the pedestrian walking speed, and the crossing distance are matched to the value presented at the top of the graph. For other situations, the reader should use the equations listed in the worksheets.
92 No Treatment
Crosswalk
E/A*
E/A HC, Red LC*
Red
Signal (proposed for
MUTCD)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Major Road Volume - Total of Both Approaches (Veh/h)
*E/A = Enhanced/Active, HC = High Compliance, LC = Low Compliance Pedestrian Volume Crossing Major Road (ped/h)
No Treatment
Crosswalk
E/A*
E/A HC, Red LC*
Red
Signal (proposed for
MUTCD)
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
Major Road Volume - Total of Both Approaches (veh/h)
*E/A = Enhanced/Active, HC = High Compliance, LC = Low Compliance Pedestrian Volume Crossing Major Road (ped/h)
Figure A-6. Guidelines Plot, 34 ft (10.4 m) Pavement, <–35 mph (55 km/h), 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) Walking Speed.

Figure A-7. Guidelines Plot, 34 ft (10.4 m) Pavement, <–35 mph (55 km/h), 3.0 ft/s (0.9 km/h) Walking Speed.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 17 crosswalks, since observed pedestrian behavior actually improved after marked crosswalks were installed at the study sites. However, it should also be remembered that measures such as “pedestrian awareness” and “expectation that motorists will stop for them” cannot be collected by field observation alone. It should be mentioned that installing marked crosswalks or other measures can affect pedestrian level of service if the measures increase the number of motorists who stop and yield to pedestrians. Future studies using focus groups of pedestrians and also questionnaires completed by pedestrians in the field could shed light on such measures.

STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system and they should, therefore, be able to use this system safely. Pedestrian needs in crossing streets should routinely be identified, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access. Deciding where to mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. The study results revealed that under no condition was the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location associated with a significantly lower pedestrian crash rate compared to an unmarked crosswalk. Furthermore, on multi-lane roads with traffic volumes greater than 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other site factors) compared to an unmarked crossing.

Therefore, adding marked crosswalks alone (i.e., with no engineering, enforcement, or education enhancement) is not expected to reduce pedestrian crashes for any of the conditions included in the study.

On many roadways, particularly multi-lane and high-speed crossing locations, more substantial improvements are often needed for safer pedestrian crossings, such as providing raised medians, installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) when warranted, implementing speed-reducing measures, and/or other practices. In addition, development patterns that reduce the speed and number of multi-lane roads should be encouraged.

Street crossing locations should be routinely reviewed to consider the following available options:
• Option 1 - No special provisions needed.
• Option 2 - Provide a marked crosswalk alone.
• Option 3 - Install other crossing improvements (with or without a marked crosswalk) to reduce vehicle speeds, shorten crossing distance, or increase the likelihood of motorists stopping and yielding.

Since sites in this study were confined to those having no traffic signal or stop sign on the main road approaches, it follows that these results do not apply to crossings controlled by traffic signals, stop or yield signs, traffic-calming treatments, or other devices. They also do not apply to school crossings, since such sites were purposely excluded from the site selection process.

The results of this study have some clear implications on the placement of marked crosswalks and the design of safer pedestrian crossings at uncontrolled locations. These include:

1. Pedestrian crashes are relatively rare at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings (1 crash every 43.7 years per site in this study); however, the certainty of injury to the pedestrian and the high likelihood of a severe or fatal injury in a high-speed crash makes it critical to provide a pedestrian-friendly transportation network.

2. Marked crosswalks alone (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial improvement) are not recommended at uncontrolled crossing locations on multi-lane roads (i.e., 4 or more lanes) where traffic volume exceeds approximately 12,000 vehicles per day (with no raised medians) or approximately 15,000 ADT (with F.2.d
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 18 raised medians that serve as refuge areas). This recommendation is based on the analysis of pedestrian crash experience, as well as exposure data and site conditions described earlier. To add a margin of safety and/or to account for future increases in traffic volume, the authors recommend against installing marked crosswalks alone on two-lane roads with ADT’s greater than 12,000 or on multi-lane roads with ADT’s greater than 9,000 (with no raised median). The authors of this study also recommend against installing marked crosswalks alone on roadways with speed limits higher than 40 mi/h (64.4 km/h). Instead, enhanced crossing treatments (e.g., traffic-calming treatments, traffic and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial improvement) are recommended.

Specific recommendations are given later in table 1 regarding installation of marked crosswalks and other crossing measures. It is important for motorists to understand their legal responsibility to yield to pedestrians at marked and unmarked crosswalks, which may vary from State to State. Also, pedestrians should use caution when crossing streets, regardless of who has the legal right-of-way, since it is the pedestrian who suffers the most physical injury in a collision with a motor vehicle.

3. On two-lane roads and lower volume multi-lane roads (ADT’s less than 12,000), marked crosswalks were not found to have any positive or negative effect on pedestrian crash rates at the study sites.

Marked crosswalks may encourage pedestrians to cross the street at such sites. However, it is recommended that crosswalks alone (without other crossing enhancements) not be installed at locations that may pose unusual safety risks to pedestrians. Pedestrians should not be encouraged to cross the street at sites with limited sight distance, complex or confusing designs, sites with certain vehicle mixes (many heavy trucks), or other dangers, without first providing them with adequate design features and/or traffic control devices.

4. At uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations, installing marked crosswalks should not be regarded as a magic cure for pedestrian safety problems. However, they also should not be considered as a negative measure that will necessarily increase pedestrian crashes. Marked crosswalks are appropriate at some locations (e.g., at selected low-speed two-lane streets at downtown crossing locations) to help channel pedestrians to preferred crossing locations, but they should also have other roadway improvements (e.g., raised medians, traffic-calming treatments, traffic and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) when used at other locations.

The guidelines presented in table 1 are intended to provide guidance for installing marked crosswalks and other pedestrian crossing facilities.

Note that speed limit was used in table 1 in addition to ADT, number of lanes, and presence of a median. In developing the table, roads with higher speed limits (higher than 40 mi/h [64.4 km/h]) were considered to be inappropriate for adding marked crosswalks alone. This is because virtually no crosswalk sites where speed limits exceed 40 mi/h (64.4 km/h) were found in the 30 U.S. cities (and thus could not be included in the analysis). Also, high-speed roadways present added problems for pedestrians and thus require more substantial treatments in many cases. That may be why Germany, Finland, and Norway do not allow uncontrolled crosswalks on roads with high speed limits.(6)

5. For three-lane roads, adding marked crosswalks alone (without other substantial treatments) is generally not recommended for ADT’s greater than 12,000, although exceptions may be allowed under certain conditions (e.g., lower speed roads).

6. If nothing else is done beyond marking crosswalks at an uncontrolled location, pedestrians will not experience increased safety (under any situations included in the analysis). This finding is in some ways consistent with the companion study by Knoblauch et al.(5) that found that marking a F.2.d
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 19 Table 1. Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.* Roadway Type
(Number of Travel Lanes
and Median Type)
Vehicle ADT
< 9,000
Vehicle ADT
>9000 to 12,000
Vehicle ADT
>12,000 - 15,000
Vehicle ADT
> 15,000
Speed Limit**
< 30
mi/h
35 mi/h
40 mi/h
< 30
mi/h
35 mi/h
40 mi/h
< 30
mi/h
35 mi/h
40 mi/h
< 30
mi/h
35 mi/h
40 mi/h
2 Lanes C C P C C P C C N C P N
3 Lanes C C P C P P P P N P N N
Multi-Lane (4 or More Lanes)
With Raised Median***

C C P C P N P P N N N N
Multi-Lane (4 or More Lanes)
Without Raised Median

C P N P P N N N N N N N
* These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to school crossings. A two-way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at locations that could present an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor will they necessarily result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed, to improve the safety of the crossing. These are general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for deciding where to install crosswalks.
** Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mi/h (64.4 km/h) marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations.

C = Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) exist at a location before placing a high priority on the installation of a marked crosswalk alone.

P = Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk.

N = Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased due to providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians. *** The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft (1.2 m) wide and 6 ft (1.8 m) long to adequately serve as a refuge area for pedestrians in accordance with MUTCD and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, 20 Figure 10. Raised medians and crossing islands can
improve pedestrian safety on multi-lane roads.
crosswalk will not necessarily increase the number of motorists that will stop or yield to pedestrians.

Research from Europe shows the need for pedestrian improvements beyond uncontrolled crosswalks.
(10-11)

7. In some situations (e.g., low-speed, two-lane streets in downtown areas), installing a marked crosswalk may help consolidate multiple crossing points. Engineering judgment should be used to install crosswalks at preferred crossing locations (e.g., at a crossing location at a streetlight as opposed to an unlit crossing point nearby). Also, higher priority should be placed on providing crosswalks where pedestrian volume exceeds about 20 per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly pedestrians and/or children per peak hour).

8. Marked crosswalks and other pedestrian facilities (or lack of facilities) should be routinely monitored to determine what improvements are needed.

What Are Possible Measures to Help Pedestrians Cross Streets Safely?

9. Although simply installing marked crosswalks by themselves cannot solve pedestrian crossing problems, the safety needs of pedestrians must not be ignored. More substantial engineering and roadway treatments need to be considered, as well as enforcement and education programs and possibly new legislation to provide safer and easier crossings for pedestrians at problem locations.

Transportation and safety engineers have a responsibility to consider all types of road users in roadway planning, design, and maintenance. Pedestrians must be provided with safe facilities for travel.

A variety of pedestrian facilities have been found to improve pedestrian safety and/or ability to cross the street under various conditions.(7-22) Examples of some of these pedestrian improvements include:
• Providing raised medians (figure 10) or intersection crossing islands on multi-lane roads, which can significantly reduce the pedestrian crash rate and also facilitate street crossing. Also, raised medians may provide aesthetic improvement and may control access to prevent unsafe turns out of driveways.

Refuge islands should be at least 4 ft (1.2m) wide (and preferably 6 to 8 ft [1.8 to 2.4 m] wide) and of adequate length to allow for pedestrians to stand and wait for gaps in traffic before crossing the second half of the street. When built, the landscaping should be designed and maintained to provide good visibility between pedestrians and approaching motorists.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 21 • Installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals), where warranted (see figure 11).

