Orinda City Council
April 7, 2025

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
Monday, April 7, 2025
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 04.07.25
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-Comment
REMOTE COMMENTS: Remote Public Comments have been discontinued for the foreseeable future.
7:00 PM - REGULAR SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Darlene Gee, Cara Hoxie, Janet Riley
Vice Mayor Brandyn Iverson, Mayor Latika Malkani
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
City Council
Agenda Page 2 04.07.25
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Introduction of Christine Thomson, Principal Planner 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. Minutes Approval
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. March 18, 2025 Closed Session

2. March 18, 2025 Regular Meeting
F.2. 2024 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (#4178) - Approve Design, Award Bid and Approve Construction Management Services Contract and Related Contingencies
Recommendation:
1) Approve the design for the 2024 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (#4178).
2) Award the bid to Radius Earthwork, Inc. of Campbell, California, in the amount of $2,587,570.02 and authorize the City Manager contract change order authority of 15%.
3) Approve the Construction Management Services Contract to Substrate, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to use a 20% contingency, if needed.

F.3. Request for Support of Acalanes Union High School District's Measure T Parcel Tax
Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 3 04.07.25
Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 19-25 in Support of Acalanes Union High School District's Measure T Parcel Tax Election Occurring on May 6, 2025.

F.4. Award of Bid to Satellite Painting for the Exterior Painting Projects at City Hall, the Library and the Community Center
Recommendation:

Award a Construction Contract to Satellite Painting Inc. for the Exterior Painting of City Hall, Library and Community Center and Authorize a Contingency of 25% Percent.

F.5. Street Closure for the Orinda Association's Fourth of July Parade and Associated Activities
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 16-25 (Traffic Order No. 236) Authorizing Street Closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and A ssociated Community Activities.

F.6. All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 17-25 (Traffic Order #237) Approving All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane.

F.7. Approval of Construction Contract with Cowan & Thompson Inc. for Drainage Facilities Improvement (CIP #4111)
Recommendation:

Authorize City Manager to approve contract with Cowan & Thompson Construction Inc. of Martinez, California for an amount of $69,425 for storm drain work near 704 Miner Rd. and approve Budget Change Form #011-25 appropriating $69,425 from Fund 704 for the project.

G. PUBLIC HEARING
G.1. Introduction of Ordinance 25-03 Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 of the Orinda Municipal Code- Tree Management
Recommendation:

Waive the full reading and introduce Version A or Version B of Ordinance 25-03 Amending Chapter 17.21 (Tree Management) of the Orinda Municipal Code.

City Council
Agenda Page 4 04.07.25
G.2. CONTINUED TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 6, 2025:

Introduction of Ordinance 25-02 Regarding Several Minor Zoning Text Amendments Related to Orinda Municipal Code §17.2.3 (Definitions), Schedule 17.3.3 (RVL, RL and RM Districts – Land Use Regulations), §17.3.4 (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)), §17.4.33 (Senior Housing Overlay District (SH-Overlay) Development Standards), Schedule 17.9.2 (PS District – Land Use Regulations), and §17.9.4 (Additional Development Regulations for Emergency Shelters)
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Funding Request from Infrastructure Committee
Recommendation:

Provide direction on the funding request from the Infrastructure Committee.

H.2. Update on Plans for the City's 40th Anniversary
Recommendation:

Receive update and provide any direction to staff.

I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. CLOSED SESSION

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS of Closed Session Matters

3. CLOSED SESSION

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, conference with the City's designated labor negotiators, Linda Smith (City Manager), Gregory Ramirez (IEDA), Douglas Alessio, (Assistant City Manager), Ginger Staton (Human Resources Manager), to review the City's position and instruct the City's designated representatives regarding negotiations with the City's employees represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 856
b. 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 City Council
Agenda Page 5 04.07.25
EVACUATION v. City of Orinda, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No.

N23-0579.

M. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, April 15, 2025 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.

City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.1
Date: April 7, 2025
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Minutes Approval
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. March 18, 2025 Closed Session

2. March 18, 2025 Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND:

The following City Council Minutes are attached for review and adoption.

1. March 18, 2025 Closed Session

2. March 18, 2025 Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Closed Session Minutes of March 18, 2025 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.1
Packet Pg. 6
March 18, 2025

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
6:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
Mayor Malkani called the meeting to order and noted that all Councilmembers were present.

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

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

D. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, conference with Real Property Negotiators. Property: the approximately 10,218 square foot rear-most portion of the parcel at 11 Orinda Way in Orinda, California. Agency negotiators: Linda Smith (City Manager) and Osa Wolff (City Attorney).

Negotiating parties: City of Orinda and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., the current owner. Under negotiation: Price and terms of possible future City acquisition of the property, pursuant to an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication and along with associated easements.
b. 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.

E. OPEN SESSION REPORT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION
There was no reportable action.

F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 PM
_______________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: City Council Closed Session Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 20 03.18.25
MARCH 18, 2025

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– ORINDA LIBRARY AUDITORIUM
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Cara Hoxie, Janet Riley Vice Mayor Brandyn Iverson, Mayor Latika Malkani
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Malkani
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Vice Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Gee, to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY – None.

E. PUBLIC FORUM
Chris Kniel expressed concerns about multi-story developments, acknowledging that the City is required to comply with mandates from the HCD but believing that residents do not support such proposals, particularly due to fire safety risks. Drawing from his extensive experience in construction and large-scale projects, he questioned whether the Council fully understands the scope and complexity of what developers are proposing.

Michelle Henrickson, Manager of the Orinda Farmers’ Market, highlighted the fact that a growing number of low-income seniors using their EBT CalFresh benefits at the market and benefiting from a market match program, which allows them to receive up to $10 in additional funds for purchasing fruits and vegetables. However, the program facing low funds and she asked for support from non-profits, organizations, or individuals willing to donate.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 20 03.18.25
Carol Alvord spoke on Consent Calendar Item F.2 regarding restricted parking on Monte Vista Road, noting that six families regularly navigate the curve in the area. She stated that neighbors have requested parking be allowed along this stretch and have generally used their own driveways, except for accommodating large vehicles. She asked that parking continue to be allowed on the smaller curve, citing concerns about speeding from Marston and Monte Vista Ridge.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Malkani requested removal of Item F.2 and F.5 and said Nick Waranoff requested removal of Item F.4. She asked and confirmed there were no other requests for removal of items and no public comments.

F.1. Minutes Approval
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. March 4, 2025 Closed Session

2. March 4, 2025 Regular Meeting
F.3. Accept Contract for the Camino Pablo Pathway, Los Amigos Court to Manzanita Drive, City Project No. 4076.

Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 11-25 to Accept Contract with Cowan and Thompson Construction, Inc. for the Camino Pablo Pathway, Los Amigos Court to Manzanita Drive, City Project No. 4076.

F.6. Housing Element Annual Progress Report – 2024 Calendar Year Recommendation:

Review the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for Calendar Year 2024 and direct Staff to file the Report with the appropriate State agencies.

MOTION by Councilmember Gee, and seconded by Councilmember Hoxie, to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.1.2, F.3, and F.6. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

Items Requested for Removal from the Consent Calendar:

F.2. Approve Traffic Order #235 Restricting Parking on Monte Vista Road Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 09-25 Establishing Parking Regulations on Monte Vista Road, Traffic Order 235.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 20 03.18.25
City Engineer Siva Natarajan presented the staff report, provided background on the review of Monte Vista Road, parking enforcement efforts, and communication with homeowners. He presented a photo of the area, outlined recommendations for eastbound and westbound traffic, discussed traffic calming and safety concerns, and recommended the Council adopt Resolution 09-25, implementing Traffic Order 235 to establish parking regulations on Monte Vista Road.

Councilmember Gee asked and confirmed with Mr. Natarajan that Monte Vista is a oneway street and addresses go past 70, that staff received 3-5 different neighbors complaining of parked vehicles, and there was a property owner change at 15 Monte Vista which may have reinitiated the 2022 complaints.

Vice Mayor Iverson asked and confirmed that a pedestrian safety plan has not been referred to TSAC yet, but staff can work with the neighborhood and put in a traffic safety request.

Councilmember Hoxie cited instances of delivery and other truck parking and asked if there is a way to differentiate this so people can get the deliveries they need and also have no long-term parking to provide safety. Mr. Natarajan said City has locations where there is a no-parking restriction with limited loading and unloading allowed, and this can be implemented. She asked and confirmed the City does not install mirrors but works with homeowners on preferred locations.

Councilmember Riley said when traffic studies are done she asked if they take into account whether or not there is a mirror. Mr. Natarajan said generally not, noting the City follows the manual for traffic control devices which does not include mirrors.

Councilmember Hoxie asked if it makes sense to approve the no parking on the longer curve but modify it on the shorter curve. Mr. Natarajan said both areas pose different types of hazards. For the area in front of 15 Monte Vista, any car approaching that location is coming downhill so they have momentum and will have to navigate on-coming traffic which is a safety concern.

Mayor Malkani said there were several complaints in 2019 and she asked and confirmed that one thing that triggered the study was the fact that the City began implementing the Red Flag Warning restrictions and that this is also part of the evacuation route.

Mayor Malkani asked if there were citations given at this location during Red Flag Warning Days. Mr. Natarajan said he was unsure, said the patrols he mentioned were outside of the Red Flag Warning days and that Monte Vista is a Red Flag Warning Days-approved street.

Councilmember Gee acknowledged residents' concerns regarding the no-parking designation but questioned their belief that it enhances pedestrian safety.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 20 03.18.25
Mr. Natarajan explained that a small dirt area adjacent to the asphalt curve on the downhill side could potentially serve as a walking path although its use would depend on individual behavior. He also pointed out that since a car is not always parked in that location, the restriction may not have a significant effect on pedestrian safety, particularly in the mornings when people walk to school along that stretch.

Mayor Malkani opened the Public Forum.

Connie Chang strongly opposed the no-parking designation in front of her property at 15 Monte Vista Road, arguing that it is rarely used and will increase pedestrian danger rather than improve safety, which she described. She believes that removing parking will eliminate a natural traffic-calming effect, as drivers tend to position themselves toward the center of the road regardless of parked cars. She also notes video evidence supporting this claim. She has received anonymous harassing emails from a resident since moving in and emphasized that most parking in the area comes from delivery drivers and workers who stop briefly, and without these parked vehicles, drivers will have no incentive to slow down.

Councilmember Gee questioned the two residents who are opposed and asked if they were opposed to both sides or just in front of 15 Monte Vista. Both residents stated no one parks in front of 15 Monte Vista.

Carol Alvord commented that her neighbor at 15 Monte Vista is getting letters as if they are responsible for people parking there, and all six families use it for deliveries. She asked if the City Council could consider no-parking now and allow time for more resident input, given safety concerns.

Mayor Malkani closed the Public Forum.

Mr. Natarajan said Councilmember Hoxie asked about allowing for temporary loading/unloading. The Council does not allow this in an evacuation route but staff can look at providing a special permit if there is a need for a truck to be parked for a specific need.

Councilmember Hoxie asked if on days other than Red Flag Days she asked if there is the ability for people to have temporary use of that space for loading and unloading or perhaps for a certain length of time. Mr. Natarajan said staff can look at a special use permit but does not have a system established for anything other than that.

Vice Mayor Iverson expressed concern about the City's liability, noting that officials have been made aware of the limited sightlines in the area. She emphasized that a study has been conducted, believes it is unwise to allow or encourage an unsafe vehicular situation as a traffic-calming measure, and recommended the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) promptly address the issue.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 20 03.18.25
She also suggested exploring soft bollards, collaborating with neighbors to create a walkway, or installing speed cushions, stressing that these are separate concerns. She also underscored the importance of considering resident input and ensuring that children can walk to school safely. She opposed the idea of forcing vehicles into oncoming traffic for pedestrian safety and advocated for a dual-solution approach to address both traffic and pedestrian concerns.

Councilmember Gee agreed with Vice Mayor Iverson’s comments, cited potential challenges with MOFD accepting any speed cushions on an evacuation route, and found it difficult to justify occasional parking as a speed deterrent, especially when there was clear evidence of a sightline issue in the area.

Mayor Malkani and Councilmembers Hoxie and Riley both agreed with comments, wondered if there was a way to accommodate occasional delivery truck options, questioned the definition of loading and unloading, and supported TSAC’s prompt review.

City Attorney Osa Wolff said both parking and stopping are prohibited in the Red Flag zone context. Here, the proposal is to prohibit parking but allow stopping. Stopping is where the vehicle is attended and can be immediately moved. The motion as amended would be to authorize stopping but not parking.

Mr. Natarajan said stopping would require someone present in the vehicle, and City Attorney Wolff said as a practical matter if the police were to show up the washer delivery person would be able to move the vehicle.

Councilmember Riley wanted clarification that people can park where they want but it does not include the gardener or the housekeeper for an hour.

MOTION by Vice Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Hoxie, to adopt Resolution 09-25 Establishing Parking Regulations on Monte Vista Road, Traffic Order 235, as modified to include a condition that TSAC receive a referral for pedestrian safety; that staff has discretion to modify as appropriate to address loading and unloading constraints on the red curve; and to delegate staff to find an appropriate solution for stopping despite the no-parking status of that curve. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

F.4. Approving Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2023-002 Urban Lot Split at 2 Moraga Via
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 12-25, Approving Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2023-002 Urban Lot Split at 2 Moraga Via.

Mayor Malkani said this item was pulled at the request of Mr. Waranoff.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 20 03.18.25
Nick Waranoff said as far as he can tell this is an SB 9 lot split. SB 9 has some specific language about lot splits in a very high fire hazard severity zone. Between the time this application was submitted and today fire maps were updated, and he asked the Council to check with staff whether there was a change that affected this parcel and what it is if it was changed.

Planning Director Lashun Cross explained that MOFD becomes involved in projects located within very high fire hazard severity zones and that MOFD enforces zoning setbacks that are more stringent than the City's regulations. If an applicant seeks modifications to these setbacks, they must go before MOFD for approval. Ms. Cross then provided an example of a case where modifications were requested, requiring 30-foot setbacks from every property line.

Councilmember Gee said this lot split is a ministerial action and asked if MOFD reviews it prior to the owners wanting to develop anything. Ms. Cross said staff is reviewing this with Fire Chief Isaacs and Planning staff will ensure that proper setbacks occur.

City Manager Smith clarified that this property is located in the proposed maps in the moderate area and not in the very high fire severity area.

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

MOTION by Councilmember Gee, and seconded by Vice Mayor Iverson, to adopt Resolution No. 12-25, Approving Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2023-002 Urban Lot Split at 2 Moraga Via. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

F.5. 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 10-25, Adopting the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Orinda, Annex Volume II of the Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and direct Staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

Mayor Malkani said she requested this item be pulled because there was a public comment in advance of the meeting that noted that this was identified as a 2024 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and that the Council may want to revise the EOP (Emergency Operations Plan) to reflect the updated wildfire hazard zone map and to remove references to the Downtown Precise Plan which was rescinded in 2024.

City Manager Smith explained it is referred to as the 2024 plan because Cal OES and FEMA were reviewing it in 2024 as opposed to 2025. As it relates to the Downtown Precise Plan references, staff made those changes and wanted to ensure it did not run afoul of any re-review period. Staff confirmed they can make administrative changes to the document without triggering any administrative review by Cal OES or FEMA and will make those modifications.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 20 03.18.25
Regarding the EOP, they are out for a RFP, received proposals to update their EOP and wildfire annex, so once they have the new plan they will work to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into that new document as well, and the new maps will be reflected in the new document.

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

Councilmember Hoxie questioned if the language in the resolution needed to be changed to incorporate ministerial changes staff will make to the plan, and City Attorney Wolff stated no, because the changes are not substantive.