Figure 11. On some high-volume or multi-lane roads, traffic and pedestrian signals are needed to better accommodate pedestrian crossings. • Reducing the effective street crossing distance for pedestrians by narrowing the roads or by providing curb extensions (figure 12) and/or raised pedestrian islands at intersections.

Figure 12. Curb extensions at intersections or midblock locations will shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians.

Another option is to reduce four-lane undivided road sections to two through-lanes with dual left-turn lanes or left-turn bays. Reducing the width of the lanes may result in slower speeds in some situations, which can benefit pedestrians who are attempting to cross the street. This creates enough space to provide median islands. The removal of a travel lane may also allow enough space for sidewalks and/or bike lanes.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 22 Figure 13. Raised crosswalks can control vehicle
speeds on local streets at pedestrian crossings.

Figure 14. Adequate lighting can improve
pedestrian safety at night.
• Installing traffic-calming measures may be appropriate on certain streets to slow vehicle speeds and/or reduce cut-through traffic, as described in the report entitled, Traffic Calming: State of the Practice.(17) Such measures may include:
— Raised crossings (raised crosswalks, raised intersections) (see figure 13). — Street narrowing measures (chicanes, slow points, “skinny street” designs). — Intersection designs (traffic mini-circles, diagonal diverters).

Some of these traffic-calming measures may not be appropriate on major collector or arterial streets. • Providing adequate nighttime lighting for pedestrians (figure 14). Adequate nighttime lighting should be provided at marked crosswalks and areas near churches, schools, and community centers with nighttime pedestrian activity.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 23 Figure 15. Grade-separated crossings are sometimes used when other measures are not feasible to provide safe ped crossings.

Figure 16. Pedestrian warning signs are sometimes
used to supplement crosswalks.
• Designing safer intersections for pedestrians (e.g., crossing islands, tighter turn radii). • Providing narrower widths and/or access management (e.g., consolidation of driveways). • Constructing grade-separated crossings or pedestrian-only streets (see figure 15). It should be mentioned that grade-separated crossings are very expensive and should only be considered in extreme situations, such as where pedestrian crossings are essential (e.g., school children need to cross a sixlane arterial street), street crossing at-grade is not feasible for pedestrians, and no other measures are considered to be appropriate. Grade-separated crossings must also conform to Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
• Using various pedestrian warning signs, flashers, and other traffic control devices to supplement marked crosswalks (figure 16). However, the effects of supplemental signs and other devices at marked crosswalks are not well known under various roadway conditions. According to the MUTCD, pedestrian crossing signs should only be used at locations that are unusually hazardous or at locations where pedestrian crossing activity is not readily apparent.(2) F.2.d
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 24 • Building narrower streets in new communities to achieve desired vehicle speeds. • Increasing the frequency of two-lane or three-lane arterials when designing new street networks so that fewer multi-lane arterials are required.

10. Whenever a marked crosswalk is installed on an uncontrolled multi-lane road (i.e., three or more lanes), consideration of an advance stop line is recommended at a point up to approximately 30 ft (9.1 m) in advance of the crosswalk along with the sign STOP HERE FOR CROSSWALK. The distance for the stop line and sign should be set based on vehicle speeds at each site, with lesser distances for lower speed approaches. This will encourage motorists to stop farther back from the crosswalk, thereby improving sight distance and stopping distance for approaching motorists in the adjacent lanes. Adding such advance stop lines with the STOP HERE FOR CROSSWALK sign has been found by Van Houten(18) to increase the percentage of vehicles that stop farther back from the crosswalk, which could reduce the likelihood of pedestrian multiple-threat collisions on multi-lane roads. Research is needed, however, to better quantify the effects of advance stop lines on driver behavior and pedestrian crashes.

11. It is recommended that parking be eliminated on the approach to uncontrolled crosswalks to improve vision between pedestrians and motorists.

12. Some agencies provide railings in the medians of multi-lane roads that direct pedestrians to the right and increase the likelihood of pedestrians looking for vehicles coming from their right in the second half of the street (figure 17).

Figure 17. Railings in the median direct pedestrians to the right and may reduce pedestrian crashes on the second half of the street.

13. Proper planning and land use practices should be applied to benefit pedestrians. For example, busy arterial streets should be used as a boundary for school attendance or school busing. Major pedestrian generators should not be separated from each other or from their parking facilities by a busy street.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 25 14. The current MUTCD pedestrian signal warrant should be reviewed to determine whether the warrant should be modified to more easily allow for installing a traffic signal at locations where pedestrians cannot safely cross the street (and where no alternative safe crossings exist nearby). Consideration must always include pedestrians with disabilities and proper accommodations must be provided to meet ADA requirements.

15. There should be continued research, development, and testing/explanation of innovative traffic control and roadway design alternatives that could provide improved access and safety for pedestrians attempting to cross streets. For example, in-pavement warning lights, variations in pedestrian warning and regulatory signs (including signs placed in the centerline to reinforce motorists yielding to pedestrians), roadway narrowing, traffic-calming measures, automated speed-monitoring techniques, etc. deserve further research and development to determine their feasibility under various traffic and roadway conditions.

More details about these and other pedestrian facilities are given in the Pedestrian Facilities User’s Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility, recently developed for FHWA(19) and in the ITE publication Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities,
(20) and ITE’s The Traffic Safety Toolbox (Chapter 19,
“Designing for Pedestrians”).(21)
F.2.d
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 26 PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS Marked crosswalks serve two purposes: (1) they tell the pedestrian the best place to cross; and (2) they clarify that a legal crosswalk exists at a particular location.

Marked crosswalks are one tool to get pedestrians safely across the street. When considering marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, the question should not simply be: “Should I provide a marked crosswalk or not?” Instead, the question should be: “Is this an appropriate tool for getting pedestrians across the street?” Regardless of whether marked crosswalks are used, there remains the fundamental objective to get pedestrians safely across the street.

In most cases, marked crosswalks are best used in combination with other treatments. (e.g., curb extensions, raised crossing islands, traffic signals, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, trafficcalming measures, etc.) Think of marked crosswalks as one of a progression of design treatments. If one treatment does not adequately accomplish the task, then move on to the next one. Failure of one particular treatment is not a license to give up and do nothing. In all cases, the final design must address the goal of getting pedestrians across the road safely.

Marked pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian paths across roadways under the following conditions:

1. At locations with stop signs or traffic signals. Vehicular traffic might block pedestrian traffic when stopping for a stop sign or red light; marking crosswalks may help to reduce this occurrence.

2. At non-signalized street crossing locations in designated school zones. Use of adult crossing guards, school signs and markings, and/or traffic signals with pedestrian signals (when warranted) should be used in conjunction with the marked crosswalk, as needed.

3. At non-signalized locations where engineering judgment dictates that the number of motor vehicle lanes, pedestrian exposure, average daily traffic (ADT), posted speed limit, and geometry of the location would make the use of specially designated crosswalks desirable for traffic/pedestrian safety and mobility. This must consider the conditions listed below and also in table 1.

Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) and should not be used under the following conditions:

1. Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mi/h (64.4 km/h).

2. On a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 12,000 or greater.

3. On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 15,000 or greater.

Street crossing locations should be routinely reviewed to consider the following available options:
• Option 1 - No special provisions needed.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) 27 • Option 2 - Provide a marked crosswalk alone.
• Option 3 - Install other crossing improvements (with or without a marked crosswalk) to reduce vehicle speeds, shorten crossing distance, or increase the likelihood of motorists stopping and yielding.

The intent of table 1 is to provide initial guidance on whether an uncontrolled location might be a candidate for a marked crosswalk alone and/or whether additional geometric and/or traffic control improvements are needed. As a part of the review process for pedestrian crossings, an engineering study should be used to analyze such other factors, including (but not limited to), as gaps in traffic, approach speed, sight distances, illumination, the needs of special populations, and the distance to the nearest traffic signal.

The spacing of marked crosswalks should also be considered so that they are not placed too close together.

Overuse of marked crosswalks may breed driver disrespect for them, and a more conservative use of crosswalks is generally preferred. Thus, it is recommended that in situations where marked crosswalks alone are acceptable (see table 1) a higher priority be placed on their use at locations having a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians per peak hour). In all cases, good engineering judgment must be applied.

OTHER FACTORS
Distance of Marked Crosswalks From Signalized Intersections: Marked crosswalks should not be installed in close proximity to traffic signals, since pedestrians should be encouraged to cross at the signal in most situations. The minimum distance from a signal for installing a marked crosswalk should be determined by local traffic engineers based on pedestrian crossing demand, type of roadway, traffic volume, and other factors. The objective of adding a marked crosswalk is to channel pedestrians to safer crossing points. It should be understood, however, that pedestrian crossing behavior may be difficult to control merely by the addition of marked crosswalks. The new marked crosswalk should not unduly restrict platooned traffic, and should also be consistent with marked crosswalks at other unsignalized locations in the area.

Other Treatments: In addition to installing marked crosswalks (or in some cases, instead of installing marked crosswalks), there are other treatments that should be considered to provide safer and easier crossings for pedestrians at problem locations. Examples of these pedestrian improvements include:
• Providing raised medians (or raised crossing islands) on multi-lane roads. • Installing traffic signals and pedestrian signals where warranted, and where serious pedestrian crossing problems exist.
• Reducing the exposure distance for pedestrians by:
— Providing curb extensions.
— Providing pedestrian islands.
— Reducing four-lane undivided road sections to two through lanes with a left-turn bay (or a two-way left- turn lane), sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. • When marked crosswalks are used on uncontrolled multi-lane roads, consideration should be given to installing advance stop lines as much as 30 ft (9.1 m) prior to the crosswalk (with a STOP HERE FOR CROSSWALK sign) in each direction to reduce the likelihood of a multiple-threat pedestrian collision.

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4F – Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

F.2.d
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Orinda Way Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation-signed (3295 : approve plans - access. pkg, crosswalks) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: February 6, 2024
Department:

Supplemental Sales
Tax Oversight
Commission
AGENDA TITLE: SSTOC Request for a Community Survey
RECOMMENDATION:

Review, discuss, and consider the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission’s (SSTOC) recommendation: To authorize staff to undertake a professional community survey regarding wildfire prevention and resilience in order to benchmark community members’ knowledge, attitudes, needs, and barriers to implementing defensible space and home hardening retrofits to protect lives, property, and the City. The SSTOC recommends the online/opt-in hybrid approach described in the attached Recommendation from SSTOC. Should the Council agree with the recommendation, an appropriation, from Measure R in the amount needed to undertake the approach should be included as part of the approval.

BACKGROUND:

At the October 11, 2023, SSTOC meeting, the SSTOC formed an Ad hoc Subcommittee of three Commissioners to propose improvements to the Incentive Program. The Ad hoc Subcommittee with staff began to inventory the landscape of similar programs in California. The Subcommittee, along with City of Orinda staff, met three times during 2023. A list of 16 current grant programs available to homeowners throughout California was compiled and verified by one-on-one meetings with program managers/program directors.

Through this process, it became apparent to the Ad hoc subcommittee that a baseline of Orinda homeowner's knowledge and commitment to wildfire adaptation was needed.

From the Incentive Ad hoc Subcommittee's interest in seeking more information to direct further recommendations, the full SSTOC at their November 8, 2024, meeting voted to expand the subcommittee’s scope to include the idea of a community survey. They are now the Survey and Incentive Ad hoc Subcommittee.

In summary, the Commission is looking to benchmark the current level of knowledge, attitudes, needs, and barriers of resident’s ability to protect themselves from wildfire through a Community Survey. The primary objective is to figure out how to best direct future wildfire preparedness and prevention programs funded by Measure R.

DISCUSSION:

On January 10, 2024, the Survey and Incentive Ad hoc Subcommittee formally presented its findings and recommendations to the entire SSTOC. With the unanimous H.1
Packet Pg. 99
support of the full Commission, the SSTOC has drafted a recommendation for the City Council. The recommendation was informed by informal conversations with research firms about what to expect in hiring a professional firm to conduct a Community Survey and what that investment will supply. The Commission has also sought multiple avenues to seek this information from the community and the balancing of cost possibilities vs product for the City Council to consider.

The attached documents contain the SSTOC’s outline for the focus and scope of the project. Also included is a sample draft of the questions a firm would use to refine the questions asked in the proposed community survey.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon approval by the City Council, staff, in collaboration with the SSTOC ad hoc committee, will obtain proposals for this research and move forward with the best provider.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Should the Council agree with the online / Opt-in Hybrid recommendation, an appropriation of $21,500 from Measure R would be needed to undertake the Hybrid approach and should be included as part of the approval.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. SSTOC Recommendation to City Council - Community Survey B. Orinda Community Survey RFP Scope
Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: Micki Cronin, Senior Management Analyst
Approved by:

H.1
Packet Pg. 100
SSTOC Recommendation to the City Council
In November 2020, voters in Orinda approved Measure R, a 1% local sales tax intended to fund wildfire prevention, emergency preparedness, road maintenance, storm drain repair, and essential city services.

According to data that was shared on June 14, 2023 with the SSTOC, the city has approved $1.3M in fire preventionrelated expenditures in FY 23/24 and another $1M is proposed in FY 24/25. While we are allocating over $1M annually in expenditures - and could potentially recommend more - we have never surveyed Orindans specifically about their understanding, needs, and requirements to protect their homes and community. We do not know why some people do defensible space work and why many people do not, despite the Moraga Orinda Fire District’s (MOFD) requirements and recommendations to do so and the City’s and MOFD’s efforts to promote wildfire prevention efforts. Understanding this could allow the City to be more effective with the dollars already being spent.

Since its inception, the SSTOC has been looking at the best ways to measure success in relation to wildfire prevention and preparedness. While the Commission produces an annual report for the City Council and community, developing meaningful measures to allow for comparison over time has been difficult. In the fall of 2023, the SSTOC tasked an ad hoc committee with reviewing the existing incentive program, and that effort gave rise to a discussion of how the success of that program would be measured, which renewed the regular discussion of measurement. Subsequently, the ad hoc’s scope was broadened to include evaluating a possible survey.

The ad hoc presented its recommendation to the full SSTOC on January 10th. In line with the SSTOC’s plan (latest annual report is here) and implementation recommendations focused on wildfire prevention and resilience, the ad hoc believes that it is critical to conduct a benchmark survey of wildfire prevention and program awareness, attitudes, and barriers to participation in order to measure, refine, and guide our initiatives. This survey will also allow us to share information with agency partners like MOFD and EBMUD. The SSTOC agreed with the recommendations of the ad hoc.

Discussion
To protect lives and property and make Orinda more resilient to fire, we are asking most residents to change their behavior and attitudes towards defensible space and home hardening and to take action.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: SSTOC Recommendation to City Council - Community Survey (3297 : SSTOC Request for a The objective of our proposed community survey is to benchmark knowledge levels, attitudes, needs, and barriers to implementing defensible space and home hardening strategies, including awareness of and participation in current programs, so that we can create and refine new and existing initiatives to promote action. A description of the community survey is attached to this recommendation. This description has been shared on an informational basis with two well-established market research firms to identify approaches and general budget parameters that inform this recommendation.

The SSTOC believes that this survey must:
● Include a statistically significant sample of Orindans from key demographic groups, including younger residents, families with children, and older residents. Because fire prevention requires individual home owners to understand community needs and take action that requires money and effort, we must hear from different parts of our community in order to create the right programs and communications strategies. ● Benchmark and identify ways to improve the level of understanding around fire-related requirements and key barriers that prevent people from complying, as well as inform our communications plan to ensure that Orindans know about their options and opportunities to protect property and lives. ● Be effectively designed and analyzed by experts with experience in creating survey questions that accurately measure the opinions, behaviors and experiences of our residents and organizing them in a questionnaire that does not bias nor influence responses. The insights produced from these survey results must also be created by experts who are skilled in data analysis. This is particularly important for future benchmarking efforts to measure how opinions and behavior has changed over time.

Based on informational discussions with two local research firms, we will need roughly 400 responses for a statistically significant study and we have the options below. Costs include professional survey design, survey build, administration for options other than opt-in only, and expert analysis and recommendations. At this time, a one-time survey is recommended, though future surveys may assist in measuring progress over time.

Of these options, the SSTOC recommends the Online / Opt-in Hybrid alternative (highlighted below). It is the most cost effective way to ensure that we have responses from the most engaged, as well as less engaged, Orindans. It also helps us understand how and where highly engaged Orindans differ from less engaged Orindans so that we can tailor programs and communications accordingly.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: SSTOC Recommendation to City Council - Community Survey (3297 : SSTOC Request for a Survey Options:

Survey Type Phone / online Online only Online / Opt-in Hybrid Opt-in only Description - Statistical sample
based on voter
registrations
- Outreach via email,
text, phone and City
channels; survey
given via phone if
needed
- Statistical sample
based on voter
registrations
- Outreach via email,
text, and City
channels
- Blend of statistical
voter registration
sample and opt-in
sample
- Outreach via email,
text and City
channels
- Compare opt-in
sample to voter
registration sample
to see similarities
and differences; if
differences are
significant, gather
more results via
online method
- Survey distributed
via City channels (all
digital)
- No statistical
sampling
High-level budget $30,000 $25,000 $19,500 - $21,500 $12,000 Considerations - Most thorough
reach, including
those what do not
use cell phones or
computers
- Most expensive
- Provides statistically
significant
information
- Researchers believe
that we will be able
to get a
representative
sample of Orindans
with digital outreach
- Will not reach those
who do not use cell
phones or
computers.
- Provides statistically
significant
information
- Allows us to
understand the
differences between
engaged Orindans
(as defined by optin) and less
engaged Orindans
- Will not reach those
who do not use cell
phones or
- Surveys likely to be
completed by the
most engaged
Orindans; could omit
those residents we
most need to reach
- Likely not
statistically
significant by
segment
- Lowest cost option
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: SSTOC Recommendation to City Council - Community Survey (3297 : SSTOC Request for a computers
- Lower budget
Fiscal Impact
For the survey methodology recommended above, the fiscal impact to the City, to be funded by Measure R, is estimated to be $21,500 or less. Costs may vary slightly when we receive final proposals.

Next Steps
Upon approval by the City Council, staff, in collaboration with the SSTOC ad hoc committee, will obtain proposals for this research and to move forward with the best provider.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: SSTOC Recommendation to City Council - Community Survey (3297 : SSTOC Request for a Orinda Community Survey
Request for Information
Overview
In November, 2020, voters in Orinda approved Measure R, a 1% local sales tax intended to fund additional wildfire prevention, emergency preparedness, road maintenance, storm drain repair, and essential city services.

Measure R generates over $3M per year. The strategy and spending recommendations for these funds are provided by the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (SSTOC) and approved by the Orinda City Council.

The SSTOC has created a strategic plan (latest annual report is here) and implementation recommendations focused on wildfire prevention and resilience. As we implement new programs and make recommendations to increase the impact that Measure R funds can have for Orindans, we would like to do a benchmark survey of wildfire and program awareness, attitudes and barriers to participation in order to refine and guide our initiatives.

Objective
The objective of our community survey is to benchmark knowledge levels, attitudes, needs and barriers to participation in current programs so that we can create and refine new and existing initiatives to protect lives and property in Orinda from wildfire.

Specifics
Orinda’s population is 19,500. The SSTOC, along with the City of Orinda, would like to ensure that our results allow us to make conclusions about key demographic groups so that we can tailor offerings and promotion strategies for maximum reach. Key demographic groups include, but may not be limited to, the following:
● Younger residents not involved in the schools
● Residents with kids in K-12 schools - potentially understand families with students in high school separately
● Older residents
● Low / fixed income residents
The community survey should help us establish a benchmark about awareness levels and attitudes while providing immediately useful information to help us tailor existing programs, identify new programmatic opportunities and significantly increase awareness of existing resources. Areas for questioning include, but may not be limited to, the following:
● Knowledge about danger from wildfire in Orinda and knowledge of basic vegetation management requirements
● Level of compliance with vegetation management requirements - how much time / money have you spent on vegetation management
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Orinda Community Survey RFP Scope (3297 : SSTOC Request for a Community Survey) ● Reasons for non-compliance
● What they would need to comply / what would motivate them to comply ● Awareness of other programs (chipper, MOFD and city of Orinda incentives, other?) ● Where they would expect to get information about wildfire preparedness and programs; local sources of information that they pay attention to Request for Information (following City Council approval of survey) We will request proposals for this survey, including
● Strategy and approach for obtaining quality results
● 2-3 examples of past relevant work
● Information about the team who will work on this project ● Budget
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Orinda Community Survey RFP Scope (3297 : SSTOC Request for a Community Survey) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: February 6, 2024
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction, if Any.