MOTION by Mayor Malkani, and seconded by Councilmember Riley, to adopt Resolution 10-25 Adopting the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Orinda Annex Volume II of the Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan and direct Staff to file a Notice of Exemption. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G.1. Refunding Special Tax Bonds for the Orinda Wilder Community Facilities District by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 15-25 Authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) to issue special tax revenue bonds to refund existing special tax bonds (Refunding Bonds) for the Orinda Wilder Community Facilities District (CFD) within the territory of the City of Orinda, and authorizing staff to cooperate with CSCDA, to execute and deliver such closing certificates, requisitions, agreements and related documents required to issue the Bonds, to refund the Prior Bonds, and to evidence compliance with the requirements of federal and state law.

Assistant City Manager Doug Alessio gave the staff report, background, and an overview of the matter. He stated James Hammel was present from CSCDA to answer any questions.

Councilmember Hoxie commented that residents seemed very pleased this was happening during the Wilder Subcommittee meeting.

Mayor Malkani opened the public hearing. There were no speakers, and she closed the public hearing and turned to Council discussion.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 20 03.18.25
MOTION by Vice Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Gee, to adopt Resolution 15-25 Authorizing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) to issue special tax revenue bonds to refund existing special tax bonds (Refunding Bonds) for the Orinda Wilder Community Facilities District (CFD) within the territory of the City of Orinda, and authorizing staff to cooperate with CSCDA, to execute and deliver such closing certificates, requisitions, agreements and related documents required to issue the Bonds, to refund the Prior Bonds, and to evidence compliance with the requirements of federal and state law.

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

H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Certify the Plan Orinda Revised Final Environmental Impact Report and Take Other Related Actions Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Address all the Remaining Requirements of the August 22, 2024 Writ of Mandate (Writ) Issued by the Contra Costa County Superior Court with Regard to the Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and Downtown Precise Plan Recommendation:

1. Adopt City Council Resolution 13-25 with the following actions pursuant to CEQA:
a. Certify the Revised Final Environmental Impact Report for Plan Orinda (the “Project”);
b. Adopt Revised Findings under CEQA;
c. Adopt a Revised Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Housing Element Update and the Safety Element Update for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable; d. Adopt and incorporate all the mitigation measures for the Project; and
e. Adopt the Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

2. Adopt City Council Resolution 14-25 addressing all the remaining requirements of the August 22, 2024, Writ of Mandate (“Writ”) issued by the Contra Costa County Superior Court with regard to the Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and Downtown Precise Plan.

The proposed resolution includes Staff’s recommendation that the Council:
a. Consider whether to pursue revisions to the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update or Safety Element Update and opt not to do so, and
b. Opt to pursue potential revisions prior to any re-adoption of the DPP and direct staff that any DPP revisions should comply with State housing laws and also reflect wildfire evacuation concerns. c. Direct the City Attorney to file with the Court a Final Return to the Writ specifying the actions taken to comply with its terms.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 20 03.18.25
Associate Planner Darin Hughes gave the staff report, Plan Orinda & EIR background, EIR and Revised Final EIR organization, overview of updated findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Measures, and the staff recommendation to:
● Certify the Revised Final EIR;
● Address court requirements for Housing Element, Safety Element, and Downtown Precise Plan; and
● Provide direction to staff regarding future consideration of Downtown Precise Plan’s adoption
Mr. Hughes described Plan Orinda’s long-range planning initiatives, including the DPP (Downtown Precise Plan (rescinded as required by the court); the 6th Cycle Housing Element which calls for 1,359 housing units, the Safety Element and Evacuation studies, and the FEIR. He then provided a comprehensive timeline of actions relating to Plan Orinda leading to publishing of the Final Revised EIR, as well as the EIR organization, and said the following items in the partially revised the EIR to comply with the court’s ruling:
● Clarified Wildfire Impact Thresholds: Added a new threshold to assess whether the Project would substantially increase emergency evacuation constraints, which is different from evaluation of whether the Project would impair emergency response plans.
● Detailed Plan Review: Expanded analysis to list and evaluate adopted emergency response and evacuation plans, concluding that the Project would not substantially impair them.
● Supplemental Evacuation Analysis: Evaluated how Plan Orinda’s buildout would impact already constrained intersections during a wildfire evacuation, following the same methodology as the prior Evacuation Analysis.
● Significant Wildfire Impact Identified: The Project would increase emergency evacuation constraints by reducing the level of service (LOS) at key intersections.

This confirms the prior EIR finding of significant impact. ● Clarification of Mitigation Measure WFR-1: Addressed court concerns by specifying that WFR-1 applies to all development under Plan Orinda. ● Revised Alternatives Analysis: Updated the wildfire evacuation section to incorporate the supplemental evacuation analysis, assessing how different project alternatives impact wildfire evacuation constraints.
● Minor Edits: Made other clarifying edits to Sections 4.14 and 6.

Regarding organization of the Revised Final EIR, it includes:

1. Introduction: An overview of the purpose, environmental review process, and document organization.

2. Responses to Comments on the Plan Orinda PREIR: This chapter includes two sections:
a. Topical Responses– Written responses to similar comments received by multiple commenters. These responses are aggregated to provide one succinct response for each subject area.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 20 03.18.25
b. Written Comments and Responses– Reproductions of all comment letters received on the Partially Revised EIR. A written response for each CEQArelated written comment received during the public review period is provided. Each response is keyed to the corresponding comment.

3. Errata: Each proposed text change within the Partially Revised EIR, listed by page number in the Draft EIR.

4. Attachment 1: Follow-Up Evacuation Analysis: Additional information about the impacts resulting from development of just “Housing Element Sites.” Adds one build-out scenario that assumes 26 HE sites in Downtown are developed and not all 87 sites in the DPP.

Mr. Hughes then presented updated mitigation measures relating to wildfire evacuation and updated findings, a revised Statement of Overriding Considerations, and an overview of public comments received. He provided staff-initiated changes to packet page 144 and 148 and explained the next steps would be to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk, submit a final return to Writ to the Superior Court, to proceed with Housing Element implementation, and future Council discussions on potential DPP revisions prior to readoption.

Staff recommends the following:

1. Adopt City Council Resolution 13-25 with the following actions pursuant to CEQA:
a. Certify the Revised Final Environmental Impact Report for Plan Orinda (the “Project”);
b. Adopt Revised Findings under CEQA;
c. Adopt a Revised Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Housing Element Update and the Safety Element Update for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable;
d. Adopt and incorporate all the mitigation measures for the Project; and e. Adopt the Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

Incorporate the staff-initiated changes to the Findings as described in tonight’s presentation.

2. Adopt City Council Resolution 14-25 addressing all the remaining requirements of the August 22, 2024, Writ of Mandate (“Writ”) issued by the Contra Costa County Superior Court with regard to the Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and Downtown Precise Plan. The proposed resolution includes Staff’s recommendation that the Council:
a. Consider whether to pursue revisions to the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update or Safety Element Update and opt not to do so, and b. Opt to pursue potential revisions prior to any re-adoption of the DPP and direct staff that any DPP revisions should comply with State housing laws and also reflect wildfire evacuation concerns.
c. Direct the City Attorney to file with the Court a Final Return to the Writ specifying the actions taken to comply with its terms.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 20 03.18.25
Mayor Malkani stated staff highlighted the public comments received in a slide, and she asked if staff could display it but noted staff had answered her question.

Councilmember Hoxie said her understanding is that the Writ required the MMRP to be revised. One public commenter asked the City to put specific names and dates so it could be held accountable for those mitigations. She assumes the concern the City has about being that specific is that if personnel were to change then they would be updating the names that are specifically listed in that document. She asked if there were other reasons why the City would not want to be that specific.

City Attorney Osa Wolff explained it is important to keep in mind the City is a small organization and the City Manager is therefore up to speed on everything going on at the City and assigns staff appropriately based upon workload, skills, etc. With that in mind, they feel like identifying the City is the appropriate approach here and will ensure compliance with the City’s obligations in the MMRP.

Mayor Malkani opened the Public Forum. She called the public’s attention to communications received from the public prior to the meeting, which are available for review.

Nick Waranoff argued that the procedure proposed by staff is illegal and unauthorized under CEQA. He described CEQA’s requirements and stated that the EIR being considered for certification includes the DPP. He contended that the City should have redefined the project for approval purposes and questioned the necessity of the additional 902 housing units, asserting that there is no evidence they are required to meet any objective. He referenced Guideline 15126.6 as the basis for project objectives and urged the Council to adopt his proposed mitigation measures, limiting upzoning to only what is mandated by the State.

Bruce London said he is happy that staff recommends not to re-adopt the DPP at this time, is happy the Council will have the opportunity to approve the objective design standards independent of the DPP soon as this is the City’s only chance at exerting any local control. He then described interests in downtown development beginning in 2015, excessive units through density bonus law which will result in massive development, few retail or restaurants due to parking constraints, TOD requirements and BART, density bonus law, emergency planning and response and road and drain servicing from Measure R approval, the SSTOC’s report about Measure R funds spent, and he questioned the need for grant money from MTC.

Kathleen Jenkins spoke about rebuilding her home in 1996 on a concrete foundation and successfully negotiating residential insurance. She highlighted her involvement with Orinda Watch since 2013 and criticized the State’s efforts to override local control of housing and governance and its “war” with the City related to property rights, SB 9, vehicle exhaust, parking, single-family zoning, and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, which has led to a lawsuit involving non-participating cities.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 20 03.18.25
Ms. Jenkins also raised alarm over skyrocketing insurance rates, noting that residents are being forced into the inferior FAIR Plan while facing wildfire risks without safe evacuation options. She expressed concern that the State is pushing transit-oriented development (TOD) in Orinda against residents’ wishes, referencing Senator Wiener’s SB 79, which mandates increased housing near transit. She urged the Council to reject any housing units beyond the legally required RHNA numbers, oppose increases in housing density, and deny all high-density building permits downtown on the grounds of safety.

Owen Murphy said he agrees with all public comments made to date as well as Chris Kneil’s comments during the Public Forum, believes there is one person in this room who has done more detailed research on this subject than any other, urged the Council to take advantage of that effort in its decision-making and deferred to Nick Waranoff’s comments.

In response to questions, City Attorney Wolff noted the City does not allow speakers to cede their time to others, so each speaker may utilize the three minutes given for their own comments.

Mayor Malkani noted Mr. Waranoff provided a very detailed statement in writing and confirmed Mr. Murphy had no further statements.

Michele Jacobson stated that Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE) strongly supports the concerns raised by Nick Waranoff. She referenced the follow-up evacuation analysis and criticized the Revised FEIR, arguing that it confirms additional housing will significantly worsen evacuation constraints for most Orinda households.

She contended that the analysis provides little useful information, noting that the chart of vehicle counts by intersection is filled with data but lacks explanations of its significance.

She also described the maps as misleading and pointed out that there is no estimate of the time required for successful evacuation. Additionally, she disagreed with the followup evacuation analysis regarding the impact of downtown housing units, questioning its conclusions and value. She disagreed that adding housing downtown would be better from an evacuation perspective than adding housing farther from the freeway, saying she felt adding housing downtown would be like cutting in at the front of a line.

Mayor Malkani closed the Public Forum and asked if staff would like to respond to public comments.

City Attorney Wolff said the comments expressed this evening and criticisms of the document are all clearly articulated and well understood by City staff, consultants, and attorneys. They have taken a lot of time to listen, read, and respond in detail in the FEIR Response to Comments document that has been released to the public and read by the Council. While staff will not repeat this evening, unless asked by the Council, all of those detailed responses, they have been provided in writing.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 13 of 20 03.18.25
Ms. Wolff noted that Mr. Waranoff is entirely correct that the EIR covers the entirety of the Plan Orinda (the Safety Element, the Housing Element, and the DPP). Those three components were all analyzed in the EIR. The staff’s proposal for this evening is for the Council to adopt findings and Statements of Overrides relating to the Housing Element and Safety Element components, which were adopted in 2023.

As to the DPP component, staff’s recommendation is that the Council direct staff to opt to consider the possibility of revisions to that portion of Plan Orinda and direct staff to work on that and come back shortly.

Councilmember Gee said Mr. Waranoff’s comment was that doing that is illegal and she asked Ms. Wolff to comment on the Council’s ability to do that. She thinks they all understands it covers the entirety of Plan Orinda, but they were not looking at the DPP tonight.

Ms. Wolff clarified that the Council is looking at the DPP tonight in the sense the court ordered the City to consider whether to pursue revisions to the DPP. So, it is on the table in that sense, and staff’s recommendation is that the Council opt to pursue revisions and direct staff to work on that. It is not staff’s recommendation to re-adopt the DPP tonight.

Mayor Malkani asked and confirmed with Ms. Wolff that staff’s recommendation is to adopt a Revised Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Housing Element update and the Safety Element update for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable, but not for the DPP. Ms. Wolff added that when the DPP comes back to the Council for potential re-adoption, it would then need to be reviewed for CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the DPP component.

Mayor Malkani also asked and confirmed with Ms. Wolff that if the Council follows that recommendation on the Revised Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Council would not be committed in any way of re-adopting the DPP. Staff is asking the Council to direct them to pursue the possibility of revisions, but there is no action or commitment this evening to re-adopt the DPP.

Ms. Wolff said important to keep in mind is when an EIR concludes there are significant and unavoidable impacts as here, in particular with respect to wildfire, there is an obligation on the part of the Council to make findings about the mitigation measures and the overrides and to carefully balance what the judge referred to as “apples and oranges.” This is an important policy question before the Council. That policy question tonight relates to the Housing Element and Safety Element as adopted in 2023.

Councilmember Hoxie asked why the Council is approaching it by carving out the DPP from tonight’s discussion as opposed to what Mr. Waranoff suggested which was redefining within the EIR of what is included.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 14 of 20 03.18.25
Ms. Wolff said they have had this conversation several times over the many years she and staff has been helping the Council with the environmental review for this project. It is typical under CEQA to take an umbrella approach and analyze the full scope of what the Council might approve, so the document considers all impacts of the full Project to have complete CEQA coverage. This is what is seen in the EIR document before the Council; all three components of Plan Orinda are included: the Housing Element, the Safety Element, and the DPP. When it comes to actually making project approvals it is within the umbrella coverage that the CEQA document creates.

Mayor Malkani thanked staff and members of the public for bringing concerns forward.

She thinks the revised MMRP proposed before the Council tonight is greatly improved and contains very concrete mitigation measures. Additionally, the Response to Comments document was very helpful and she believes it thoroughly explains the public’s concerns and how mitigation will address them, despite the significant and unavoidable consequences.

Vice Mayor Iverson emphasized that, aside from Item 1.C, the Council's task for the evening was a technical one. While many public comments addressed broader policy issues, she clarified that the Council’s primary role was to adopt the EIR, findings, responses to comments, and mitigation measures. The only policy decision at hand was determining whether the Council’s actions met the court’s requirements and whether the Statement of Overriding Considerations was responsive, accurate, and complete.

She acknowledged the seriousness of evacuation concerns and constraints, especially in light of recent discussions. While she understood the impact of adding more housing units on evacuation, she believed the City’s resources would be better spent on practical mitigation measures rather than overly detailed modeling of variables such as traffic light timing, fire size, start time, or the number of vehicles used per household. Vice Mayor Iverson supported mitigation efforts that would benefit Orinda residents immediately, regardless of future housing developments. She viewed the plan as an improvement and stated that if the Council adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations, they would do so thoughtfully and with full awareness of its disclosures, and she expressed her support for adopting it.

Councilmember Gee concurred with Vice Mayor Iverson, understood what the situation was in 2023, does believes staff has done a very good job and voiced appreciation of all efforts to respond to what the City was asked to do by the court. She believes that the community understands the hazards here and that the Council has come up with mitigations that are planned to do everything they can to address them.