BACKGROUND: At the September 5, 2023, City Council meeting, as a matter initiated by Council Member Janet Riley, the City Council requested an opportunity to discuss sirens as an emergency communications tool. This report is provided as an initial highlevel overview of the existing range of emergency communications tools to which the City has access and would use in the event of an emergency including:
• Community Warning System
• Nixle
• Nextdoor, Facebook, and other social media platforms
• Announcements made from Police Vehicles via public address systems.

In regard to sirens, the County Office of Emergency Services (OES) does not operate a siren system, with there being just a few sirens in communities, like Martinez, associated with refineries. Those sirens are operated locally. At this point, there is no discussion of a countywide siren system and the County OES has shared that if Orinda were to install such a system, it would need to be locally operated and activated.

This update will also include an introduction to the viability of sirens as the technology is evolving as compared to other tools. The initial review by staff of the concept of sirens is that there is a divided opinion as to the effectiveness or viability of sirens amongst the emergency management profession. In one local example, nearby Berkeley, the City has opted to install a siren network, and we will share information from Berkeley as one point of reference. Here is a link to the project information on the Berkeley website:

Berkeley Siren Project. In addition, a PowerPoint updated on the project provided to a Berkeley City Council Committee is also attached (Attachment 2).

In addition, the Town of Paradise, which was previously devastated by a fire, has also recently installed a siren based warning system. Here is a link to the project information on the Paradise website: Paradise Siren Project.

In Southern California, the City of Laguna Beach also has deployed an outdoor warning system. Here is a link to the project information on the Laguna Beach website: Laguna Beach Siren Project.

H.2
Packet Pg. 107
Locally, the Kensington Fire Protection District has also had some recent discussions about the possible deployment of an outdoor warning system. Some of the initial questions and answers from their discussions are attached (Attachment 3).

NEXT STEPS: As a matter initiated, this agenda item is intended to allow the City Council to have an initial discussion and to determine if there were future steps they would wish to take related to the topic.

FISCAL IMPACT: None as result of this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Orinda Update Powerpoint
B. Berekley Powerpoint
C. Kensington Information
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.2
Packet Pg. 108
City of Orinda
Emergency Communication and Outreach Update
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach

COMMUNITY

EMERGENCY

COMMUNICATION TOOLS
January 2024
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Emergency Communication Tools
•Community Warning System (CWS)
•Nixle
•Social Media
•Police Vehicle Announcements
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Community Warning System (CWS)
Contra Costa County activates this Community Warning System (CWS)
Orinda has 14,179 registered accounts
To Register for Emergency Alerts:

CWSAlerts.com,
Use the QR code, or
Call (925) 655-0111
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Nixle
Notifications are activated through the Orinda Police Department Orinda has 17,834 registered through phone, email, and/or text messages.

Sign up using:
•Nixle.com or
• Text 888777, and
enter your Zip Code
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Social Media Platforms • Staff regularly uses these Social Media Platforms: •Nextdoor • Meta (Facebook) • Instagram • X (Twitter) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Police Vehicles • Public Address System Announcements
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Sirens/Outdoor Warning Systems
•No existing system in Contra Costa other than refineries • Technology is evolving
• Information from three communities provided – Berkeley, Paradise, and Laguna Beach
• Systems Being Explored by Others
• Would Need to be Locally Activated/Managed
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach

COMMUNITY EMERGENCY

COMMUNICATION TOOLS
Questions
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Orinda Update Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach 1/11/2024
1 1
Outdoor Warning Siren
System Overview
Presentation to the Disaster
and Fire Safety Commission
March 22, 2023
Purpose:
• Provide Project Update
and Timeline
• Receive Feedback About
Community Outreach
2 • Installation of 15 outdoor warning sirens across
Berkeley
• Brought forward by DFSC, approved by Council in
Sept 2021, funded by Measure FF
• Vendor is Genasys (also owns Zonehaven)
• Installation is ongoing and will occur in two phases
• Sirens broadcast a PA message (voice, tone)
during emergencies
• Mounted to roofs of buildings owned by City,
BUSD, others
About the Project
1 2
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Berekley Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems) 1/11/20242
34 • Designed to alert those who are
outdoors
• SF, Oakland, Contra Costa County
(refineries), UCB, Bayer have
existing siren programs
• Will operate alongside other alert
and warning systems like AC Alert,
Zonehaven etc
Siren Context
34 H.2.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Berekley Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems) 1/11/20243
5 Phase I Locations:

Feb-March
6 Phase II Locations:

Throughout 2023*

1. Fire Station #1

2. Strawberry Canyon
Sports Field

3. BUSD Transportation

4. Longfellow Middle
School

5. Sylvia Mendez
Elementary

6. Emerson Elementary

7. St. Mary’s High School

8. Cragmont Elementary

9. Oxford Elementary

10.Berkeley Adult School
56 H.2.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Berekley Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems) 1/11/2024
4 7
• Broadcast pre-recorded or live messages about
threats posed by fire, tsunami, hazmat, or other
emergency
• Messages accompanied by “slow wail” tone
• Calls to action: Leave the area (evacuate), shelter
in place, and/or seek more information
• Only used for urgent life safety messages when
other alerting means are not adequate
• Monthly test: First Wednesdays at 12pm – Still to
be Determined
Operational Uses
Slow Wail Test
Message
8 • Overconfidence in
capabilities
• Requires a lot of public
education and regular testing
schedule
• Existing regional siren
networks with conflicting
practices
• LRAD brand
• Environmental impact
Challenges/Concerns
7 8
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Berekley Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems) 1/11/2024
5 9
Outreach: Major Milestones
• February 27, 2023: Phase I installation begins
• April 2023: Phase I installation complete
• June 7, 2023: Tentative Community Demo Day
• Spring/Summer 2023: Phase II installation begins
• Early 2024: Phase II complete
• Early 2024: System-wide monthly testing begins
10 OWS Community Outreach
Campaign Goals
• Help neighbors, businesses,
parents get familiar with test
schedule and siren locations
• Help public know what to do when
they hear siren in an emergency
(where to find more info)
• Appropriately message system
capabilities
• Address fears, concerns, &
misperceptions
Request for Feedback:

What other messaging
needs should the
campaign anticipate?
9 10
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Berekley Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems) 1/11/2024
6 11
Outreach: Potential
Strategies
• Webpage:
• Media relations:
• Press release/community message
• Ribbon cutting event/demo day
• Community Relations
• Presentations at neighborhood
groups, business districts
• School newsletters
• Messaging collateral:
• Brochures/flyers
• Bill inserts/mailers
• Test Day Communications
• Nixle/AC Alert/1610AM
• Twitter/Next Door
• Road Signs/Message Boards
• FAQs
• “Did You Hear It?” Community
Survey
Request for Feedback:

Which other strategies
should the City be
looking at to reach
residents?
11 H.2.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Berekley Powerpoint (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems)

MEETING MINUTES
Kensington Fire Protection District
Emergency Preparedness Committee Meeting 5/25/2023
• Audio in and out unclear
Johnny Valenzuela –
Since 2021, Kensington has been following Berkeley verbiage on encouraging pre-evacuations.

Chief Saylors –
Talked about CERT & upkeep of homes/weeds etc. Cannot legally go into peoples’ back yards.

LRAD Proposal –
• David Spath made a chart with information to give to board members. He is also using Paradise, CA as an example city that has recently put in 21 LRAD sirens.
• David suggests using Paradise to get ballpark estimate for total cost. Says they’re looking at roughly $150,000 for LRAD sirens.
• David sent Paradise RFP to board members so they can look it over. • Katie raised her hand and reintroduced herself as the CWS vendor and advised that they have staff who service and maintain sirens in CCC.

Requested the opportunity to provide a quote for this project. • Katie described how a sound study has been done in Kensington and topography is the main reason why LRAD would not work.
• David wants to get El Cerrito involved.
• David wants to go to board with an RFP recommendation. • David asks who would do the RFP.
• David thinks FEMA grant will cover 75% of cost. He thinks one grant will cover design and one cover installation.
• Dave/Katie/Danielle to create a draft presentation to show to the board for July’s meeting.
• Danielle has a chart already made that she can use for presentation.

Johnny Valenzuela –
• Door hangers printed for door-to-door distribution. Leslie to email Johnny to see how CWS can help and/or if CWS info can be put on hanger.

Meeting adjourned 4:51pm
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Kensington Information (3291 : Emergency Communication and Outreach Update Including Report on Siren Systems) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.3
Date: February 6, 2024
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Legislative Advocacy Approach Options
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Report, Discuss, and provide Direction, if any.

BACKGROUND: Mayor Gee requested that the City Council possibly consider a different approach to legislative advocacy as a budget referral at the June 6, 2023 City Council meeting when the draft Biennial Budget was first introduced. At the June 20, 2023 City Council meeting, as part of the budget adoption process, City Council approved budget referral #23-3 which allocated $75,000 in Fiscal year 2023-24 to explore advocacy options.

Currently, like many cities, Orinda primarily relies on the League of California City to be our primary vehicles for legislative advocacy as most League positions align with the City’s objectives and priorities. This legislative advocacy undertaken by the League professional staff is funded by the membership dues paid by League Members. City elected officials and staff have multiple opportunities to influence the League’s legislative priorities, including participation in the League professional departments, regional division, annual meeting, and other avenues. To view additional information on the League’s advocacy efforts, including current legislative priorities, please visit this link: League Advocacy Webpage.

The current approach as to when the City will take positions and participate in the legislative process is outlined below:

Legislative Process and Taking Positions
Limitations on resources and staffing constrain the City’s level of involvement in state legislative matters, initiatives and ballot measures.

In consideration of the limitations on resources and staffing, the City shall not consider or take positions on legislation, ballot measures, or issues of interest or concern that would not result in a direct tangible benefit to Orinda.

The City Manager or City Attorney may identify legislation or issues of direct local importance, impact, or benefit, or where the City of Orinda taking a position would be inordinately influential such as when a local legislative representative is the author or co-author of a measure, which in his or her opinion necessitates or warrants the City taking a position. In these limited instances, the City Manager or City Attorney may author a letter to be signed by the Mayor or Vice Mayor, as H.3
Packet Pg. 125
appropriate. The City Council shall be copied on any correspondence initiated through this process.

Matters may still be considered by the City Council as a whole to express an official position of the City upon request of the City Manager or City Attorney or as part of the process for placing matters on the Council agenda by the City Council through the Matters Initiated process.

Once the City has taken a position on a legislative or other matter through either of the two options presented above, follow-up letters consistent with the original general position may be sent by the Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Manager, or City Attorney on behalf of the City in order to timely respond.

Individual City Council members may author letters supporting or opposing legislation, ballot measures, initiatives, or other issues of interest using City letterhead in their individual capacity, in which case language must be included that clearly states the correspondence does not reflect the official position of the City or the City Council as a whole.

To provide a point of reference, City staff recently compiled a high-level survey of the cities in Contra Costa County and how they approach advocacy. This looked at whether a firm was under contract to undertake advocacy directly on behalf of the City outside of the League’s efforts and did that advocacy also include grant-related work.

This information is outlined in Attachment 2.

Just to note, the City is assisted with grant identification and application under an annual contract with California Consulting currently.

Should the City Council wish to explore any alternative options further, staff would do more outreach to get example requests for proposals/qualifications from other cities which have contracted with firms, and would do a deeper dive into cost and other factors.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Contra Costa County Legislative Advocacy Approach Survey Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.3
Packet Pg. 126
H.3
Packet Pg. 127
Contra Costa Cities - Legislative Advocacy Approach Survey 1/10/2024 Agency Use Outside Firm Firm Name Retainer or Hourly Includes Grant Writing Notes Antioch No Had a federal lobbyist last in 18-19
Brentwood No
Clayton No
Concord Yes Townsend Public Affairs Fixed Monthly Fee Yes Contra Costa County Yes Fed - Thorn Run Partners Fixed Monthy Fee No Separate grant writer pool State - Nielsen Merksmer Fixed Monthly Fee No
Danville Yes Townsend Public Affairs Fixed Annual Fee Yes - additional cost El Cerrito Yes Rene Public Policy Group Fixed Monthly Fee As of 2022 - grants, 10/9/23 -legislative adv Hercules Yes Doherty Law Group Retainer No
Zell & Associates Hourly No
Lafayette Yes Townsend Public Affairs Fixed Monthly Fee Yes Martinez Yes Gonzalves & Sons Fixed Monthly Fee No - would assist Use California Consulting for Grants Moraga No
Oakley Yes Townsend Public Affairs Fixed Monthly Fee No Orinda No Use California Consulting for Grants
Pinole No
Pittsburg No
Pleasant Hill No
Richmond No
San Ramon Yes Townsend Public Affairs Fixed Monthly Fee No San Pablo Yes Townsend Public Affairs Fixed Monthly Fee No Walnut Creek Yes Townsend Public Affairs Fixed Monthly Fee TPA helps with grants on occasion H.3.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Contra Costa County Legislative Advocacy Approach Survey (3290 : Legislative Advocacy City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.4
Date: February 6, 2024
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Formation of a Limited Duration Council Infrastructure Committee RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Formation of a Limited Duration Council Infrastructure Committee to Operate as a Brown Act Body and Appoint Two (2) Members
BACKGROUND: On January 23, 2023, Mayor Gee, as a Matter Initiated, requested that the City Council consider the formation of a limited-duration Council Committee consisting of two members to evaluate options for better integrating and managing infrastructure. The proposed Committee would operate as a Brown Act body in order to encourage participation and transparency. That motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Malkani, and the Council approved the matter initiative. Mayor Gee’s statement is attached which provides additional information.

This item is presented in response to that matter initiated to allow the Council to consider and discuss the matter, and take action if desired, including appointing the two members.

NEXT STEPS: Following the formation of the Committee, City staff will work to set an initial meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT: None as a result of this action. Committee recommendations may have future fiscal impacts and those would be evaluated and presented for action as and when appropriate. The formation of the Committee will require staff support, which will be done by existing staff, and that may result in other projects and activities being deferred for a time.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Mayor Gee Matter Initiated Statement Janauary 23, 2023 Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.4
Packet Pg. 129
H.4
Packet Pg. 130
H.4.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Mayor Gee Matter Initiated Statement Janauary 23, 2023 (3289 : Formation of a Limited Duration Council Infrastructure Committee) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.5
Date: February 6, 2024
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Consider any Amendments and Adopt City Council Policy & Procedures Manual
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 01-24 adopting the City Council Policies and Procedures Manual BACKGROUND:

The City Council reviews its Policy and Procedures Manual on an annual basis. It was last reviewed in March of 2023.

DISCUSSION:

This review is an opportunity for Councilmembers to make changes to their policies and procedures.

Staff is proposing to add the following redlined language to Section 4 and Section 11.

4. Public Participation

4.1 Addressing the Council
Each person wishing to address the Council will be asked to so indicate (e.g., by submitting a speaker slip to the City Clerk or using similar method available during virtual meetings). Each person addressing the Council shall do so from the lectern or its equivalent during virtual meetings. Providing a name, address, and other information is voluntary. Any document presented by a speaker or member of the public shall be given to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council and public. All remarks shall be directed to the Mayor and Council as a body and not to any particular Council member.

No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter into the discussion.

11. Administrative Matters

11.1 Correspondence

11.1.1 Electronic Correspondence
Council members shall use accounts issued to them by the City for all electronic correspondence (e.g., email) regarding City business. Council members shall not use accounts issued to them by the City for personal correspondence.

H.5
Packet Pg. 132
Council members shall may elect to forward copies of emails they receive related to agenda items to the City Clerk, who will include such emails in the staff reports for relevant agenda items and/or forward the emails to the whole City Council, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.

Emails sent to the whole City Council via a general City email address will be reviewed by the City Manager or his/her designee and forwarded to all Council members, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.

Emails sent to the whole City Council via a general City email address will be reviewed by the City Manager or his/her designee and forwarded to all Council members, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 01-24 Amending Policies Procedures Manual B. City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.5
Packet Pg. 133
1 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
IN THE MATTER OF:

Amending and Adopting the
City Council Policies and
Procedures Manual
_________________________
)
)
)
)
Resolution No. 01-24
WHEREAS, the City Council reviews its Policies and Procedures Manual annually to determine if it needs any updates; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council Meeting of February 6, 2024, the City Council reviewed and determined it appropriate to amend its Policies and Procedures Manual.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orinda City Council does hereby amend the Orinda City Council Policies and Procedures Manual as shown in Exhibit A and as amended at the City Council Meeting of February 6, 2024.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the Orinda City Council does hereby adopt the Orinda City Council Policies and Procedures Manual as amended.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on February 6, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
Darlene Gee, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
H.5.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Resolution 01-24 Amending Policies Procedures Manual (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 1 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ORINDA

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
Section Page
l. Authority 2

2. Meetings 2

3. Agenda 5

4. Public Participation 7

5. Conducting Meetings 8

6. Quasi-Judicial Hearings 12

7. Voting 14

8. Officers 15

9. Boards, Commissions, and Committees 16

10. Ordinances 16

11. Administrative Matters 17

12. Emergency Procedures

13. Suspension, Amendment of These Rules
18 19
Adopted: Effective November 1, 2005
Amended Effective March 6, 2007 (Resolution No. 11-07)
Amended Effective April 10, 2007 (Resolution No. 14-07) Amended Effective March 2, 2010 (Resolution No. 14-10)
Amended Effective May 7, 2013 (Resolution No. 28-13)
Amended Effective February 18, 2014 (Resolution No. 11-14) Amended Effective February 3, 2015 (Resolution No. 09-15) Amended Effective March 15, 2016 (Resolution No. 20-16) Amended Effective August 2, 2016 (Resolution No. 44-16) Amended Effective February 6, 2018 (Resolution No. 04-18) Amended Effective March 16, 2021 (Resolution No. 14-21) Amended Effective February 1, 2022 (Resolution No. 05-22) Amended Effective March 21, 2023 (Resolution No. 20-23) Amended Effective February 6, 2024 (Resolution No. 01-24) H.5.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 2 l. Authority
The City Council establishes these Rules of Procedure for the conduct of meetings. The following Rules shall be in effect upon their adoption by the City Council and until such time as they are amended or new Rules are adopted in the manner provided by these Rules.

2. Meetings

2.1 Meeting Dates and Times

2.1.1. Dates. Regular meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month or as set by calendar adopted by the City Council. Adjourned regular, workshop or special meetings may be called by the Mayor or a majority of the Council. If the meeting date should fall on a legal holiday, the Council shall meet at an alternate time and date designated by the Council.

2.1.2. Starting Time. All regular meetings will convene at 7:00 p.m.

Meetings will be held at the Library Auditorium at 26 Orinda Way, Orinda, unless stated otherwise in the notice. Meetings may be preceded or followed by special meetings, including closed sessions.

2.1.3. Ending Time. Meetings will adjourn at or before 10:00 p.m. A majority vote of the City Council will be required to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m.

A unanimous vote of the City Council will be required to continue meetings beyond 11:00 p.m. A continuance beyond 11:30 shall specify time of adjournment. More than one such continuance may be adopted.

2.2 Closed Sessions
A closed session may be held at any regular or special meeting for any purpose authorized by the Brown Act. It is a violation of the Brown Act to disclose information obtained or presented in anticipation of or during a closed session, which shall be confidential. Public comment shall be received in open session prior to a closed session.