They have many things in progress in terms of enhancing their ability to evacuate and she, along with the Vice Mayor, feel their resources will be much better spent in other ways to help residents than to continue to look at modeling that she does not believe will give them any more help in that regard. Therefore, she is fully supportive of moving forward, feels good about what staff has presented and the effort put into responding to the public and she feels as a Councilmember understands what they are agreeing to tonight.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 15 of 20 03.18.25
Councilmember Hoxie acknowledged the complexity of the situation, recognized the challenges of evacuation given the City’s roadways but emphasized that the State of California continues to impose legal housing requirements such as SB 79 and new Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) policies. These policies could impact the City's ability to receive grants for infrastructure improvements, such as those needed for Moraga Way, unless Orinda substantially complies with TOC mandates.

She highlighted the difficulty of balancing compliance, reasonableness, and mitigation efforts while ensuring the best path forward for the City. While some community members feel the Council is not doing enough, she cautioned that adopting certain suggested measures could limit the City’s flexibility in the future in ways that residents might not anticipate. She also acknowledged the existing distrust among some residents but stressed that the Council shares the community’s interest in safety and effective wildfire evacuation and pointed to ongoing work such as tabletop emergency exercises and other fuels reduction work as part of the City's commitment to preparedness.

Councilmember Hoxie expressed appreciation for the efforts of staff and attorneys in finding a middle ground. While acknowledging that the situation is not perfect, she viewed this as a significant step forward—particularly in the decision not to adopt the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) at this time, instead focusing solely on the required housing units.

She believed this approach would allow the Council more time to evaluate additional policies that may mandate further housing development.

Ultimately, she argued that delaying approval was not a viable option, as the City must move forward under state mandates. She recognized the challenges these state-imposed policies create but asserted that the Council is working toward the best solutions for the entire community, and urged residents to trust that the Council is acting in Orinda’s best interest, working to resolve legal issues, shaping the city’s future, moving forward, and prioritizing safety.

Vice Mayor Iverson said local control was brought up by both Mr. Kneil and Ms. Jacobson about it being a key objective. She reiterated that passing this tonight is the best thing the City can do to protect local control, and the Council is very aligned with that goal.

Mayor Malkani suggested a motion for the two different resolutions, one at a time. She read the first proposed motion.

City Attorney Wolff pointed out that in the late correspondence packet before the Council are pages 1 through 4 which contain staff’s proposed revisions to the findings to address some of the comments received. She requested the motion include these revisions to the findings.

MOTION by Mayor Malkani, and seconded by Councilmember Gee, to adopt City Council Resolution 13-25 with the following actions pursuant to CEQA:
a. Certify the Revised Final Environmental Impact Report for Plan Orinda (the “Project”);
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 16 of 20 03.18.25
b. Adopt Revised Findings, with proposed modifications to CEQA findings for Item H.1 included in the communications received from the public packet pages 1 through 4, under CEQA;
c. Adopt a Revised Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Housing Element Update and the Safety Element Update for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable;
d. Adopt and incorporate all the mitigation measures for the Project; and e. Adopt the Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Incorporate the staff-initiated changes to the Findings as described in tonight’s presentation.

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

MOTION by Council Member Gee, and seconded by Vice Mayor Iverson, to adopt City Council Resolution 14-25 addressing all the remaining requirements of the August 22, 2024, Writ of Mandate (“Writ”) issued by the Contra Costa County Superior Court with regard to the Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and Downtown Precise Plan. The proposed resolution includes Staff’s recommendation that the Council:
a. Consider whether to pursue revisions to the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update or Safety Element Update and opt not to do so, and b. Opt to pursue potential revisions prior to any re-adoption of the DPP and direct staff that any DPP revisions should comply with State housing laws and also reflect wildfire evacuation concerns.
c. Direct the City Attorney to file with the Court a Final Return to the Writ specifying the actions taken to comply with its terms.

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

H.2. Discussion of Crossing Guard Services
Recommendation:

Provide direction on utilizing crossing guards services. If directed to proceed, authorize the City Manager to enter into agreements for crossing guard services, as well as with Orinda Union School District to reimburse the City for a portion of the expenditures.

City Manager Smith gave the staff report, background, and overview of the discussions held, issues of school safety and crossing guards, proposals received for four and five crossing guards, administering of the program by the Police Chief, payment by OSD of 50% of the costs, and noted the Superintendent has secured this arrangement from One Orinda as providing those funds to provide crossing guard services. If the Council wished to proceed, she asked to provide her with the authority to enter into the agreement, subject of budget availability approved by the City Council and staff would include this as part of future expenditures in the upcoming bi-annual budget process. She confirmed there are sufficient funds to cover this if it began before the end of the school year.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 17 of 20 03.18.25
The 2x2 committee members were also part of the robust discussion and she asked for any comments.

Vice Mayor Iverson emphasized that the issue is not just about driver safety but also about educating children to be more cautious when crossing streets. Many of the safety concerns raised involve scooters, bicycles, and people exiting vehicles in the middle of the street and running across. Approving crossing guards would help establish structure and stability in areas where there are currently safety issues. She also explained that this decision goes beyond formalizing what has traditionally been a volunteer role and stressed the importance of providing this structure to enhance overall traffic safety in the community.

Councilmember Hoxie noted that an unusually high number of parents attended the 2x2 meeting to advocate for crossing guards, particularly at Glorietta Elementary School.

Many parents believed that if a crossing guard had been present, the recent accident might have been prevented, and they urged the Council to improve pedestrian safety measures.

Councilmember Gee asked to understand whether OUSD is in agreement with not needing a guard at Wagner Ranch and asked if this is still to be discussed.

Councilmember Hoxie said she spoke to the Superintendent this afternoon who said she spoke to the parents who participate in the School District’s Coordinating Council. The parents feel strongly that there should be crossing guards at all four elementary schools.

Discussion ensued as to crossing guards at Wagner Ranch at the signalized intersection crossing where there is a protected sidewalk, the feeling it was not a warranted location by the City Engineer which he described, questions on whether flashing lights could be installed which was also unwarranted, student behaviors and the use of volunteers and teachers at all schools except for Wagner Ranch, feedback from teachers that they must depart as a crossing guard to get to classes, that the request does not include any middle or high schools, the comment that no parents attended from Sleepy Hollow, crossing guard services currently being provided in Moraga and Lafayette with a 50/50 split, the cap on the City’s contribution, the latest cost of $33/hour inclusive of all costs including insurance, and the precedent for schools requesting future additional crossing guards once the agreement starts.

Mayor Malkani opened the Public Forum.

Nick Waranoff expressed his support for school crossing guards; however, he raised procedural concerns and questioned why the agreement is not before the public, and why the City was taking the lead and being reimbursed where arguably, the school district should. The City could provide any amendments, including adding cost caps and other necessary provisions.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 18 of 20 03.18.25
City Manager Smith said she was trying to be responsive to the sense of urgency the community expressed at the 2x2 Committee. If the Council wanted to review a contract, she could bring one back and the Council could approve it more formally versus providing her with authorization.

Regarding responsibilities of the contract, she worked in another jurisdiction where the City had that control and cited the need for this give contractors work in the public rightsof-way with the City providing direction.

Councilmember Hoxie concurred with the City Manager’s remarks, emphasized the importance to move forward with the four schools, suggested further evaluation regarding the need at the Wagner Ranch crossing.

Vice Mayor Iverson agreed and said while acknowledging that it would only take a few weeks to agendize the matter on the Consent Calendar for both the City and the school district, she preferred to delegate the responsibility to City staff, given their expertise. She recognized the reasonable costs and expressed a desire to limit the potential for this service to become a long-term entitlement. She recommended starting with four crossing guards and to table consideration for a crossing guard at the Wagner Ranch location.

Councilmember Gee voiced support, could tolerate the idea for a crossing guard at the Wagner Ranch crosswalk but was concerned about continual cost increases, and voiced support of Chief Rossi’s oversight.

Councilmember Riley voiced support as well and predicted there would be a backlash if the City did not address Wagner Ranch. Vice Mayor Iverson asked that the group should first look at the map of the school access route and decide, and Councilmembers agreed that a crossing guard is not needed at Wagner Ranch.

Mayor Malkani concurred and brief discussion ensued regarding possible support again for the Wagner Ranch crosswalk. After come discussion, the City Manager suggested asking the Superintendent to perhaps continue to work on whether that location is really needed or not, and not approach it this school year but to look at the pedestrian patterns of students and make a determination next year.

Councilmembers agreed with implementing the four schools and build upon that if warranted, and with the understanding not to add an extra crossing guard at any of the four locations in the agreement; that any additional costs be borne by the District or parent fundraising. In response to Councilmember Riley, City Manager Smith stated the school has budgeted for three hours a day of crossing guard time.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 19 of 20 03.18.25
MOTION by Vice Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Riley, to grant the City Manager the authority to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the School District for a 50% cost share. Additionally, the Council delegated authority over the contract terms for up to five crossing guards but directed that only four crossing guards be committed for the current school year. If a demonstrated need arises for a fifth crossing guard at any location, the matter will return to the City Council for further review. Furthermore, the Council established a cap, limiting the City's 50/50 cost-sharing commitment to no more than five crossing guards in total.

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

EXTEND MEETING
MOTION by Mayor Malkani, and seconded by Vice Mayor Iverson, to extend the meeting by 10 minutes to 10:10 p.m. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

I. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS – Councilmember Hoxie reported on her attendance at the 2x2 Committee and the Wilder Subcommittee meetings. The Council also participated in a strategic planning session, and she thanked staff.

Vice Mayor Iverson noted the 2x2 Committee had been reported earlier, and the Wilder Subcommittee meeting was very constructive. She said that as they prepare this to wind up as a formal subcommittee, the access to City staff for problem-solving on a regular basis seems to be working well. The Affordable Housing Committee also met, but the result was to approve an item on the Consent Calendar.

City Manager Smith reported the Ad-Hoc Committee met for the 40th anniversary and that staff is continuing to work on this, as well, and held a meeting with the Orinda Association today.

Mayor Malkani reported Congressman DeSaulnier held a Women’s Roundtable Zoom meeting she attended focused on inviting female Mayors around the County within his CA-10 region, as well as women leaders of some local non-profits, some being concerned with the loss of federal funding. She also reported on a Cal Cities update on legislation, which the City Manager said she will send out in the Friday update to the Council.

J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT – City Manager Smith reported she and the Mayor are planning a trip to Sacramento tomorrow to start with some advocacy work, which she described.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – Vice Mayor Iverson referred to the letter Councilmembers received from Fire Safe Moraga-Orinda two weeks ago requesting a financial allocation for them to be able to do a grant program with significant matching and getting Firewise neighborhoods implemented. She thought there were merits but instead of having multiple programs going at cross-purposes, she thought it would be best delegated to the SSTOC. The way to do this is as a Matters Initiated.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 20 of 20 03.18.25
MOTION by Vice Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Mayor Malkani, to schedule a future agenda item as a Matters Initiated for the City Council to consider the financial allocation request from Fire Safe Moraga-Orinda, request Mr. Evans present, and to consider options of how to handle the request. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

L. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Malkani adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at approximately 10:00 p.m.

M. CLOSED SESSION

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS of Closed Session Matters – Nick Waranoff

3. CLOSED SESSION

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: ORINDANS FOR SAFE EMERGENCY EVACUATION v. City of Orinda, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N23-0579.

Mayor Malkani opened the Public Forum.

Nick Waranoff said the Council acted earlier tonight contrary to the position of OC as stated in their email which supported his position. Based on his reading of the Judge’s ruling, there will be some back and forth with OC as to whether the City can resolve the litigation. He referred to pages 1 to 4 and said one point that caught attention was that the Council cannot tie the hands of future Councils. He recommended the Council think about the approach to do an SOC for part of an EIR and still certify the EIR.

The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 11 p.m. to the next Special City Council Meeting on Monday, April 07, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. ______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
1899811.1
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 18, 2025 (3569 : Minutes Approval) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: April 7, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: 2024 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (#4178) - Approve Design, Award Bid and Approve Construction Management Services Contract and Related Contingencies
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve the design for the 2024 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (#4178). 2) Award the bid to Radius Earthwork, Inc. of Campbell, California, in the amount of $2,587,570.02 and authorize the City Manager contract change order authority of 15%.
3) Approve the Construction Management Services Contract to Substrate, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to use a 20% contingency, if needed.

BACKGROUND:

Construction Contract Overview
The 2024 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project (#4178) included a series of pavement treatments, such as preventive maintenance, base failure repairs, micro surfacing, cape seal, traffic striping, and storm drain lining. The project included Bid Alternative 1, Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane Intersection Improvements, for installation of new crosswalks and curb ramps and new stop signs on each direction of Lombardy Lane. (Please refer to the related staff report in tonight’s April 7, 2025 agenda for Traffic Order #237, which would approve the installation of these stop signs as part of an all-way stop at this intersection.) The Bid Alternative was initiated by a neighborhood traffic calming request for stop signs and a crosswalk across Lombardy Lane. The City retained the services of LCC Engineering & Surveying Inc. to prepare the plans.

The original construction contract was advertised for bids on July 2, 2024, with an engineer’s estimate of approximately $2.6 million. Six bids were received by the bid deadline of July 30, 2024, with two bids deemed non-responsive due to incomplete submissions. The third-lowest bid, submitted by Ghilotti Bros., Inc., was determined to be the lowest responsive bid, for an amount of $3,884,796.35, which was $1.28 million above the engineer's estimate. Contributing factors to the high bid amounts included the construction schedule during the school year, seasonal material and labor demand, and end-of-season pricing.

As a result, the City rejected all bids in August 2024 and decided to re-advertise the project in early 2025, anticipating better pricing due to earlier timing. The project scope was revised to include Bid Alternative 2, for the installation of a Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater bioretention basin, in compliance with Contra Costa F.2
Packet Pg. 28
County’s Stormwater C3 requirements. The project was re-advertised on February 18, 2025, with the updated scope, with bids due March 18, 2025.

Construction Management Services
In parallel, the City sought a consultant for construction management services for the project. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on June 25, 2024, with a submission deadline of July 23, 2024. The selection process for this consultant was paused when the City rejected the construction contract bids. The process resumed following the re-advertisement of the construction contract.

DISCUSSION:

Approval of Project Design
City Council approval of the construction plans (Attachment A) is recommended, in accordance with design immunity defense requirements listed under California Government Code Section 830.6.

Bid Evaluation
On March 18, 2025, the City received three (3) bids for the construction contract. The engineer’s estimate for the total project was $2,901,899. The bids were as follows:

Bidder Total Bid (including Bid Alts. 1 & 2)
Radius Earthwork Inc. $2,587,570.02
McGuire & Hester $3,170,170.70
Interstate Grading & Paving $3,205,850.60
Staff reviewed the bids and determined that Radius Earthwork, Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to Radius Earthwork, Inc. for $2,587,570.02.

Contingency and Change Orders
A 15% contingency ($388,135.00) is recommended to address potential changes in quantities or unforeseen field conditions. Any change orders will be administratively approved by the City Manager, ensuring the cumulative cost does not exceed the authorized contingency amount. The total combined bid and contingency amount is $2,975,705.02. The contingency will be utilized only when necessary and will be based on documented changes.

Construction Management Services
Following the re-advertisement of the project on February 18, 2025, the selection process for the construction management consultant resumed.

F.2
Packet Pg. 29
A total of nine firms submitted proposals, including: 4Leaf Incorporated, Alpha CM, Anchor Engineering Incorporated, Interwest Consulting Group, Map Infra Group, Park Engineering Incorporated, Substrate Incorporated, UNICO Engineering Inc., and Zoon Engineering. After reviewing all the proposals, three firms (Alpha CM, UNICO Engineering Inc., and Substrate Incorporated) were identified as the most qualified based on their experience and qualifications. These firms were then invited to participate in an in-depth, in-person interview process on March 11, 2025, during which they also updated their cost proposals.

Following the interviews and a comprehensive evaluation, Substrate Incorporated was selected as the best-qualified firm for the project. Substrate stood out due to their extensive experience managing similar projects that align closely with the scope of work for the 2024 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Substrate's revised cost proposal of $200,000 was compared with the engineering cost estimate of $223,000 and was determined to be both reasonable and within budget. Their experience and qualifications make them well-suited to manage the construction of this project in accordance with the plans, specifications, and budget.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon approval of the contract awards, the City will prepare separate contracts for Radius Earthwork, Inc. and Substrate, Inc. These contracts will be sent to the contractors for signature and insurance documentation. Once reviewed by the City Attorney, the contracts will be executed by the City Clerk and City Manager.

Construction is anticipated to begin in May 2025, with an expected completion date of September 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total budget for the construction contract with Radius Earthwork, Inc., including a 15% contingency, is $2,975,705.02. The total construction management service contract with Substrate, Inc., including a 20% contingency, is $240,000.

The combined cost for both contracts is $3,215,705.02.

The total project budget allocation is $3,310,550, which includes $550 that was budgeted and spent in Fiscal Year 2023-24 related to the initial bidding process. The following table summarizes the various funding sources for Project #4178:

Funding Source Fiscal Year(s) Budgeted Amount
Gas Tax (Fund #200) 2024-25 $1,620,000
CCTA Return to Source (Fund #330) 2024-25 400,000
Road Maintenance fee (Fund #335) 2023-24 & 2024-25 600,550 Capital Improvement (Fund #700) 2024-25 690,000
Total: $3,310,550
F.2
Packet Pg. 30
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Weblink to: 2024 Annual Paving Project Plans
B. Weblink to: Substrate Construction Management Contract Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.2
Packet Pg. 31
City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: April 7, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Request for Support of Acalanes Union High School District's Measure T Parcel Tax
RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 19-25 in Support of Acalanes Union High School District's Measure T Parcel Tax Election Occurring on May 6, 2025.

BACKGROUND:

The Governing Board of the Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD) has placed a parcel tax measure on the May 6, 2025, Special Election:

Measure T Ballot Wording:

Shall the measure supporting high quality education in local high schools by continuing advanced academic programs in math, science, engineering and art; attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers; preparing students for college and in-demand careers; and maintaining manageable class sizes, with Acalanes Union Hight School District levying a $130 parcel tax for eight years, with senior exemptions, annual inflation adjustments, independent oversight, providing $4,500,000 annually in local school funding that cannot be taken by the State, be adopted? DISCUSSION:

The Yes on Measure T for AUHSD Parcel Tax Campaign has asked that the City Council of the City of Orinda endorse this measure.

Measure T must be supported by two-thirds of the voters who cast a ballot on it.

Included as an attachment is a link to the AUHSD webpage on 2025 Parcel Tax Election: 2025 Parcel Tax Election Webpage.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 19-25 in Support of Acalanes Union High School District's Measure T B. Pages Intentionally Left Blank Due To Changes in the Agenda Packet C. Weblink to: AUHSD 2025 Parcel Tax Election webpage
Respectfully Submitted by:

Linda Smith
City Manager
F.3
Packet Pg. 32
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

F.3
Packet Pg. 33
1 RESOLUTION 19-25

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
IN SUPPORT OF ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MEASURE T PARCEL TAX ELECTION OCCURRING ON MAY 6, 2025
WHEREAS, the Acalanes Union High School District is among the highest performing high school districts in the State of California based on student test scores; and
WHEREAS, many students from Orinda Union School District continue their high school education at Acalanes Union School District, notably at Miramonte High School in Orinda; and
WHEREAS, the District, with Acalanes High School, Campolindo High School, Las Lomas High School, Miramonte High School, and the Acalanes Center for Independent Study (ACIS), is one of the top-ranked high school districts in the State, and has been able to offer its students an outstanding educational opportunity for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Acalanes Union High School District upholds a tradition of academic excellence, contributing to the quality of life and property values in Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Moraga, and Orinda.

WHEREAS, one of the keys to developing and maintaining such an outstanding educational environment within the District has been the financial support provided by property-owners in the District; and
WHEREAS, the State of California only funds a basic education and does not allocate enough money to the District to sustain the teachers, course offerings and programs needed for a quality education; and
WHEREAS, since 1991 local voters have repeatedly supported parcel taxes to provide locally controlled funding to protect the quality of education at local high schools; and
WHEREAS, such funding is used to provide advanced courses in math, science, technology, engineering, foreign languages and the arts, attract and retain highly qualified teachers and staff, and maintain manageable class sizes; and WHEREAS, recognizing that local parcel tax funding has not increased in 15 years even though the costs of providing a high-quality education increase every year; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the Acalanes Union High School District has concluded that the District needs to enhance local parcel tax funding that the State cannot take away; and
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Resolution 19-25 in Support of Acalanes Union High School District's Measure T (3582 : Request for Measure T Support) 2 WHEREAS, the proposed measure to enhance local parcel tax funding requires strict taxpayer protections, including an independent oversight committee and mandatory audits to ensure funds are spent as promised; and WHEREAS, under no circumstances shall any of the proceeds of the education parcel tax be used for District office administrators’ salaries and benefits.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orinda hereby expresses its strong support and endorsement of the Acalanes School District Parcel Tax Measure, known as Measure T.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Orinda, California on April 7, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
___________________________
Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Resolution 19-25 in Support of Acalanes Union High School District's Measure T (3582 : Request for Measure T Support) Page Intentionally
Left Blank
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Pages Intentionally Left Blank Due To Changes in the Agenda Packet (3582 : Request for Measure T Support) Page Intentionally
Left Blank
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Pages Intentionally Left Blank Due To Changes in the Agenda Packet (3582 : Request for Measure T Support) Page Intentionally
Left Blank
F.3.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Pages Intentionally Left Blank Due To Changes in the Agenda Packet (3582 : Request for Measure T Support) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.4
Date: April 7, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Award of Bid to Satellite Painting for the Exterior Painting Projects at City Hall, the Library and the Community Center
RECOMMENDATION:

Award a Construction Contract to Satellite Painting Inc. for the Exterior Painting of City Hall, Library and Community Center and Authorize a Contingency of 25% Percent.

BACKGROUND:

The City established three separate capital improvement projects to address exterior painting at City Hall (#4182), the Library (#4175), and the Community Center (#4083).

These buildings require repainting due to aging and failing paint and cracked stucco on the various buildings. The Library and Community Center have not been painted since 2000 and City Hall since 2007. For economies of scale, the three CIP exterior painting projects were bid out as a combined project.

DISCUSSION:

On February 19, 2025, the City advertised for bids and nine bids were accepted on March 11, 2025, with results as shown below.

Bid summary
Contractor Base Bid Amount
Satellite Painting $172,000
HB Restoration $218,050
Yoda Painting $248,000
Color New $274,000
Pacific Rim $294,000
KBI Painting $314,000
D&D Painting $354,000
Metro Structural $378,000
Bay Construction $530,000
Four other bids were received although not accepted by the City due to the contractors not fulfilling the requirements from the Notice to Bidders posted in the advertisement.

Staff reviewed the bids and bidders for responsiveness and determined the low bidder to be Satellite Painting. In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council approve F.4
Packet Pg. 39
a 25 percent contingency, equal to $43,000, for any unseen or changed conditions or necessary additional work.

Satellite Painting is a union contractor in good standing with the Department of Industrial Relations and has ample experience in public projects.

With respect to CEQA guidelines, the project was determined to be Categorically Exempt under section 15301, class 1, and a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk on February 12, 2025.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon approval of the award of bid, the contract (standard city construction contract, as provided in the bid documents) will be routed for signatures. After the completed contract documents have been reviewed by the City Attorney, the contract will be executed by the City Manager. Project construction is estimated to begin in April 2025 and be complete in June 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total existing budget of $460,000 for the three painting projects is summarized in the table below. This is more than adequate funding to cover the cost of the contract plus contingency ($215,000). All surplus funds, estimated at $245,000, will be returned to the respective fund balances and made available for other, future projects upon completion and acceptance of the work.

Funding Source
#4083
Community Center
#4175
Library
#4182
City Hall
603 Building Maintenance $122,500
700 Capital Improvement Fund $160,000 $150,000
520 Library Assessment Fund $27,500
Subtotal $160,000 $150,000 $150,000
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.4
Packet Pg. 40
F.4
Packet Pg. 41
City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.5
Date: April 7, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Street Closure for the Orinda Association's Fourth of July Parade and Associated Activities
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 16-25 (Traffic Order No. 236) Authorizing Street Closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and A ssociated Community Activities.

BACKGROUND:

The Orinda Association is organizing and operating the annual Fourth of July parade and associated activities in the Orinda Downtown area of the Theatre District and Village District between 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Friday, July 4, 2025.

SUMMARY:

The safety of all concerned, including participants and spectators, requires the usual street closures as noted below:
1) Partial Closure of the two northbound lanes of Camino Pablo between Moraga Way and Santa Maria Way.
2) Full Closure of Moraga Way between Camino Pablo and Bryant Way 3) Full Closure of Brookwood Road between Camino Pablo and Moraga Way 4) Partial Closure of the eastbound lanes of Santa Maria Way between Camino Pablo and Orinda Way
5) Full Closure of Orinda Way between Santa Maria Way and Camino Sobrante FISCAL IMPACT:

Costs are associated with Staff time to obtain the necessary Caltrans permit, as well as logistical support provided by City employees and the Police Department to setup traffic closures and help direct traffic.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 16-25 Authorizing Street Closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and Associated Community Activities - Traffic Order 236 Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
F.5
Packet Pg. 42
Prepared By: Kevin McCourt, Assistant Engineer
Approved by:

F.5
Packet Pg. 43
RESOLUTION NO. 16-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES IN DOWNTOWN FOR THE ORINDA
ASSOCIATION’S FOURTH OF JULY PARADE ROUTE AND ASSOCIATED

COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
TRAFFIC ORDER 236
WHEREAS, the Orinda Association is organizing and operating the annual Fourth of July parade and associated activities in the Orinda Downtown areas of the Theatre District and Village District between 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Friday, July 4, 2025; and WHEREAS, the parade procession stages in the east Orinda BART Station parking lot, exits and heads south along Camino Pablo within the closed northbound lanes, turns l e f t / n o r t h on Brookwood Road, then turns right onto Moraga Way, proceeding on and then turning right to go back northbound onto Camino Pablo, east on Santa Maria Way, and completing its route northbound on Orinda Way; and
WHEREAS, the Orinda Association plans to route the parade (procession between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) from staging area in the Orinda BART Station parking lot, through the Theatre District and routing back to its conclusion in the Village District near the Community Center, which will require the following street closures:
1) Partial Closure of the two northbound lanes of Camino Pablo between Moraga Way and Santa Maria Way.
2) Full Closure of Moraga Way between Camino Pablo and Bryant Way 3) Full Closure of Brookwood Road between Camino Pablo and Moraga Way 4) Partial Closure of the eastbound lanes of Santa Maria Way between Camino Pablo and Orinda Way
5) Full Closure of Orinda Way between Santa Maria Way and Camino Pablo WHEREAS, for the safety of all concerned including participants and spectators, this will require the various listed street closures on Friday, July 4, 2025 between 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, under Section 21101, paragraph (e) of the Vehicle Code, a local authority may adopt by resolution, a temporary closure of a street for a special event when the closure is necessary for the safety and protection of the users of the street during the event; and
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Resolution 16-25 Authorizing Street Closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and Associated Community BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes the listed street closures in downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade route and associated community activities on Friday, July 4, 2025 from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on April 7, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Resolution 16-25 Authorizing Street Closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and Associated Community City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.6
Date: April 7, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 17-25 (Traffic Order #237) Approving All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane.

BACKGROUND:

In 2022, residents of the Sleepy Hollow Lane neighborhood submitted a traffic calming request through the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). The request included an all-way stop at the Sleepy Hollow Rd./Lombardy Lane intersection and crosswalk (crossing Lombardy) which was presented to TSAC.

Sleepy Hollow Lane features a distinctive semi-loop configuration with a tee-intersection with Lombardy Lane (refer to Attachment B map). The intersection currently has a single stop at the Sleepy Hollow approach and is without controlled approaches on Lombardy Lane.

DISCUSSION:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) contains warrants and guidelines to help indicate when stop signs are justified. These guidelines take into consideration traffic volumes, vehicular speeds, reported collisions, and sight impairment. The installation of stop signs that do not meet traffic warrants may cause unintentional consequences including increased collisions, pollution, and noise. Staff engaged W-Trans (an on-call traffic engineering consultant) to conduct a stop warrant analysis at this intersection.

The warrant analysis performed by W-Trans in November 2022 (Attachment C) recommended installing an all-way stop at the subject intersection. Although the intersection did not meet all the stop warrants for multi-way stop control as established by the MUTCD, the major approaches on Lombardy Lane do meet the volume warrant and the roadway has a low sight distance due to the road geometry. Given these concerns, W-trans recommended that the safety could be improved at the intersection by the installation of an all-way stop sign at the intersection. Additionally, stop bar legends (STOP), warning signs (stop sign ahead), two crosswalks, and three pedestrian curb ramps would be installed, as per plans prepared by the City’s design consultant LCC Engineering & Surveying Inc.

The all-way stop was originally scheduled to be installed as part of the 2024 Annual Paving Project which was postponed due to high bids. That Project was re-bid, and the contract award is on this evening’s (April 7) City Council Agenda.

F.6
Packet Pg. 46
FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost for installing the stop signs, crosswalk, associated striping/markings, and pedestrian curb ramps is approximately $125,000, based on the bid received from the low bidder for the 2024 Annual Paving Project. Funds for the 2024 Annual Paving Project are already budgeted from a variety of sources and are sufficient, and no additional appropriations required at this time.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon approval by the City Council and adoption of Resolution 17-25 (Traffic Order #237), the installation will be completed as part of the 2024 Annual Paving Project, scheduled for summer 2025.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 17-25 Approving a Stop Sign at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane - Traffic Order 237
B. Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations
C. Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane Map
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.6
Packet Pg. 47
_________________________________________________________________________ Cardinal directions in this resolution are based on convention.

RESOLUTION NO. 17-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

APPROVING ALL-WAY STOP AT SLEEPY HALLOW LANE AND LOMBARDY LANE
TRAFFIC ORDER NO. 237
WHEREAS, Orinda Municipal Code Section 10.04.020(A) authorizes traffic orders to regulate traffic by means of official traffic-control devices; and WHEREAS, Orinda Municipal Code Section 10.04.040(A) requires the adoption of a resolution by City Council for a traffic order to become effective; and WHEREAS, Orinda Municipal Code Section 10.04.020(E) authorizes traffic orders to designate any intersection as a Stop intersection and requiring all vehicles to stop at one or more entrances to the intersection; and BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby declare that Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane is designated as an all-way stop intersection; and all vehicles entering the intersection are required to stop.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all prior traffic orders adopted in conflict with this resolution are hereby rescinded.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on April 7, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.6.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Resolution 17-25 Approving a Stop Sign at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane - Traffic Order 237 (3576 : All-Way Stop at F.6.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Analysis of Stop Sign Controls at 5 Locations (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane) F.6.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Sleepy Hollow Lane and Lombardy Lane Map (3576 : All-Way Stop at Sleepy City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.7
Date: April 7, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of Construction Contract with Cowan & Thompson Inc. for Drainage Facilities Improvement (CIP #4111)
RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize City Manager to approve contract with Cowan & Thompson Construction Inc. of Martinez, California for an amount of $69,425 for storm drain work near 704 Miner Rd. and approve Budget Change Form #011-25 appropriating $69,425 from Fund 704 for the project.