The City Council will report out in open session any actions taken in closed session consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act.

2.3 Special Meetings
Special meetings may be called by the Mayor or by a majority of the Council members.

The City Attorney or the City Manager is authorized to call a special meeting when it is to be held immediately before or after a regular meeting and is to discuss a matter in closed session. The call for a special meeting must specify the day, hour, and place and shall specify the subject(s) to be considered. Twenty-four hours notice must be received prior to a special meeting by each Council member, the local newspaper of general circulation, and radio and television stations which have requested notice. Only matters specified in the notice may be discussed at special meetings. The public shall be given an H.5.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 3 opportunity to address the Council before or during consideration of any matter described in the notice for the special meeting.

2.4 Quorum
Three members of the Council shall constitute a quorum necessary to transact business.

In the event a quorum is not in attendance, those attending will be named in the minutes, and they shall adjourn the meeting to a later set time.

2.5 Adjournment
The Council may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. If all Council members are absent from any regular or adjourned regular meeting, the City Clerk may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place. The City Clerk shall post a copy of the order or notice of adjournment as required by the Brown Act and other places designated by the Council within twenty-four (24) hours after the time of adjournment.

Whenever a regular or adjourned regular meeting is adjourned as provided in this section, the resulting adjourned regular meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes. When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjournment meeting shall be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings.

2.6 Attendance
Council members must request that the Mayor issue an "excused absence" when they are unable to attend, or it will be noted in the minutes as an unexcused absence. The Mayor shall announce excused absences and reasons for such absences (if publicly known) during the roll call at the beginning of a meeting.

2.7 Minutes of Proceedings
An account of all public proceedings of the City Council shall be recorded by the City Clerk and entered into official minute books of the Council following approval by the Council. Unless the Council directs otherwise in a specific instance, detailed (but not verbatim) minutes shall be prepared for regular meetings of the full Council, and summary action minutes shall be prepared for special meetings of the full Council.

2.8 City Manager
The City Manager shall attend all meetings of the Council unless excused. The City Manager’s designee shall substitute when the City Manager is absent.

2.9 City Attorney
The City Attorney shall attend all meetings of the Council unless excused. The Deputy City Attorney shall attend in the City Attorney’s absence. The City Attorney shall act as the Council's parliamentarian.

H.5.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 4 2.10 City Clerk
The City Clerk shall attend all regular meetings of the Council unless excused, and in her/his absence, the City Clerk designee shall substitute. The City Clerk shall record, prepare and maintain the official record of the Council and perform other related duties as prescribed by the Council or the City Manager, or both.

2.11 Department Heads/Employees
Department heads and employees shall attend Council meetings as directed by the City Manager.

2.12 Public May Attend and Record Meetings
All meetings of the City Council (except closed sessions) shall be open to the public, including the news media. Meetings may be recorded by any means by anyone, provided such recording does not constitute disruptive conduct under Rule 4.4.

2.13 Virtual/Teleconference Meetings
The Council may use teleconference technology and hold virtual meetings consistent with State Law, including the Brown Act and Executive Orders issued by the Governor.

2.14 Recordings
All Regular Meetings of the City Council shall, to the extent feasible, be recorded by the City Clerk. Recordings are kept consistent with the City of Orinda Records Retention Program and are available from the City Clerk’s office.

2.15 Avoiding Brown Act Violations Relating to Meeting Attendance Members of the Council shall comply fully with the requirements of the Brown Act, including those in Government Code section 54952.2 to avoid potential violations relating to attendance at meetings such as conferences, meetings conducted by City staff/consultants, meetings presented by organizations other than the City, and meetings of other legislative bodies.

H.5.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 5 3. Agenda

3.1 Order of Business
The business for a Regular meeting shall generally be shown on the agenda in the following order, but this sequence may be modified on a case-by-case basis by the City Manager in consultation with the Mayor:

A. Call to Order/Roll Call
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Closed Session Report (when applicable)
D. Adoption of Agenda
E. Items for the Good of the City
F. Public Forum
G. Consent Calendar
H. Public Hearings
I. Policy Matters
J. Council Reports
K. City Manager’s Report
L. Matters Initiated
M. Adjournment
Closed Session (may be held before or after the meeting, or both)

3.2 Agenda Preparation
Agendas for regular and special meetings shall be established by the City Manager, who shall consult with the Mayor concerning the sequence of agenda items and other procedural matters. The agenda shall be delivered to the Mayor and Council members and made available to members of the public consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act. The agenda shall specify the time and location of the meeting and contain a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session, if any. The descriptions of agenda items may include the action recommended by the preparer of the report for the agenda item.

3.3 Matters Initiated
To place an item on a future agenda, a Council member (including the Mayor) may make a motion to that effect during the Matters Initiated agenda item. In addition, a Council member (including the Mayor) may, at any time during a meeting, make a motion to place an item on a future agenda, if the item proposed for future consideration arises in relation to an item on the current agenda.

If the motion to place an item on a future agenda is seconded and approved by a majority vote of those Council members present, the proposed item will be placed on a future agenda. If the motion is silent regarding timing, the proposed item will be placed on a future agenda at the earliest appropriate time, as determined by the City Manager and H.5.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 6 Mayor. If the motion provides specific direction regarding timing, the proposed item will be placed on a future agenda consistent with that direction. No discussion of the subject of the motion may occur except to explain the general nature of the item, including the issue of timing for Council’s consideration of the item.

3.4 Agenda Posting
The City Clerk shall post the agenda at least 72 hours before a regular meeting and at least 24 hours before a special meeting in the following locations, which are freely accessible to members of the public: Orinda Community Center, Orinda Library, and Orinda City Hall. Agendas shall also be posted on the City’s website prior to meetings as required by the Brown Act. See Government Code section 54954.2.

3.5 Agenda Materials

3.5.1 Documents. A staff report shall be prepared for each agenda item except in unusual circumstances. Attached to the staff report shall be documents received by or developed by staff that are pertinent to the staff report. Anyone may submit documents pertinent to an agenda item to the City Clerk; such documents shall be included in the agenda materials if they are received in time for inclusion in the packet and if multiple copies of voluminous documents are provided.

3.5.2 Copies of agenda materials. Copies of the agenda materials and other documents distributed to Council members before a meeting (excluding documents subject to attorney-client confidentiality and documents distributed in connection with a closed session) shall be available for public inspection when released to the City Council.

The public can view materials before the meeting at the office of the City Clerk, the Orinda Library and, on the City website. At the meeting, a public copy will be available for review. Copies of materials distributed by City staff and others at the meeting shall be made available to members of the public as soon as practicable. Changes and additions to staff reports and late correspondence will be provided to Council members and made available to the public before the meeting when possible.

3.6 Consent Calendar
Items listed on the Consent Calendar are those items likely not to require Council discussion. At the meeting, any item may be pulled by a Council member or member of the public for separate discussion or clarification and vote.

3.7 Public Hearings
A matter shall be set for public hearing in the following situations:
a. A quasi-judicial land use decision (e.g., an appeal of a Planning Commission decision)
H.5.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 7 b. Any other matter for which a public hearing is required by law or for which a hearing would be in the public interest.

4. Public Participation

4.1 Addressing the Council
Each person wishing to address the Council will be asked to so indicate (e.g., by submitting a speaker slip to the City Clerk or using a similar method available during virtual meetings). Each person addressing the Council shall do so from the lectern or its equivalent during virtual meetings. Providing a name, address, and other information is voluntary. Any document presented by a speaker or member of the public shall be given to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council and public. All remarks shall be directed to the Mayor and Council as a body and not to any particular Council member. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter into the discussion.

4.2 Public Forum
During Public Forum any person may address the Council on an item that is (1) within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council and (2) not otherwise on the agenda, except that if a speaker will not be present during an agenda item later in the calendar for that meeting, the speaker may address that agenda item during Public Forum but not later.

When an item is not listed on the agenda, State law prohibits Council discussion or action. Councilmembers may only “briefly respond” to statements made and questions posed. For example, State law allows Councilmembers to ask questions for clarification and provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. Additionally, consistent with the “Matters Initiated” rule, the Council may also direct staff to report back and/or place a matter on a future agenda for discussion.

4.3 Speech Content & Civility
Statements by a member of the public shall be related to the agenda item at hand, except during Public Forum. The City Council shall not prohibit lawful public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, staff, and services of the City or the acts or omissions of the City Council. Members of the Council, staff, and the public are encouraged to communicate in a manner that is civil, not hostile or threatening.

4.4 Disruptive Conduct
Conduct, including applauding and booing, which substantially disrupts a City Council meeting is prohibited. If a meeting is disrupted, the Council may elect to recess per Section 5.4.7 (b). Disrupting a meeting may, in certain situations, be cause for removal from the meeting.

4.5 [Reserved]
H.5.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 8 4.6 Written Communications
Correspondence, including communications relating to a specific matter on a Council agenda, will be handled as described in Section 11.1. If correspondence is received too late to be included in the agenda packet, the City Clerk will, to the extent feasible, endeavor to distribute the late correspondence at the Council meeting. Anyone submitting voluminous late correspondence and/or submitting late correspondence to the City Clerk less than four (4) hours before a Council meeting should bring at least fifteen (15) copies to the meeting. After receiving late correspondence, the Council may elect to continue the item to a future meeting if it determines the late correspondence is too voluminous to consider fully. Alternatively, the Council may elect to consider the matter if it has had adequate time to consider all of the information presented. Such a determination may, but need not, be made by formal motion during the meeting.

4.7 Time Limits
Public comment shall generally be limited to 3 minutes per individual speaker per agenda item, except that the Mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, may set a different time limit based upon the number of persons wishing to speak, the complexity of the item, the length of the agenda, the hour, and other factors. If a speaker continues to speak after their allotted time has expired, the Mayor may allow them a short time (e.g., 30 seconds) to wrap up their comments. When a speaker has completed their comments, Councilmembers may ask clarifying questions of the speaker and receive brief answers, notwithstanding the time limits described in this section. Speakers are not required to answer questions posed by Councilmembers.