BACKGROUND:

In March 2025, City maintenance crews were called out to unclog a storm drain inlet near 704 Miner Rd. (just north of Honey Hill Rd.). Crews were able to remove debris but found the pipe was severely deteriorated and also had internal obstructions most likely due to joint separations. The pipe is a 24” CMP (corrugated metal pipe) and in urgent need of repairs.

DISCUSSION:

Staff evaluated repair options and discussed with contractors, and determined that repair options are limited. Open trench replacement would be difficult and time consuming due to the depth of the pipe, and lining methods such as CIPP (cured in place pipe liner) and similar fold-and-inflate methods did not appear feasible due to internal obstructions. An effective method would be slip lining in which the liner pipe is solid HDPE (high density polyethylene) and is pushed through the host pipe (24” CMP).

Staff obtained a reasonable proposal (Attachment A) from Cowan & Thompson in the amount of $69,425. Under UPCCA (uniform public construction cost accounting) procedures adopted by the City, Staff can negotiate prices with contractors without bidding up to $75,000; therefore, no bids are required in this case. Cowan & Thompson has successfully performed many projects for the City and is a responsible contractor.

Staff, therefore, recommends the City Council award the subject contract to them.

With respect to CEQA guidelines, the project was determined to be Categorically Exempt under section 15301, class 1, and a Notice of Exemption will be submitted to the County Clerk on or around March 31, 2025, for filing.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon authorization, the contract (standard city construction contract) will be routed for signatures. Project construction is estimated to begin as soon as practicable due to the urgent need to repair the pipe. The work would require approximately one week to perform.

F.7
Packet Pg. 86
FISCAL IMPACT:

The current fiscal year budget for the Annual Drainage Facilities Improvement Project (CIP #4111) is $150,000 and this amount has already been expended. Therefore it is necessary to appropriate $69,425 to cover the cost of the subject work. It is recommended to utilize Fund 704, Road/Drainage Stabilization, which has sufficient balance available. This is reflected on Budget Change Form #011-25 (Attachment B).

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Cowan & Thompson Proposal
B. Budget Change Form #011-25
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.7
Packet Pg. 87
PO Box 1514 Martinez, CA. 94553 925.372.9412 office 925.372.0206 fax www.cowanthompson.com Lic#595745 March 20, 2025
City of Orinda Project: Burst CMP Pipe
22 Orinda Way 704 Miner Rd.

Orinda, CA 94563 Bid #: 3581R2
Attn: Scott Christie Valid Until: 30 days from bid date [email protected] C&T Contact: Barry Thompson
Cowan & Thompson is pleased to offer you the following proposal:

Install approximately 80 LF of HDPE pipe 20”DR 17x50.

This price includes transporting pipe, fusion and pulling pipe through existing 24” CMP.

Traffic control and repair of roadway upon completion, pot holing existing service.

This work will take approximately 6 days to complete.

Bond included ($1363.00)
For a total price of $69,425.00
Comments:

1. Cowan & Thompson is a non-union contractor. Price is based upon prevailing wage rates.

2. C&T requests that this proposal be included in its entirety as an Exhibit in the contract.

Exclusions

1. Engineering design required to secure building permits or other agency approvals.

2. Securing of any building permits, or other approvals necessary to commence work, and payment of related fees.

3. All engineered staking for control points.

4. Cost of inspections, special inspections, or consulting of any kind.

5. Soil and compaction tests as required.

6. Reworking of foundation soils if required.

Basis of Payment
This is a fixed price proposal.

Payment Terms
Invoiced monthly. Payments to be made no later than 30 days from date of invoice. Late payments shall bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from date of invoice.

Attorney’s Fees
Should any action be brought at either law or equity, or either enforce or interpret this agreement, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

F.7.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Cowan & Thompson Proposal (3575 : Cowan & Thompson Contract) PO Box 1514 Martinez, CA. 94553 925.372.9412 office 925.372.0206 fax www.cowanthompson.com Lic#595745 C&T Proposal
By awarding Cowan & Thompson, Inc. this project, Owner agrees that all terms and conditions contained within this proposal supersede any terms and conditions contained in other contracts related to this project.

Insurance
Cowan & Thompson will supply a copy of evidence of insurance. It is the Owner/General’s responsibility to review and approve insurance based upon supplied certificate. If Owner/General requires Waiver of Subrogation on any part of the insurance supplied there may be an additional charge. If C&T is required to join Customers Insurance Wrap Program, there may be an additional charge. If Time and Material work is performed on any Waiver of Subrogation project, there may be an additional billed out per each invoice.

If Time and Material work is performed on any Insurance Wrap Program project there may be an additional charge, billed out per each invoice.

Right to Reclaim Material
C&T reserves the right to reclaim materials until such time as final payment has been received.

Inclement Weather
C&T reserves the right to halt work when inclement weather reduces production to less than 80% of that scheduled. Work will resume at Cowan & Thompson’s determinations that conditions are dry enough.

Please sign and return one copy for our files. Work cannot commence without written authorization.

Owner/Contractor Acceptance Cowan & Thompson, Inc.

Acceptance
Signature: ____________________ Signature: _______________________ Name/Title: ___________________ Name/Title: ______________________ Date: ________________________ Date: ___________________________ F.7.a
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Cowan & Thompson Proposal (3575 : Cowan & Thompson Contract)

CITY OF ORINDA
BUDGET CHANGE FORM FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Funds Appropriated Mid-Cycle Budget Adjustment Adopted 6/18/2024 CHANGE FORM # 011-25
New Appropriations (City CouncilApproval Required): Budget Transfers:

X From Un-Appropriated Reserves From Budgeted Contingent Reserve (Approval Req’d) __ _ Reduction To Adopted Budget

GENERAL FUND
New Revenue ONLY
Between Departments (City Council Approval Req’d)
Other:

BUDGET ACCOUNT
(Revenue / Expense)

INCREASE
AMOUNT

DECREASE
AMOUNT
INCREASE OF BUDGETED EXPENSE IN FY 2024-25:
704-35-00-7127-4111

ROAD & DRAINAGE STABILIZATION/PUBLIC WORKS/NO

PROGRAM/CONSTRUCTION COSTS/ANNUAL DRAINAGE MAINT REPAIR $69,425
As Presented at the City Council Meeting on March 7, 2025 #################(Finance Use Only)###################
Posted By: Date:

REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: Award a construction contract to Cowan & Thompson Construction Inc. of Martinez, California for an amount of $69,425 for storm drain work near 704 Miner Rd.

F.7.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Budget Change Form #011-25 (3575 : Cowan & Thompson Contract) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: G.1
Date: April 7, 2025
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Introduction of Ordinance 25-03 Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 of the Orinda Municipal Code- Tree Management RECOMMENDATION:

Waive the full reading and introduce Version A or Version B of Ordinance 25-03 Amending Chapter 17.21 (Tree Management) of the Orinda Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND:

The Tree Management Ordinance was updated in 2021 due to heightened awareness of wildfire risks. For details on the previous update, see the January 12, 2021, staff report as an attachment.

Due to continued wildfire risk concerns, several residents over the course of 2024 and early 2025 have brought forward insurance company correspondence that requires them to remove protected trees located within 5’ or less of their residence. In many cases these trees are mature, healthy oak trees that residents are reluctant to remove.

These residents typically face short deadlines to demonstrate compliance with this requirement and are at risk of losing homeowners’ insurance altogether.

For protected trees, the discretionary permit process requires a 10-day notification and a subsequent 10-day appeal period after the Statement of Official Action is released before a tree may be removed. With administrative requirements and permit application queues, the typical process can take between three weeks and two months.

With this increased pressure to reduce fire fuel and comply with insurance company requirements, some Orinda residents have expressed concern with the City’s Tree Management regulations. To address community concerns around this issue, Staff have begun expediting the process for insurance-related removals, but a Zoning amendment is required to codify streamlined processing for these circumstances. On January 21, 2025, the City Council requested the Tree Management Ordinance be brought forward as a matter initiated to address these concerns.

At the City Council meeting on February 18, 2025, Staff presented an overview of these concerns and proposed alterations to the code that would provide an exception to the tree removal permit process in the case of insurance requirements and additionally clarify the factors to consider when removing protected trees in certain circumstances to ensure additional protection for healthy trees. The City Council requested that Staff prepare draft amendments to the Tree Management Ordinance that provides the exception for insurance requirements, clarifies the definition of protected trees, and allows for evolving changes to State law. The City Council additionally requested that a G.1
Packet Pg. 91
more comprehensive future update could occur within one to two years, providing Staff the opportunity to consider a comprehensive update to the code.

Pursuant to State law and the Orinda Municipal Code, this type of code amendment requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission prior to being presented to the City Council. Staff presented proposed amendments at the March 11, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. Two versions of a resolution were proposed. Both versions included all amendments to the zoning code directed by the City Council; one version included additional changes to sections 17.21.4 and 17.21.5 to refine findings for particular tree removal permits and clarify a condition of approval for other tree removal permits. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 25-02 recommending City Council adopt an ordinance reflecting all the proposed changes in sections 17.21.1 through 17.21.5, with additional adjustments to clarify the protected tree designations and to refine the exception for insurance requirements. Resolution 25-02 is included as attachment C. The staff report and materials for this meeting are available at: March 11, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report and materials.

DISCUSSION:

The following is an overview of proposed amendments to Orinda Municipal Code (OMC) Chapter 17.21 – Tree Management, by section.

Staff recognizes that the City Council did not provide direction, either for or against, on Staff’s proposed amendments to §17.21.4 and §17.21.5. These sections are included in the recommended changes due to concerns over the limited findings associated with the removal of trees without a development permit (§17.21.4) and for the possibility for an applicant to remove trees in conjunction with a development permit without proceeding with the development (§17.21.5). Two draft ordinances are therefore included: Version A with all proposed changes (§17.21.1 – §17.21.5; Attachment A; recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission), and Version B with only the changes directed by the City Council (§17.21.1 – §17.21.3; Attachment B). The full proposed text changes can be reviewed in these attachments. §17.21.1 – Findings and declaration of intent.

This section contains the City Council findings and reasoning for the ordinance. Staff proposes keeping these findings intact with one additional finding to reflect proposed changes and reinforce the response to changes in state law and/or regulations:

F. These regulations ease the burden on individuals facing tree management mandates from insurance companies and will enable flexibility in enabling property owners to respond to these requirements, as well as respond to evolving state requirements.
§17.21.2 – Definitions.

City Council directed staff to clarify the definition of “Protected tree” so that it is more readily understood by the public. The current definition is:

G.1
Packet Pg. 92
"Protected tree" means a live tree located on public or private property (including within a public or private right-of-way or easement) meeting one or more of the following standards:

1. A tree located on an assessor's parcel upon which there is an existing structure, which is of the following species and which has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than twelve (12) inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade: valley oak (Quercus lobata), live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), white oak (Quercus garryana), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii);

2. A tree that is located on a vacant or undeveloped assessor's parcel and has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six (6) inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade, unless it is a tree identified on the Disallowed Plant List adopted by City Council resolution;

3. A native riparian tree with a trunk diameter of four inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade or a multi-trunk native riparian tree with a cross-sectional area of all trunks equal to a cross-section area of a single stem of four inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade;

4. A replacement tree planted as restitution for an act in violation of this chapter;

5. A tree that is located in the DC (downtown commercial) or DO (downtown office) district and has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six (6) inches at 4.5 feet above natural grade, unless it is a tree identified on the Disallowed Plant List adopted by City Council resolution.

Staff proposes updating this definition to a table format. While this format would not change the definition of a protected tree, it does provide the appropriate information in a more accessible format:
"Protected tree" means a live tree located on public or private property (including within a public or private right-of-way or easement) meeting one or more of the designations listed in Schedule 17.21.1:

Schedule 17.21.1
Protected Tree Designations
# Location Type of Tree
Trunk Diameter
Requirement at 4.5
Feet Above Natural
Grade
1 On a developed
parcel (with a
structure)
• Valley Oak (Quercus
lobata)
• Live Oak (Quercus
agrifolia)
• Black Oak (Quercus
kelloggii)
• White Oak (Quercus
garryana)
≥ 12 inches
G.1
Packet Pg. 93
• Canyon Oak (Quercus
chrysolepis)
• Blue Oak (Quercus
douglasii)
• Interior Live Oak (Quercus
wislizenii)
2 On a vacant or
undeveloped parcel,
or on a parcel within a
downtown district
identified in Chapter

17.8 Any Tree not identified on the
Disallowed Plant List ≥ 6 inches
3 Near the edge of a
creek bank (see
“Native Riparian Tree”
definition)
Native Riparian Tree
Single-trunk ≥ 4 inches
or
Multi-trunk with
combined crosssectional area ≥ a
single stem of 4 inches
4 Any location
Replacement Tree planted as
restitution for a violation of tree
removal regulations or as a
condition of approval for a
development project
Any size
The updated definition also enables flexibility regarding trees in downtown districts to account for future zoning proposals on downtown lots, as well as clarify that a replacement tree may be a tree planted as a condition of approval for a development project.
§17.21.3 – Permit required for removal or destruction of a protected tree.

Staff propose updates to subsection B. Exceptions, modified by Planning Commission recommendation, that add the exception for insurance company requirements requested by the City Council:

7. When alteration, removal, or destruction of a protected tree is required at a specified property to retain or obtain insurance coverage.

The version proposed to the Planning Commission prior to changes was:

7. When alteration, removal, or destruction of a protected tree is required at a specified property to reduce fire risk by an insurance company.

The version recommended by Planning Commission (“to retain or obtain insurance coverage”) reduces ambiguity about the explicit reasons for which an insurance company could request tree removal that would result in an exception.

G.1
Packet Pg. 94
Additionally, for all exceptions, the proposed modifications clarify that documentation or direct communication with the Planning Department by the appropriate authority is required to specify the reason for removal and the location of trees to be removed. This helps eliminate the potential for confusion regarding reporting responsibilities, reducing instances where residents misinterpret requirements and remove more trees than necessary, potentially leading to code enforcement issues.

Staff also proposes eliminating the exception “to maintain a firebreak as required by state law” as that exception is encapsulated in the revised exception: “When alteration, removal, or destruction of a protected tree is required for compliance with any local, federal, or state law.” Staff believe the latter exception appropriately addresses the City Council’s request that the ordinance account for evolving state regulations.

Furthermore, Staff proposes removing the requirement to make data available annually to the City Council how many times the Moraga-Orinda Fire District has required protected tree removal for Fire Code compliance. While the exception is valuable to keep in unforeseeable circumstances, MOFD has clearly indicated that it is extremely unlikely they will recommend living oaks for removal due to their fire resilience. The exception has been rarely, if ever, utilized.

Additional proposed adjustments in this section correct syntax and clarify that the applicability of an exception does not exempt property owners from the terms of conservation and open space easements, among other property instrument restrictions. §17.21.4 – Permit Category I – Protected trees on properties not involving a development application.

Although the City Council discussion and direction did not pertain to this issue, Staff recommends adjustments to the factors for decision-maker determinations regarding protected tree removal without a development application. Some applications for tree removal with no development include trees an arborist has deemed to be in good health and with no projected impact to public health, safety, or property. The existing two factors for decision and determination under are limited, however, to:

1. The effect of tree removal or destruction on shade, views, privacy, fire safety, soil erosion and flow of surface water;

2. The number, species, size and location of other protected trees to remain in the area.

Staff proposes clarifying these discretionary factors to appropriately account for the subject tree’s health, its potential impact on public health, safety, or property, and consideration of alternatives to removal. More specific findings will help support the protected status of healthy trees that do not meet any of the exceptions provided in OMC §17.21.3. The proposed factors are:

1. The effect of tree removal or destruction on shade, views, privacy, fire safety, soil erosion and flow of surface water;
G.1
Packet Pg. 95

3. Whether the tree poses an impending threat to public health, safety, or property, supported by evidence from a certified arborist;

4. The degree to which the tree interferes with the reasonable use or enjoyment of the property;

5. The health and structural stability of the tree, including any documented signs of disease, decay, or structural issues that pose a significant risk of failure, as determined by an arborist report;

6. The number, species, size and location of other protected trees to remain in the area, the potential for additional tree removals by other entities or authorities, and the cumulative impact of the removal on the area’s environmental and aesthetic character; and

7. Whether practical alternatives exist to address concerns related to the tree’s presence, such as pruning, root management, or other preservation strategies that mitigate perceived impacts without necessitating removal.

A perceived conflict in updating this section is that a future amendment to the tree ordinance could include altering the process to become an objective set of standards rather than a discretionary set of findings. Objective standards would align tree protection policy more closely with state requirements that mandate ministerial processes for various types of new unit development (SB 9, ADU laws, SB 330, etc.) developments. While staff recognize that additional discretionary findings could be interpreted as moving in the opposite direction of this potential future course of action, the proposed additional standards are specific to tree removal permits not in conjunction with development projects and therefore would not impact the discretionary findings for development. Staff expects that a future tree management update would provide opportunity for more detailed analysis of the implementation methods involved in Permit Category II – Protected trees on property involving a development application project. §17.21.4 – Permit Category II – Protected trees on property involving a development application project.

The amendment to this section is limited to clarifying that a tree removal permit is valid only upon issuance of a building permit for the associate development process.

NEXT STEPS:

If the recommended actions are taken, this item would be brought back to the City Council at the next public meeting on April 15, 2025, for a second reading and adoption.

After an amendment is adopted, Staff also plans to update the existing illustrated brochure that explains the Tree Removal Permit requirements to incorporate the amendments.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:

G.1
Packet Pg. 96
A. Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter

17.21 - Tree Management
B. Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter

17.21 - Tree Management
C. PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management
D. January 12, 2021 Staff Report
Respectfully Submitted by:

Lashun Cross
Planning Director
Prepared By: Darin Hughes, Associate Planner
Approved by:

G.1
Packet Pg. 97

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of: Ordinance 25-03
An Ordinance Updating Orinda Municipal
Code Chapter 17.21 – Tree Management.

The City Council of the City of Orinda DOES ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Orinda intends, by adopting this ordinance, to amend Chapter 17.21 of the Orinda Municipal Code (OMC). These amendments are intended to clarify the City’s regulations regarding protected tree status, incorporate an additional exception for insurance company requirements, and ensure flexibility in meeting the requirements of state, regional, and local regulations.

SECTION 2. Chapter 17.21 is amended as specified below and in Attachment A, which shows additions with double-underlined text and deletions with strike-out text.

SECTION 3. Purpose and intent.

A. The management of trees on public and private property is essential to maintenance of the city's semi-rural character, a goal set forth in the general plan.

B. Trees contribute to the image and quality of life in the city. Healthy trees reduce air and noise pollution, provide energy-saving shade and cooling, furnish habitat for wildlife, enhance aesthetics and property values, and help to maintain soil stability.

C. The city values the diverse and distinctive character of its neighborhoods, some heavily wooded, some more open.

D. This chapter is intended to ensure that the city will continue to realize the benefits provided by its tree resources, while recognizing the rights of individuals to develop property, maintain views and privacy, and protect against fire and other hazards.

E. These regulations are consistent with the local Fire Code adopted by the MoragaOrinda Fire District (MOFD) and ratified by the City of Orinda.

F. These regulations ease the burden on individuals facing tree management mandates from insurance companies and will enable flexibility in enabling property owners to respond to these requirements, as well as respond to evolving state requirements.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase.

G.1.a
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree SECTION 5. This ordinance is consistent with the Orinda General Plan.

SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment).

SECTION 7. This ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall either (a) have this ordinance published once within fifteen (15) days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five (5) days before its adoption and again within fifteen (15) days after adoption.

Following a duly-noticed public hearing, the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on _____, 2025 and was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting held on _____, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Chapter 17.21 – TREE MANAGEMENT
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree Exhibit A: Chapter 17.21 – TREE MANAGEMENT

17.21.1 Findings and declaration of intent.

The City Council finds that:

A. The management of trees on public and private property is essential to maintenance of the city's semi-rural character, a goal set forth in the general plan.

B. Trees contribute to the image and quality of life in the city. Healthy trees reduce air and noise pollution, provide energy-saving shade and cooling, furnish habitat for wildlife, enhance aesthetics and property values, and help to maintain soil stability. Tree management can both create and protect privacy and views and reduce fire hazards.

C. The city values the diverse and distinctive character of its neighborhoods, some heavily wooded, some more open.

D. This chapter is intended to ensure that the city will continue to realize the benefits provided by its tree resources, while recognizing the rights of individuals to develop property, maintain views and privacy, and protect against fire and other hazards.

E. These regulations are consistent with the local Fire Code adopted by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) and ratified by the City of Orinda.

F. These regulations ease the burden on individuals facing tree management mandates from insurance companies and will create flexibility in enabling property owners to respond to such mandates, as well as respond to evolving State requirements.

17.21.2 Definitions.

In this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
"Destroy" means to kill or to take action that could foreseeably endanger the health or vigor of a tree, including but not limited to, excessive or improper pruning of a tree, grade changes around or near a tree, excessive irrigation of a tree, and trenching within the protected perimeter of a tree.
"Development application" is an application for a building or grading permit, or any other city application which if approved would ultimately require the issuance of a building permit or grading permit.
"Diameter" means the distance across the tree from outside bark to outside bark measured at 4.5 feet above the natural grade of the tree. The diameter of a multi-trunk tree is the sum of the diameters of its trunks measured at 4.5 feet above natural grade multiplied by two-thirds.
"Director" means the Planning Director or his or her designated representative.

G.1.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree "Dripline" means the outermost edge of the tree's canopy. When depicted on a map, the dripline appears as an irregularly shaped circle that follows the contour of the tree's canopy as seen from above.
"Native Riparian tree" is a native tree within thirty (30) feet of the edge of a creek bank or a native tree beyond thirty (30) feet but in such proximity to a creek bank that it requires or tolerates soil moisture levels in excess of that available in adjacent uplands. "Native tree" means a tree indigenous to the local oak woodland, chaparral, grassland or riparian habitats including, but not limited to, valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggi, white oak (Quercus garryana), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), California bay (Umbellularia californica), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophylumm), buckeye (Aesculus California), white later (Alnus rhombifolia), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), flowing ash (Fraxinus dipetala), Oregon ash (Fraxicus latifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (Saxis laevigata), western dogwood (Cornus sericea), California hazelnut (Corylus californica), black walnut (Juglans hindsii), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus).
"Professional arborist" means a person certified as an arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture or a person who, as determined by the Director, is equally qualified in the field of arboriculture.
"Protected perimeter" means the area around the tree within the dripline plus a tenfoot-wide strip of ground surrounding the dripline. "Protected tree" means a live tree located on public or private property (including within a public or private right-of-way or easement) meeting one or more of the following standards designations listed in Schedule 17.21.1:

1. A tree located on an assessor's parcel upon which there is an existing structure, which is of the following species and which has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than twelve (12) inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade:
valley oak (Quercus lobata), live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), white oak (Quercus garryana), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii);

2. A tree that is located on a vacant or undeveloped assessor's parcel and has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six (6) inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade, unless it is a tree identified on the Disallowed Plant List adopted by City Council resolution;

3. A native riparian tree with a trunk diameter of four inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade or a multi-trunk native riparian tree with a cross-sectional area of all trunks equal to a cross-section area of a single stem of four inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade;

4. A replacement tree planted as restitution for an act in violation of this chapter;

5. A tree that is located in the DC (downtown commercial) or DO (downtown office) district and has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six (6) inches G.1.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree at 4.5 feet above natural grade, unless it is a tree identified on the Disallowed Plant List adopted by City Council resolution.

Schedule 17.21.1
Protected Tree Designations
# Location Type of Tree
Trunk Diameter
Requirement at 4.5
Feet Above Natural
Grade
1 On a developed
parcel (with a
structure)
- Valley Oak (Quercus lobata)
- Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
- Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii)
- White Oak (Quercus garryana)
- Canyon Oak (Quercus
chrysolepis)
- Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii)
- Interior Live Oak (Quercus
wislizenii)
≥ 12 inches
2 On a vacant or
undeveloped parcel,
or on a parcel within a
downtown district
identified in Chapter

17.8 Any Tree not identified on the
Disallowed Plant List ≥ 6 inches
3 Near the edge of a
creek bank (see
“Native Riparian
Tree” definition)
Native Riparian Tree
Single-trunk ≥ 4 inches
or
Multi-trunk with
combined crosssectional area ≥ a
single stem of 4 inches
4 Any location
Replacement Tree planted as
restitution for a violation of tree
removal regulations or as a
condition of approval for a
development project
Any size
"Remove" means to cut down a tree or relocate a tree.

17.21.3 Permit required for removal or destruction of a protected tree.

A. When Required. No person may remove or destroy a protected tree without a Category I or Category II permit as provided in Sections 17.21.4 and 17.21.5.

G.1.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree B. Exceptions. A permit is not required in the following circumstances if documentation or direct communication with the Planning Department is provided by the appropriate authority identifying the reason for removal and location of trees to be removed:

1. When a hazardous or dangerous condition requires immediate action to protect life or property;

2. Under emergency conditions when ordered by a fire official, the Public Works Director, Parks and Recreation Director or City Manager;

3. For a city project on city property or for a city project within the public rightof-way;

4. To maintain a firebreak as required by state law;

54. To maintain an unobstructed flow of water for flood control safety in creek beds and waterways as determined by the City Engineer;

65. When required in writing by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District for Fire Code compliance; following consultation with the Planning Director, who will annually make available to the City Council data regarding how many times and where this exception is invoked; and

76. When alternationalteration, removal, or destruction of a protected tree is required for compliance with any local, federal, or state law.; and

7. When alteration, removal, or destruction of a protected tree is required at a specified property to retain or obtain insurance coverage.

The applicability of an exception under this section in no way exempts activity from other regulatory requirements (e.g., City encroachment permit requirement) addressing slope stability, water quality, and other issues.; nor does it exempt activity from property instrument restrictions (e.g., the terms of conservation and open space easements.)

17.21.4 Permit Category I—Protected trees on properties not involving a development application.

A. Permit Required. A person who desires to remove or destroy a protected tree from a property upon which grading, building or development is not proposed, shall file an application on a form provided by the city, together with the fee fixed by resolution of the City Council.

B. Application. The application shall identify the location, species and diameter of each protected tree to be removed or destroyed; the application shall contain a statement of the reason the permit is requested; and shall contain other supplemental information as may be necessary to properly review an application, such as the written recommendation of a professional arborist concerning the health and quality of the tree in question and possible alternative actions.

G.1.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree C. Director Review. The Director shall inspect the tree and review the application. The Director may refer the application to the Planning Commission and may require such additional information considered necessary.

D. Decision-Maker Determination. The decision-maker shall approve or disapprove the application to remove or destroy a protected tree. The decision-maker shall consider the following factors:

1. The effect of tree removal or destruction on shade, views, privacy, fire safety, soil erosion and flow of surface water;

2. The number, species, size and location of other protected trees to remain in the area.

E. Permit Conditions. The permit may include reasonable conditions such as replacement in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 17.21.5.F.2 or moving the tree to a suitable location on the site.

F. Expiration of Permit. A permit is valid for one year from date of issuance unless a longer period is stated in the permit. If the applicant does not begin work before the expiration date, the permit is void. Once work authorized by a permit is begun, it shall be expeditiously pursued to completion.

17.21.5 Permit Category II—Protected trees on property involving a development application project.

A. Permit Required. A person applying for a building or grading permit, or an application which may subsequently require a building or grading permit, on a lot with a protected tree shall concurrently apply for a tree permit if construction related activity may remove or destroy a protected tree.

B. Application. The application shall contain the following information on the form provided by the Planning Department together with the fee fixed by resolution of the City Council:

1. A site plan map showing all protected trees on the property by trunk location and diameter, tree species and an accurate outline of each tree's dripline.

The site plan shall indicate whether each protected tree will be altered, removed, destroyed, relocated or protected.

2. Justification statement setting forth the reason for proposed alteration, removal, relocation or destruction of any protected tree.

3. Other pertinent information required by the Director.

C. Development Coordination. The application shall be reviewed with the development project application. A development project could be a project subject to discretionary permit, such as design review, or ministerial project subject only to a building permit.

G.1.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree D. Standards. In addition to the factors and guidelines set forth in Subsection

17.21.4.D, a permit shall be granted or denied based on the following factors and guidelines consistent with actions taken on the concurrent development application:

1. The necessity for destruction or removal in order to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property;

2. The extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and protect a protected tree;

3. The extent to which a change in the natural grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to maintain and preserve a protected tree.

E. Conditions of Approval. Each permit may require as a condition of approval:

1. If a protected tree proposed for removal can be relocated, the applicant shall move the tree to a suitable location on a site shown on the approved plans.

2. The applicant shall guarantee the health and vigor of each protected tree required to be preserved during the construction process and for two years after construction is certified as complete.

3. The applicant shall replace a protected tree that dies during the guarantee period in accordance with the tree replacement provisions of subsection F of this section.

4. The applicant shall comply with care requirements of subsection G of this section.

F. Protected Tree Replacement. An applicant shall replace a protected tree in accordance with the following standards:

1. For each six inches or fraction thereof of the aggregate diameter of trees approved for destruction or removal, the applicant shall plant 1 native tree with a diameter no less than 0.75 inches. One-third of the replacement tree requirement may be fulfilled by planting native shrubs that mature at a height no less than five feet. The applicant may substitute a larger number of smaller trees or a smaller number of larger trees if approved by the decision-maker based on a finding that tree replacement will be more beneficial to the health and vigor of all trees on the property.

2. If the development site cannot accommodate the replacement trees, with the written approval of the decision-maker and the property owner, the applicant may plant the replacement trees on public or private property located in Orinda. Alternatively, the applicant may make an in lieu payment of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) for each replacement tree otherwise required. All in lieu payments shall be used for city landscape-related projects.

G. Care of Protected Trees. In order to protect each protected tree on a site where grading or building is to take place, an applicant may, at the discretion of the decision-maker, be required to meet the following requirements:

G.1.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree

1. Before starting, the applicant shall securely fence off every protected tree or grouping of protected trees at the protected perimeter. The fence shall remain continuously in place for the duration of work undertaken in connection with the building or grading permit. The fenced area may not be used as a storage area or altered or disturbed except as may be permitted by the decisionmaker.

2. If the proposed development or work on-site encroaches upon the protected perimeter of a protected tree, the applicant shall take special measures, as approved by the decision-maker, to allow tree roots to obtain oxygen, water and nutrients as needed.

3. An authorized excavation, filling or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter of a tree shall be minimized and subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the decision-maker.

4. No significant change in existing ground level may be made within the dripline of a protected tree.

5. No burning or use of equipment with an open flame may occur near or within the protected perimeter.

6. All brush, earth and debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.

7. No oil, gas, chemical or other substance that may be harmful to a tree may be stored or dumped within the protected perimeter of a protected tree or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the protected perimeter of a tree.

8. Trenching for utilities shall avoid interfering with roots of protected trees wherever possible. If complete avoidance of the root zone is impractical, a tunnel shall be made below the roots. A trench shall be consolidated to serve as many units as possible. Trenching and tunneling within the protected perimeter shall be avoided to the extent possible and shall be done only under the on-site supervision of a professional arborist.