5. Conducting Meetings

5.1 Presiding Officer
The Mayor or Vice Mayor shall preside and call the meeting to order at the hour appointed. In the absence of both, the meeting shall be called to order by the City Clerk and those Council members present shall proceed to elect a temporary Presiding Officer.

Before proceeding with the business of the Council, the City Clerk shall perform a formal roll call. The Presiding Officer may move, second, and debate from the Chair, and shall not be deprived of any rights and privileges of a Council member.

5.2 Actions Limited to Posted Agenda
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda. The City Council shall not take action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda except when there is an emergency, there is a need for immediate action, or the item was posted for a prior meeting less then 5 days before and was continued, as prescribed more fully in Gov.

Code §54954.2.

5.3 Continuance of an Item
H.5.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 9 An agenda item may be continued by the City Council by a majority vote. (See section

5.4.6.c.)

5.4 Discussion
When an agenda item is addressed, the Mayor shall first ask for any staff comments or additions to the written staff report. Next, the Mayor shall ask for questions from the Council of staff. After that, the Council shall receive public comment (see section 4.7, time limits). After public comments, the Mayor shall close the public comment portion and open the item for discussion by the Council, which shall be subject to the following rules. During Council deliberations, the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, may reopen public comment.

5.4.1. Getting the Floor. Every Council member desiring to speak shall address the Mayor and, when recognized by the Mayor, shall limit discussion to the questions under debate.

5.4.2. Interruptions. A Council member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking except to be called to order, or as otherwise provided. If a Council member, while speaking, is called to order, the Council member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined; if determined to be in order, the Council member shall be permitted to proceed.

5.4.3. Privilege of Closing Debate. The Council member making a motion for adoption of an ordinance or resolution shall have the privilege of closing the debate on that motion, subject to other motions which may be before the Council.

5.4.4. Motion to Be Stated. The Mayor shall state all motions submitted for a vote and announce the result. A roll call vote shall be taken upon the request of any Council member. No action shall be taken by secret ballot.

5.4.5. Appeals. Any ruling of the Mayor may be appealed at the request of a Council member. The Mayor shall call for a roll call vote to determine if the ruling is upheld.

5.4.6. Precedence of Motions. When a motion is before the Council, no other motion shall be entertained except:
a. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend, which modifies the original motion, is in order but is debatable only as it relates to the amendment.

Amendments are voted on first; the main motion vote is last. A motion may be amended more than once with each amendment being voted on separately. There shall only be one amending motion on the floor at any one time.
b. Substitute Motions. A substitute motion is in order for the purpose of taking out the main motion altogether and replacing it with a new and H.5.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 10 different motion. A substitute motion must be voted on before an amendment of the main motion, since if the substitute motion is adopted the main motion dies and so does any amendment of the main motion.
c. Motion to Postpone. A motion to postpone to a definite time is subject to debate and amendment as it relates to propriety of the postponement and time set. A motion to postpone a quasi-judicial hearing must set a definite date for the hearing. If a motion to postpone indefinitely is adopted, the agenda item shall be carried forward on the City Clerk’s Future Agenda Items list for up to one year, then dropped if not reinstated to the agenda.
d. Motion to Table. A motion to table is not debatable and not subject to amendment. The purpose of a motion to table is to suspend the item for an indefinite time.

5.4.7. Motions Not Subject to Debate. All motions are debatable except for the following, which shall be put to an immediate vote:
a. Motion to adjourn, which requires a simple majority. b. Motion to recess, which requires a simple majority.
c. Motion to table, which requires a simple majority.
d. Motion to limit debate (“I move the question” or “I move to limit debate of this item to __ minutes”), which requires a 2/3 vote.

5.4.8. Reconsideration. A request for reconsideration may be made during a meeting in which a decision has been made or at the next regularly-scheduled Council meeting. A request for reconsideration may be made only by a Council member who voted in the majority on the original decision. Reconsideration of a matter involves three decisions, which must occur in the following order:
a. First, the Council must decide whether or not to consider the request on a future agenda. (No discussion is permitted at this point on the validity of the request or the merits of the underlying action to be reconsidered.) b. Second, if a majority of the Council votes to place the issue on a future agenda, there are two agenda items:
i. Whether to allow reconsideration or not and
ii. If reconsideration is permitted, whether the original decision should be changed or affirmed.

H.5.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 11 c. A decision not to reconsider a matter under (b)(i) will be deemed to automatically include removal of the agenda item for reconsideration of the merits under (b)(ii).
d. Unless a subject is reconsidered and a majority of the City Council votes to change the original decision, the original action stands and is final.

However, the subject of the original decision (other than a quasi-judicial hearing such as a land use appeal) may be placed on a future agenda at any time as provided in these rules.
e. Reconsideration of a decision on a land use appeal is governed by Orinda Municipal Code section 17.43.8.

5.4.9. Conflict of Interest and Bias. A conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest can diminish the public’s confidence in the integrity of the governmental process. Therefore, a Council member who has a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act or Government Code §1090 may not participate in the agenda item causing the conflict. The Council member must make a statement substantially as follows:
“I am unable to participate in this matter as a public official because I have a financial interest in the subject which creates a conflict of interest. The financial interest is [describe the conflict with particularity].” The public official must leave the room for the duration of the discussion of the item. If the discussion relates to the public official’s real property or business (owned or controlled solely by the public official/and spouse/domestic partner), the public official may speak as a member of the general public and remain in the audience.

In addition, if a Council member’s personal bias compromises the Council member’s ability to act impartially with the interests of the City as a whole in mind, the Council member must leave the room and not participate in the agenda item. Bias may exist because of a Council member’s (1) substantial involvement or familiarity with the subject of an agenda matter or (2) close association with the persons involved, a connection which may or may not be known by the public or the other members of the Council.

Even if the Council member believes s/he is not biased, in the interests of open government, it is advisable at the very least to disclose that association, involvement, or experience prior to participating in the agenda item. See Rule 6.5.

5.4.10. Protests. A Council member shall have the right to enter into public record reasons for dissent or protests against any motion carried by the majority.

5.4.11. Limits on speech and conduct. See sections 4.3 and 4.4, which apply also to the speech and conduct of City Council members.

5.4.12. Rules of Order. Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, the current edition of “Roberts Rules of Order” shall govern the conduct of the meetings of the City Council.

H.5.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 12 6. Quasi-Judicial Hearings
When a public hearing is required for an agenda item, the Mayor shall first ask for any staff comments or additions to the written staff report for the hearing. Next, the Mayor shall ask for questions from the Council of staff. Next, Council members shall disclose ex parte communications as described below. After that, the Council shall receive public comment, as outlined below.

6.1 Ex Parte Communications
A Council member shall disclose on the record all communication (e.g., email, other written correspondence, conversations, and site visits) occurring outside the hearing that relate to the subject of the hearing. The Council member shall identify with whom s/he communicated, what was communicated, and for site visits, where on the site the Council member went and what the Council member looked at and observed. Council members may also elect to forward copies of written ex parte communication to the City Clerk, who will include such correspondence in the staff reports for relevant agenda items and/or forward it to the whole City Council, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.

6.2 Testimony

6.2.1. The purpose of this portion of the public hearing is to provide an opportunity for persons interested in the subject of the hearing to testify in support of or opposition to the matter being heard.

6.2.2. Each person wishing to testify may do so as described in section

4.1. 6.2.3. The order of testimony shall be as follows:
a. The applicant (and the applicant’s design professional, attorney, and other representatives, if any) shall speak first and together shall have a total of 15 minutes to present the project. A portion of this time may be reserved by the applicant for final remarks after public testimony has concluded. b. The appellant, if not the applicant, (and the appellant’s design professional, attorney, and other representatives, if any) shall also have a total of 15 minutes to present the basis for the appeal.
c. Those persons other than the applicant and the appellant (and their representatives) shall have a total of 3 minutes each to present testimony, except that to preserve order and eliminate repetitious testimony from a large group, the Mayor may ask a like-minded group to appoint a spokesperson to represent the point of view of the group. At the Mayor’s discretion, speakers favoring the project may be asked H.5.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 13 to so indicate and may be asked to present their testimony consecutively and likewise those opposed.
d. Regardless of the time limits stated above, the time limit per individual speaker may be set by the Mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, at the beginning of a public hearing, based upon the number of persons wishing to speak, the complexity of the item, the length of the agenda, the hour, and other factors.

6.2.4. Questions by speakers may be noted and addressed prior to Council deliberation.

6.3 Council Deliberation

6.3.l. After the Mayor has determined that no other member of the audience wishes to speak, the Mayor shall close the public testimony portion of the hearing and the matter shall be taken up by the City Council.

6.3.2. The Council may ask questions of speakers for clarification during the public testimony portion and during deliberations.

6.4 Council Action

6.4.1. Council may, at this time, continue a matter to a specific future date to obtain additional information. Continuing a public hearing to a specific date does not require additional notice.

6.4.2. The Council may vote on the item, making findings of fact as required by law

6.5 Due Process
A quasi-judicial hearing that involves property rights (a land use matter or a personnel matter) must incorporate the standards of constitutional due process. This type of hearing must be fair and open, subject to employee privacy rights. The elements of due process are adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, an impartial decision-maker, a decision based on substantial evidence, and findings to document the basis of the decision.

6.5.1. Impartiality
a. Rule. A public official must perform the duties of office free from any personal or pecuniary interest. If there is an actual bias or financial interest that could interfere with a Council member’s judgment, the Council member should not participate in the agenda item and should leave the Council chambers for the duration of the agenda item.
b. Open Mind. A Council member must have an open mind
and receive all evidence presented at the hearing. In addition, a Council member shall H.5.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 14 disclose ex parte communications (see §6.1 above) before making a determination on the merits. If the Council member has a fixed position on a matter prior to the hearing or if the Council member will be influenced by information not in the evidence, the Council member shall not participate in the hearing.
c. Staying Neutral. In order to assure that a Council member has not become so embroiled or otherwise involved in a matter that s/he cannot be impartial, the following rules shall apply:
i. Staff Contacts. A Council member shall refrain
from contact outside the public meeting context with City staff concerning the merits of matters which will or may come to the City Council for a quasi-judicial hearing.