9. No concrete, asphalt or other impervious paving shall be placed within the protected perimeter of a protected tree. No supplementary irrigation shall occur within the protected perimeter of a native oak.

H. Expiration of Permit. A permit is valid for the same period as the building or grading permit. If the applicant does not begin work before the expiration date, the permit is void.

17.21.6 Appeal.

A person may appeal the decision to grant or deny a protected tree permit within the time and manner set forth in Chapter 17.43.

G.1.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree

17.21.7 Reserved

17.21.8 Restitution and replacement of protected trees.

Protected trees are valuable assets to the city and, as a result of the death or damage of a protected tree without benefit of a permit, the public should be compensated. A person who removes or destroys a protected tree in violation of this chapter shall replace each tree removed or destroyed, in accordance with each of the following conditions:

A. Replacement trees in at least twenty-four- (24) inch boxes shall be planted in the following ratio: two replacement trees for each six inches or fraction thereof of the diameter of each tree removed or destroyed.

B. Each replacement tree shall be of an appropriate species as determined by the decision-maker.

C. Each replacement tree shall be planted on the site where the tree was destroyed or removed unless the site cannot accommodate the replacement trees, in which case the property owner shall make an in-lieu payment of six hundred seventy-five dollars ($675.00), adjusted for the cost of living from year 2002 under the Bureau of Labor Standards Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose Area, for each replacement tree otherwise required.

D. The decision-maker may impose requirements to ensure a replacement tree's health for up to two years and may authorize the planting of a lesser number of larger trees or a larger number of smaller trees than specified in this section if either will be more beneficial to the health and vigor of all trees on the property.

17.21.9 Enforcement.

The destruction or removal of a protected tree without the required permit constitutes a continuing violation of this chapter and a separate violation shall occur each day from the act of destruction or removal until restitution is made as required in Section 17.28.8. A person who violates the requirements of this chapter shall be subject to enforcement as described in Title 19 of this code.

17.21.10 Nonliability of city.

Nothing in this chapter imposes liability upon the city or upon its officers or employees or relieves the owner or occupant of private property from the duty to keep in safe condition any tree and shrub upon that private property or within a public right-ofway or easement upon or adjacent to that property.

G.1.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version A) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of: Ordinance 25-03
An Ordinance Updating Orinda Municipal
Code Chapter 17.21 – Tree Management.

The City Council of the City of Orinda DOES ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Orinda intends, by adopting this ordinance, to amend Chapter 17.21 of the Orinda Municipal Code (OMC). These amendments are intended to clarify the City’s regulations regarding protected tree status, incorporate an additional exception for insurance company requirements, and ensure flexibility in meeting the requirements of state, regional, and local regulations.

SECTION 2. Chapter 17.21 is amended as specified below and in Attachment A, which shows additions with double-underlined text and deletions with strike-out text.

SECTION 3. Purpose and intent.

A. The management of trees on public and private property is essential to maintenance of the city's semi-rural character, a goal set forth in the general plan.

B. Trees contribute to the image and quality of life in the city. Healthy trees reduce air and noise pollution, provide energy-saving shade and cooling, furnish habitat for wildlife, enhance aesthetics and property values, and help to maintain soil stability.

C. The city values the diverse and distinctive character of its neighborhoods, some heavily wooded, some more open.

D. This chapter is intended to ensure that the city will continue to realize the benefits provided by its tree resources, while recognizing the rights of individuals to develop property, maintain views and privacy, and protect against fire and other hazards.

E. These regulations are consistent with the local Fire Code adopted by the MoragaOrinda Fire District (MOFD) and ratified by the City of Orinda.

F. These regulations ease the burden on individuals facing tree management mandates from insurance companies and will enable flexibility in enabling property owners to respond to these requirements, as well as respond to evolving state requirements.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase.

G.1.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree SECTION 5. This ordinance is consistent with the Orinda General Plan.

SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment).

SECTION 7. This ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall either (a) have this ordinance published once within fifteen (15) days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five (5) days before its adoption and again within fifteen (15) days after adoption.

Following a duly-noticed public hearing, the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on _____, 2025 and was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting held on _____, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Chapter 17.21 – TREE MANAGEMENT
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree Exhibit A: Chapter 17.21 – TREE MANAGEMENT

17.21.1 Findings and declaration of intent.

The City Council finds that:

A. The management of trees on public and private property is essential to maintenance of the city's semi-rural character, a goal set forth in the general plan.

B. Trees contribute to the image and quality of life in the city. Healthy trees reduce air and noise pollution, provide energy-saving shade and cooling, furnish habitat for wildlife, enhance aesthetics and property values, and help to maintain soil stability. Tree management can both create and protect privacy and views and reduce fire hazards.

C. The city values the diverse and distinctive character of its neighborhoods, some heavily wooded, some more open.

D. This chapter is intended to ensure that the city will continue to realize the benefits provided by its tree resources, while recognizing the rights of individuals to develop property, maintain views and privacy, and protect against fire and other hazards.

E. These regulations are consistent with the local Fire Code adopted by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) and ratified by the City of Orinda.

F. These regulations ease the burden on individuals facing tree management mandates from insurance companies and will create flexibility in enabling property owners to respond to such mandates, as well as respond to evolving State requirements.

17.21.2 Definitions.

In this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
"Destroy" means to kill or to take action that could foreseeably endanger the health or vigor of a tree, including but not limited to, excessive or improper pruning of a tree, grade changes around or near a tree, excessive irrigation of a tree, and trenching within the protected perimeter of a tree.
"Development application" is an application for a building or grading permit, or any other city application which if approved would ultimately require the issuance of a building permit or grading permit.
"Diameter" means the distance across the tree from outside bark to outside bark measured at 4.5 feet above the natural grade of the tree. The diameter of a multi-trunk tree is the sum of the diameters of its trunks measured at 4.5 feet above natural grade multiplied by two-thirds.
"Director" means the Planning Director or his or her designated representative.

G.1.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree "Dripline" means the outermost edge of the tree's canopy. When depicted on a map, the dripline appears as an irregularly shaped circle that follows the contour of the tree's canopy as seen from above.
"Native Riparian tree" is a native tree within thirty (30) feet of the edge of a creek bank or a native tree beyond thirty (30) feet but in such proximity to a creek bank that it requires or tolerates soil moisture levels in excess of that available in adjacent uplands. "Native tree" means a tree indigenous to the local oak woodland, chaparral, grassland or riparian habitats including, but not limited to, valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggi, white oak (Quercus garryana), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), California bay (Umbellularia californica), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophylumm), buckeye (Aesculus California), white later (Alnus rhombifolia), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), flowing ash (Fraxinus dipetala), Oregon ash (Fraxicus latifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (Saxis laevigata), western dogwood (Cornus sericea), California hazelnut (Corylus californica), black walnut (Juglans hindsii), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus).
"Professional arborist" means a person certified as an arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture or a person who, as determined by the Director, is equally qualified in the field of arboriculture.
"Protected perimeter" means the area around the tree within the dripline plus a tenfoot-wide strip of ground surrounding the dripline. "Protected tree" means a live tree located on public or private property (including within a public or private right-of-way or easement) meeting one or more of the following standards designations listed in Schedule 17.21.1:

1. A tree located on an assessor's parcel upon which there is an existing structure, which is of the following species and which has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than twelve (12) inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade:
valley oak (Quercus lobata), live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), white oak (Quercus garryana), canyon oak (Quercus chrysolepis), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii);

2. A tree that is located on a vacant or undeveloped assessor's parcel and has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six (6) inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade, unless it is a tree identified on the Disallowed Plant List adopted by City Council resolution;

3. A native riparian tree with a trunk diameter of four inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade or a multi-trunk native riparian tree with a cross-sectional area of all trunks equal to a cross-section area of a single stem of four inches at 4.5 feet above its natural grade;

4. A replacement tree planted as restitution for an act in violation of this chapter;

5. A tree that is located in the DC (downtown commercial) or DO (downtown office) district and has a trunk diameter equal to or greater than six (6) inches G.1.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree at 4.5 feet above natural grade, unless it is a tree identified on the Disallowed Plant List adopted by City Council resolution.

Schedule 17.21.1
Protected Tree Designations
# Location Type of Tree
Trunk Diameter
Requirement at 4.5
Feet Above Natural
Grade
1 On a developed
parcel (with a
structure)
- Valley Oak (Quercus lobata)
- Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
- Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii)
- White Oak (Quercus garryana)
- Canyon Oak (Quercus
chrysolepis)
- Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii)
- Interior Live Oak (Quercus
wislizenii)
≥ 12 inches
2 On a vacant or
undeveloped parcel,
or on a parcel within a
downtown district
identified in Chapter

17.8 Any Tree not identified on the
Disallowed Plant List ≥ 6 inches
3 Near the edge of a
creek bank (see
“Native Riparian
Tree” definition)
Native Riparian Tree
Single-trunk ≥ 4 inches
or
Multi-trunk with
combined crosssectional area ≥ a
single stem of 4 inches
4 Any location
Replacement Tree planted as
restitution for a violation of tree
removal regulations or as a
condition of approval for a
development project
Any size
"Remove" means to cut down a tree or relocate a tree.

17.21.3 Permit required for removal or destruction of a protected tree.

A. When Required. No person may remove or destroy a protected tree without a Category I or Category II permit as provided in Sections 17.21.4 and 17.21.5.

G.1.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree B. Exceptions. A permit is not required in the following circumstances if documentation or direct communication with the Planning Department is provided by the appropriate authority identifying the reason for removal and location of trees to be removed:

1. When a hazardous or dangerous condition requires immediate action to protect life or property;

2. Under emergency conditions when ordered by a fire official, the Public Works Director, Parks and Recreation Director or City Manager;

3. For a city project on city property or for a city project within the public rightof-way;

4. To maintain a firebreak as required by state law;

54. To maintain an unobstructed flow of water for flood control safety in creek beds and waterways as determined by the City Engineer;

65. When required in writing by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District for Fire Code compliance; following consultation with the Planning Director, who will annually make available to the City Council data regarding how many times and where this exception is invoked; and

76. When alternationalteration, removal, or destruction of a protected tree is required for compliance with any local, federal, or state law.; and

7. When alteration, removal, or destruction of a protected tree is required at a specified property to retain or obtain insurance coverage.

The applicability of an exception under this section in no way exempts activity from other regulatory requirements (e.g., City encroachment permit requirement) addressing slope stability, water quality, and other issues.; nor does it exempt activity from property instrument restrictions (e.g., the terms of conservation and open space easements.)

17.21.4 Permit Category I—Protected trees on properties not involving a development application.

A. Permit Required. A person who desires to remove or destroy a protected tree from a property upon which grading, building or development is not proposed, shall file an application on a form provided by the city, together with the fee fixed by resolution of the City Council.

B. Application. The application shall identify the location, species and diameter of each protected tree to be removed or destroyed; the application shall contain a statement of the reason the permit is requested; and shall contain other supplemental information as may be necessary to properly review an application, such as the written recommendation of a professional arborist concerning the health and quality of the tree in question and possible alternative actions.

G.1.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree C. Director Review. The Director shall inspect the tree and review the application. The Director may refer the application to the Planning Commission and may require such additional information considered necessary.

D. Decision-Maker Determination. The decision-maker shall approve or disapprove the application to remove or destroy a protected tree. The decision-maker shall consider the following factors:

1. The effect of tree removal or destruction on shade, views, privacy, fire safety, soil erosion and flow of surface water;

2. The number, species, size and location of other protected trees to remain in the area.

E. Permit Conditions. The permit may include reasonable conditions such as replacement in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 17.21.5.F.2 or moving the tree to a suitable location on the site.

F. Expiration of Permit. A permit is valid for one year from date of issuance unless a longer period is stated in the permit. If the applicant does not begin work before the expiration date, the permit is void. Once work authorized by a permit is begun, it shall be expeditiously pursued to completion.

17.21.5 Permit Category II—Protected trees on property involving a development application project.

A. Permit Required. A person applying for a building or grading permit, or an application which may subsequently require a building or grading permit, on a lot with a protected tree shall concurrently apply for a tree permit if construction related activity may remove or destroy a protected tree.

B. Application. The application shall contain the following information on the form provided by the Planning Department together with the fee fixed by resolution of the City Council:

1. A site plan map showing all protected trees on the property by trunk location and diameter, tree species and an accurate outline of each tree's dripline.

The site plan shall indicate whether each protected tree will be altered, removed, destroyed, relocated or protected.

2. Justification statement setting forth the reason for proposed alteration, removal, relocation or destruction of any protected tree.

3. Other pertinent information required by the Director.

C. Development Coordination. The application shall be reviewed with the development project application. A development project could be a project subject to discretionary permit, such as design review, or ministerial project subject only to a building permit.

G.1.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree D. Standards. In addition to the factors and guidelines set forth in Subsection

17.21.4.D, a permit shall be granted or denied based on the following factors and guidelines consistent with actions taken on the concurrent development application:

1. The necessity for destruction or removal in order to construct an improvement that allows reasonable economic enjoyment of private property;

2. The extent to which a proposed improvement may be modified to preserve and protect a protected tree;

3. The extent to which a change in the natural grade within the protected perimeter may be modified to maintain and preserve a protected tree.

E. Conditions of Approval. Each permit may require as a condition of approval:

1. If a protected tree proposed for removal can be relocated, the applicant shall move the tree to a suitable location on a site shown on the approved plans.

2. The applicant shall guarantee the health and vigor of each protected tree required to be preserved during the construction process and for two years after construction is certified as complete.

3. The applicant shall replace a protected tree that dies during the guarantee period in accordance with the tree replacement provisions of subsection F of this section.

4. The applicant shall comply with care requirements of subsection G of this section.

F. Protected Tree Replacement. An applicant shall replace a protected tree in accordance with the following standards:

1. For each six inches or fraction thereof of the aggregate diameter of trees approved for destruction or removal, the applicant shall plant 1 native tree with a diameter no less than 0.75 inches. One-third of the replacement tree requirement may be fulfilled by planting native shrubs that mature at a height no less than five feet. The applicant may substitute a larger number of smaller trees or a smaller number of larger trees if approved by the decision-maker based on a finding that tree replacement will be more beneficial to the health and vigor of all trees on the property.

2. If the development site cannot accommodate the replacement trees, with the written approval of the decision-maker and the property owner, the applicant may plant the replacement trees on public or private property located in Orinda. Alternatively, the applicant may make an in lieu payment of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) for each replacement tree otherwise required. All in lieu payments shall be used for city landscape-related projects.

G. Care of Protected Trees. In order to protect each protected tree on a site where grading or building is to take place, an applicant may, at the discretion of the decision-maker, be required to meet the following requirements:

G.1.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree

1. Before starting, the applicant shall securely fence off every protected tree or grouping of protected trees at the protected perimeter. The fence shall remain continuously in place for the duration of work undertaken in connection with the building or grading permit. The fenced area may not be used as a storage area or altered or disturbed except as may be permitted by the decisionmaker.

2. If the proposed development or work on-site encroaches upon the protected perimeter of a protected tree, the applicant shall take special measures, as approved by the decision-maker, to allow tree roots to obtain oxygen, water and nutrients as needed.

3. An authorized excavation, filling or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter of a tree shall be minimized and subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the decision-maker.

4. No significant change in existing ground level may be made within the dripline of a protected tree.

5. No burning or use of equipment with an open flame may occur near or within the protected perimeter.

6. All brush, earth and debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.

7. No oil, gas, chemical or other substance that may be harmful to a tree may be stored or dumped within the protected perimeter of a protected tree or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the protected perimeter of a tree.

8. Trenching for utilities shall avoid interfering with roots of protected trees wherever possible. If complete avoidance of the root zone is impractical, a tunnel shall be made below the roots. A trench shall be consolidated to serve as many units as possible. Trenching and tunneling within the protected perimeter shall be avoided to the extent possible and shall be done only under the on-site supervision of a professional arborist.