Regardless of the above, a Council member may obtain factual information from staff relating to the hearing.
ii. Commissions and Committees. A Council member
must not express opinions on the merits of an item that is or will be the subject of a quasijudicial hearing within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to a Planning Commissioner prior to or during the hearing. In case such communications have occurred, any such communication from a Council member to a Planning Commissioner prior to a decision of the Commission on the matter shall be disclosed by the Commissioner in the course of the hearing of the subject by the Planning Commission.
iii. Interested Parties. A Council member shall refrain from becoming involved in discussions, negotiations, and other activities relating to a matter that is likely to be subject to a hearing by the City Council, unless the full scope of the Council member’s involvement and conversations is disclosed during the Council’s consideration of the matter and there is no bias that has resulted from those activities. d. Involvement or Bias. A Council member may be involved in a matter before the City Council due to a number of factors, including but not limited to an ongoing personal acquaintance, the proximity of real property, a business relationship, or community activities. In such a situation, where the Council member is unable to make an impartial decision, the Council member should recuse himself or herself, make a brief explanation of the facts behind recusal, and leave the room.

6.5.2 Absence During a Quasi-Judicial Hearing. A Council member otherwise qualified to vote may not vote on a matter if the Council member was absent from all or part of the hearing, unless the Council member both (1) reviews the minutes and the staff report or listens to the audiotape of the entire portion of the hearing s/he missed, if the minutes are not available, and (2) reviews all physical and written evidence introduced at the hearing before the meeting at which the decision is to be rendered.

7. Voting

7.1. Majority Vote Required
H.5.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 15 An affirmative vote of at least three Council members of the Council is required by law to adopt an ordinance, a resolution, and an order for the payment of money. An urgency (emergency) ordinance must be adopted by at least a 4/5 vote. Other matters may be adopted by the majority present.

7.2 Roll Call Votes
When required by state law, a roll call vote shall be taken on each motion before the Council. Additionally, on demand by any Council member, made before the "Noes" are called for, a roll call vote shall be taken on a motion before the Council. The Mayor's name shall be called last with other Council members' names called at random by the City Clerk. Council members shall not give explanations for their vote during roll call.

7.3 Silence
During a collective vote (ayes and noes), silence of any Council member denotes an affirmative vote.

7.4 Tie Vote
A tie vote means that a motion fails. In the context of a public hearing on a land use matter, a tie vote means denial of the project.

7.5 Abstention
Abstaining from a vote (other than due to recusal) constitutes a vote with the majority, except that where there is a tie vote, an abstention constitutes a vote for the motion.

8. Officers

8.1 Mayor
The Council shall elect a Mayor at the first regular meeting of December of each year, or as soon thereafter as possible following the confirmation of the canvass of ballots by the County Clerk; or at the first regular meeting after the office of Mayor becomes vacant for any reason. The term of office of the Mayor is one year. An election to fill a vacancy occurring in mid-term shall be for the remaining portion of the one-year term. The election or removal of Mayor requires three affirmative votes.

The Mayor shall be recognized as the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the purpose of serving civil process and by the Governor for military purposes. In the time of public danger or emergency, the Mayor, with the consent of the Council, shall cause order to be maintained and enforce laws. The Mayor shall sign all Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the Council when the Mayor is presiding.

8.2 Vice Mayor
H.5.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 16 The Council shall elect a Vice Mayor at the first regular meeting of December of each year, or as soon thereafter as possible following the confirmation of the canvass of ballots by the County Clerk; or at the first regular meeting after the office of Vice Mayor becomes vacant for any reason. The term of office of the Vice Mayor is one year. An election to fill a vacancy occurring in mid-term shall be for the remaining portion of the one-year term. The election or removal of Vice Mayor requires three affirmative votes.

The Vice Mayor shall serve all functions of the Mayor when the Mayor is unable or unavailable to fulfill those functions.

9. Boards, Commissions, and Committees

9.1 Council Appointments
As soon as practicable following the annual December reorganization meeting, the Mayor shall announce nominations of Council members to serve in various roles requiring a Council representative; the nominations are subject to the review and approval of the City Council.

9.2 City Advisory Bodies, Regional Boards, and Commissions The City Council may create commissions, committees, and other groups to advise the Council. The Council shall appoint the members of those subordinate bodies as well as City representatives to Regional Boards and Commissions.

10. Ordinances

10.1 Document Preparation and Approval
All ordinances must be drafted by or approved by the City Attorney before being placed on the agenda.

10.2 Ordinance Introduction/Adoption
The title of a proposed ordinance will be considered to be read, unless a Council member requests a full reading. Ordinances shall not be adopted within five days of their introduction, or at other than regular Council meetings. However, an urgency ordinance may be passed immediately upon introduction, at either a regular or a special meeting, if a resolution substantiating the urgency has been adopted first.

10.3 Ordinance Preservation
Following adoption of an ordinance, the City Clerk shall assign a number to the ordinance, publish a summary and post the full text according to law. The ordinance shall be filed and preserved in the City Clerk's office.

H.5.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 17 11. Administrative Matters

11.1 Correspondence

11.1.1 Electronic Correspondence
Council members shall use accounts issued to them by the City for all electronic correspondence (e.g., email) regarding City business. Council members shall not use accounts issued to them by the City for personal correspondence.

Council members shall may elect to forward copies of emails they receive related to agenda items to the City Clerk, who will include such emails in the staff reports for relevant agenda items and/or forward the emails to the whole City Council, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.

Emails sent to the whole City Council via a general City email address will be reviewed by the City Manager or his/her designee and forwarded to all Council members, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.

11.1.2 Other Correspondence
Written correspondence received by a Council member at City Hall by postal service, personal delivery, and messenger service shall be opened by staff and handled consistent with the City of Orinda Records Retention Program, which may require the City to retain a copy. Council members may elect to forward copies of written correspondence they receive to the City Clerk, who will include such correspondence in the staff reports for relevant agenda items and/or forward it to the whole City Council, if doing so would not violate the Brown Act.

11.1.3 Website Privacy Notice
The City’s website privacy notice should explain that the public is encouraged to communicate with Council members by email and other means, but that the public should be aware that email and other written correspondence, including messages intended to be confidential, may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

Additionally, the privacy notice should explain that such correspondence may be forwarded to other Council members, City staff and/or the public generally.

11.1.4 Compliance with State Law
The City retains electronic and other correspondence in accordance with State law and the City’s adopted Records Retention Program, which is available from the City Clerk.

For public records, the City complies with the State Public Records Act.

11.2 Confidentiality
H.5.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 18 Matters discussed in closed session and matters contained in City Attorney confidential memoranda are confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone without prior authorization from the City Council acting together (closed session information) or from the City Attorney (confidential communications from the City Attorney).

11.3 Communications with the Public
Council members shall be clear in communications with the public when the opinions and positions they convey are their own individual positions and when they have been authorized by the Council to speak for the Council as a whole.

11.4 Relations with Staff
As required by OMC §2.08.080, Council members of the City Council shall deal with employees of the City through the City Manager, except to obtain information as necessary, in a limited manner.

12. Emergency Procedures

12.1 Emergency Special Meetings
Emergency special meetings may be called by the Mayor, a majority of the Council members, or the City Manager only in accordance with state law (see Government Code section 54956.5), which defines qualifying emergencies narrowly (e.g., work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health and/or safety, crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, threatened terrorist activity).

12.2 Emergency Special Closed Session
During an emergency meeting, the City Council may meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code section 54957 (threat to public security) if agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the members of the City Council present, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, by a unanimous vote of the members present.

12.3 Emergency and Urgent Amendments to Regular Agendas Items may be added to a regular meeting agenda on an emergency or urgency basis only in accordance with state law (see Government Code section 54954.2(b)). a. The Council may add an emergency item to its agenda at a regular meeting if, by majority vote, it determines that the matter in question constitutes an emergency situation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.5 (e.g., work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health and/or safety, crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, threatened terrorist activity). b. The Council may add an urgent item to its agenda at a regular meeting if it makes findings that: (1) there is a need to take immediate action, and (2) the H.5.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 19 need for action came to the attention of the City subsequent to the agenda being posted.

Those findings must be approved by two-thirds of the members of the City Council present, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present.

12.4 Emergency Declarations and Findings
In the event of an emergency, the Council may declare a local state of emergency and/or confirm an emergency declaration made by the City Manager. The Council may also make findings as appropriate to determine that normally-applicable procedures do not apply. Examples include the California Environmental Quality Act (see CEQA Guidelines sections 15269 & 15359) and the Public Contact Code (see Govt. Code sections 1102 & 22050). The Council may also, consistent with state and federal law, impose local curfews and other restrictions to safeguard life and property during an emergency.

12.5 Councilmembers Unavailable During Emergency
a. The City Council has designated the individuals serving in the following capacities to also serve as stand-by Councilmembers according to the ranked order in which they appear:

1. Planning Commission, Chair

2. Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission, Chair

3. Finance Advisory Committee, Chair

4. Parks & Recreation Commission, Chair

5. Transportation Safety Advisory Committee, Chair

6. Planning Commission, Vice Chair

7. Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission, Vice Chair

8. Finance Advisory Committee, Vice Chair

9. Parks & Recreation Commission, Vice Chair

10. Transportation Safety Advisory Committee, Vice Chair Stand-by Councilmembers shall have the duties prescribed by State law. See Government Code section 8641.
b. If an insufficient number of the members of the Council are available to conduct necessary business at an emergency meeting, one or more stand-by Council members shall, following the ranked order above, be authorized to serve as Council members, for purposes of that emergency meeting only. The number of stand-by Councilmembers authorized to serve shall be the minimum number needed to conduct business at that emergency meeting of the City Council.

13. Suspension and Amendment of These Rules

13.1 Suspension
H.5.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual) 20 Any provision of these rules not required by state law or the Orinda Municipal Code may be temporarily suspended by the Council.

13.2 Amendment
These rules may be amended by resolution of the Council.

13.3 Rules Available for Public Review
A copy of these rules shall be available on the City’s website and at all meetings of the Council for review by the public.
************************************************************************ 1467691.1
H.5.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: City Council Policies Procedures Manual (Draft 2.6.2024) (3293 : Adoption of Updated Policy & Procedures Manual)