9. No concrete, asphalt or other impervious paving shall be placed within the protected perimeter of a protected tree. No supplementary irrigation shall occur within the protected perimeter of a native oak.

H. Expiration of Permit. A permit is valid for the same period as the building or grading permit. If the applicant does not begin work before the expiration date, the permit is void.

17.21.6 Appeal.

A person may appeal the decision to grant or deny a protected tree permit within the time and manner set forth in Chapter 17.43.

G.1.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree

17.21.7 Reserved

17.21.8 Restitution and replacement of protected trees.

Protected trees are valuable assets to the city and, as a result of the death or damage of a protected tree without benefit of a permit, the public should be compensated. A person who removes or destroys a protected tree in violation of this chapter shall replace each tree removed or destroyed, in accordance with each of the following conditions:

A. Replacement trees in at least twenty-four- (24) inch boxes shall be planted in the following ratio: two replacement trees for each six inches or fraction thereof of the diameter of each tree removed or destroyed.

B. Each replacement tree shall be of an appropriate species as determined by the decision-maker.

C. Each replacement tree shall be planted on the site where the tree was destroyed or removed unless the site cannot accommodate the replacement trees, in which case the property owner shall make an in-lieu payment of six hundred seventy-five dollars ($675.00), adjusted for the cost of living from year 2002 under the Bureau of Labor Standards Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose Area, for each replacement tree otherwise required.

D. The decision-maker may impose requirements to ensure a replacement tree's health for up to two years and may authorize the planting of a lesser number of larger trees or a larger number of smaller trees than specified in this section if either will be more beneficial to the health and vigor of all trees on the property.

17.21.9 Enforcement.

The destruction or removal of a protected tree without the required permit constitutes a continuing violation of this chapter and a separate violation shall occur each day from the act of destruction or removal until restitution is made as required in Section 17.28.8. A person who violates the requirements of this chapter shall be subject to enforcement as described in Title 19 of this code.

17.21.10 Nonliability of city.

Nothing in this chapter imposes liability upon the city or upon its officers or employees or relieves the owner or occupant of private property from the duty to keep in safe condition any tree and shrub upon that private property or within a public right-ofway or easement upon or adjacent to that property.

G.1.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 25-03 (Version B) Updating Orinda Municipal Code Chapter 17.21 - Tree Management (3572 : 2025 Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree G.1.c
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: PC Resolution 25-02 Recommending City Council Approval Regarding Zoning Text Amendments Related to Chapter 17.21 - Tree City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: G.1
Date: January 12, 2021
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance 21-01 Updating the City’s Tree Management Rules (Chapter 17.21) and Resolution 68-20 adopting the City of Orinda Disallowed Plant List RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council take public testimony, provide feedback, and introduce Ordinance 21-01 to update the City’s Tree Management Rules (Chapter

17.21) as well as adopt Resolution 68-20 adopting a City of Orinda Disallowed Plant List.

BACKGROUND:

With increased awareness of wildfire risks and the recent adoption of a new Fire Code, some Orinda residents have expressed concern with the City’s Tree Management regulations. During the Capital Improvement Plan and budget discussions for the Fiscal Year 2020/21, the Council requested staff prepare draft amendments to the Tree Management provisions of the code for consideration by the Council no later than fall of 2020.

In response to resident concerns, particularly that requiring a discretionary permit for removal of certain trees is inconsistent with fire prevention goals, staff has worked with the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) on amendments to the City’s Tree Management regulations (Orinda Municipal Code §17.21.1). Staff is also proposing several “clean-up” edits to this section of the code.

On November 24, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 20-02, unanimously recommending the proposed changes to the Tree Management Ordinance included within Ordinance 20-05.

On December 15, 2020, the City Council continued this matter to January 12, 2021 after providing direction to staff. The items raised by the City Council are summarized and addressed below. For additional background information, please reference the December 15, 2020 staff report, which has been included as an attachment to this report.

DISCUSSION:

At the December 15, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council identified several items to be evaluated further prior to introducing Ordinance 20-05. These items are summarized and discussed below.

1. Updated MOFD Exception Language
G.1.d
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: January 12, 2021 Staff Report (3572 : 2025 Tree Management Ordinance amendments) Council Members raised concerns about the proposed tree removal permit exception for trees required to be removed by MOFD. Specifically, the Council expressed concern about the exception potentially eliminating too many native trees, which could detract from Orinda’s semi-rural character. Additionally, due to miscommunication by the City, MOFD staff was not in attendance at the December 15 hearing.

In response to the City Council’s comments and in coordination with MOFD staff, City staff has updated the proposed exception language to limit the exemption to trees required for removal for Fire Code compliance following consultation with the Planning Director.

Staff anticipates that the most common applications of the proposed exception would be:
a) for mature oak trees that would become unstable when pruned away from roofs and chimneys; and
b) some trees with trunk diameters between 6 and 12 inches located on undeveloped parcels, for the purpose of creating fire breaks.

In both of the instances described above, tree removal may be required by MOFD for compliance with the Fire Code. The Planning Director, as written in the updated draft ordinance, would make data available to the City Council annually regarding how many times this exception is invoked.

MOFD is planning on having a staff member attend the January 12, 2021 City Council meeting for this item.

2. Updated Disallowed Plant List Resolution
Councilmember Gee requested the Disallowed Plant List Resolution include language clarifying the following:
a) disallowed plants are not acceptable in a new development application b) use of disallowed plants is highly discouraged on existing yards in Orinda as well
The Resolution has been updated to include both of these clarifications.

3. Slope Stability Requirements for Trees Excepted from Permit Requirements Vice Mayor Fay raised the issue of slope stability when mature trees are removed using an exception to a tree removal permit. Staff has added text to the exception section of the Tree Management Ordinance making it clear that applicability of an exception does not exempt activity from regulatory requirements (such as an encroachment permit) or addressing slope stability, water quality and other issues.

G.1.d
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: January 12, 2021 Staff Report (3572 : 2025 Tree Management Ordinance amendments) It should be noted that while encroachment permits may be required for certain excepted tree removals, many excepted tree removals occur on private property.

In these instances, the property owner and/or agency performing the work would need to address slope stability. Much of PG&E’s electric line clearance work involves tree trimming rather than removal. Tree removal is more commonly performed as part of safety work associated with underground utilities, such as gas lines. Utility companies are likely already mindful of maintaining slope stability around their infrastructure. Additionally, utility companies generally try to avoid locating infrastructure in areas where slope stability is likely to be an issue.

Accordingly, staff believes the new draft language adequately addresses the slope stability issue.

4. Post-Adoption Publicity
As suggested by several members of the public and City Councilmembers, staff will work with local nurseries to help get the word out about the City’s Disallowed Plant List. Staff plans to provide the list along with and an accompanying cover letter to local nurseries, asking for their help with getting the word out about the list to the community.

Staff will also prepare a handout that summarizes the tree ordinance in plain English along with accompanying handouts. This education component of the tree ordinance will clearly call out what trees are protected in Orinda and explain when an arborist report is needed and why it is needed. Staff would make the handout available to property owners as well as developers (early on in the development process).

5. Non-Native Plant List from Friends of Orinda Creeks
Councilmember Miller provided a list from Friends of Orinda Creeks of locally native plants prior to the December 15, 2020 hearing. The list includes 14 trees that are native to Orinda. All 14 of the trees on the list are currently protected on undeveloped lots if they have a trunk diameter greater than or equal to 6 inches.

All 14 trees are also currently protected as riparian trees when they are located within 30 feet of the edge of a creek bank. (For projects that are subject to discretionary review, the City has the ability to request a consulting biologist perform evaluation of project impacts on riparian trees, among other analysis.

This is a time in which project impacts to native riparian trees would be evaluated.)
Additionally, 13 of the trees from the list from Friends of Orinda Creeks are included in the existing/proposed tree ordinance definition of native tree (only Acer negundo [box elder] is not). Box elder trees would be protected in a riparian zone because they fall under the umbrella definition of riparian tree. In addition to their frequent status as protected trees, native trees are required to be planted as replacement trees for protected trees authorized for removal (unless an in lieu fee payment is instead approved by the project decision maker).

G.1.d
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: January 12, 2021 Staff Report (3572 : 2025 Tree Management Ordinance amendments) Staff believes the list provided by Friends of Orinda Creeks has valuable information that the City should consider incorporating into a separate list as part of future creek protection and restoration efforts. One such effort is the creek component of the Downtown Precise Plan, which is currently being created.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff received a public comment regarding the proposed modification to the City’s protected tree definition on January 4, 2021 (Attachment D). The commenter raised concerns about the ordinance no longer protecting trees which are designated to be protected on an approved development plan. Another member of the public has raised similar concerns at previous public hearings. The text in question (proposed for deletion) is included below.

Trees required as part of an approved development plan would continue to be protected if specified by the project conditions of approval. The purpose of the proposed modification is to eliminate redundancy and more clearly specify which trees are protected during development plan review. Because approved development plans are typically accompanied by landscaping plans, the existing definition could be interpreted to protect every tree shown on the landscaping plan. This would include ornamental trees as well as trees planted for the purposes of privacy. Staff believes it would be more appropriate to protect trees (and shrubs) through protect specific conditions of approval rather than with the existing, broad definition.

As an example, a new residence could be approved with a condition that trees and shrubs be planted along the rear yard property line to preserve privacy. The condition of approval would provide protection for the trees and shrubs. If the trees and shrubs are proposed for removal in the future, this would likely be considered a major protect modification subject to review at a public hearing. Or if the trees and shrubs are removed without approval, a code enforcement case would be opened. Alternatively, neighbors could work out vegetation maintenance privately.

NEXT STEPS
If the ordinance is introduced as proposed, it would then return on the City Council Agenda for the meeting of February 2, 2021 for a second reading. If approved by a majority of the City Council on that date, the ordinance would take effect 30 days later, on March 2, 2021.

After revisions are adopted, staff also plans to create an illustrated brochure which explains the tree removal permit requirement in plain English, with illustrative graphics, as well as work with local nurseries to get the word out about the City’s Disallowed Plant List.

G.1.d
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: January 12, 2021 Staff Report (3572 : 2025 Tree Management Ordinance amendments)

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Ordinance 21-01 Updating the City’s Tree Management Rules (Chapter 17.21) B. Resolution 68-20 Adopting Disallowed Plant List
C. Planning Commission Resolution 20-02 Recommendation to City Council regarding Amendments to OMC Chapter 17.21
D. December 15, 2020 Staff Report
E. Public Comment - Peter Van Den Broeck (1.4.21)
Respectfully Submitted by:

Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
Prepared By: Adam Foster, Senior Planner
Approved by:

G.1.d
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: January 12, 2021 Staff Report (3572 : 2025 Tree Management Ordinance amendments) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: April 7, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Funding Request from Infrastructure Committee RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction on the funding request from the Infrastructure Committee.

BACKGROUND:

In 2024, the City Council established the Infrastructure Committee, composed of Mayor Malkani and Councilmember Gee. The purpose of the Committee is to evaluate options for better integrating and managing infrastructure and make recommendations to the City Council. The Committee has been meeting regularly since April 2024.

On June 16, 2024, the City Council received a report on the Committee’s work plan.

The City Council asked for some modifications to the work plan and brought those back for the City Council’s adoption on July 2, 2024 (see Attachment A).

As part of the work plan, the Infrastructure Committee was tasked to consider a “needs assessment opinion survey of residents living on private roads”. The Committee, at its December 2024 meeting, discussed the survey and directed Staff to identify firms capable of developing a questionnaire that would be unique to each household on private roads.

DISCUSSION:

At its February 2025 meeting, the Infrastructure Committee received a report from the City Manager, who was tasked with identifying firms and getting costs estimates for developing and implementing a questionnaire. The City Manager identified two firms capable of conducting this outreach and provided cost estimates for those services.

Specifically, the City Manager recommended that the Committee consider working with FM3, a firm that provides strategic advice to local agencies based upon opinion research conducted. FM3 submitted a proposal to the City Manager and the costs for conducting a questionnaire for each household with a unique identifier to ensure that the responses are balanced and representative of the individuals who live on private streets.

FM3 submitted a proposal (Attachment B) to the City Manager with costs for the work ranging from $17,000 to $29,800. The City Manager would recommend that the City Council consider spending approximately $22,500 on research, which would include matching residents with established voter registration lists in order to contact them via H.1
Packet Pg. 134
text or email, as well as including a mailing of postcards to each address on those streets.

Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to the Committee on the proposed expenditure. A representative of FM3 will be present at the meeting to answer any questions. However, Staff notes that the substance of the questionnaire has not been developed. Residents who have attended the Committee meetings have shared their desire to have those questions vetted by the Committee at a noticed meeting for public input.

NEXT STEPS:

If the City Council approves the expenditure, the City Manager will proceed to enter into an agreement with FM3 under her signing authority. The Committee will then work with FM3 and Staff on the construct of the questionnaire, ensuring that the topics and questions to gain needed insight are covered.

FISCAL IMPACT:

With the cost of the proposed work up to $29,800, Staff recommends funding would come from Fund 700 which has sufficient available resources for this expenditure. No additional appropriation is necessary at this time.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Infrastructure Committeee Work Plan - Final as of July 2, 2024 B. FM3 - Orinda Roads Questionnaire Proposal
Respectfully Submitted by:

Linda Smith
City Manager
Prepared By: Linda Smith, City Manager
Approved by:

H.1
Packet Pg. 135
City of Orinda
Council Infrastructure
Committee Initial Work Program
Outline Updated - June 25, 2024
Introduction:

On February 6, 2024, in response to a Matters Initiated by Mayor Gee, the City Council approved the formation of an ad hoc City Council committee to address infrastructure matters related to roads and storm drains. The Council Members appointed were Mayor Gee and Vice Mayor Malkani. The approval included a request for the Infrastructure Committee to return to the City Council with a work program.

The Infrastructure Committee held an initial meeting on April 17, 2024, and a copy of the agenda for that meeting is attached. That meeting was well attended by many Orinda residents and primarily served as a listening session to inform the Committee of the residents’ issues and concerns. The second meeting was held on June 4, 2024, and the main topic of discussion was an Initial Work Program. Presented here is an updated outline of the Initial Work Program as proposed by the Infrastructure Committee and as modified based on a City Council discussion and review conducted on June 18, 2023.

Two primary tracks are listed below with these two areas being iterative. The task results will inform the choice set, and the possible alternatives will inform what tasks are pursued. The order in which items are listed does not denote priority.

Background & Education – Explore constraints, existing resources, and current rules/regs to
develop a list of possible solutions. Review and discuss:

Updated roads map
Longer-term funding and financial resources
Resolution 59-18 private road acceptance policy
Lay of the land (stormwater law, drainage, owner responsibilities/liabilities, changes in law) Deliverable: Range of possible alternatives with some sense of which ones, if any, seem worth pursuing.

Tasks - Develop timelines and costs for tasks
Assess private roads via PTAP and Streetsaver
Map the entire city storm drain system, public and private Homeowner Guide Update
Needs Assessment opinion survey of private road homeowners Explore Ideas to Assist Private Road Neighborhoods
Develop and Discuss Possible Options and Tools Balancing Needs Between Public and Private Roads
Create a formal knowledge base for all stakeholders with well-organized, summary information to reduce
confusion and/orfuture need for a task force.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Infrastructure Committeee Work Plan - Final as of July 2, 2024 (3578 : Funding Request from Infrastructure Committee) 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 350 | Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 828-1183 | Fax: (310) 453-6562
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020 | Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 451-9521 | Fax: (510) 451-0384
TO Linda Smith
City of Orinda
FROM Dave Metz and Miranda Everitt
FM3 Research
RE: Proposal to Develop, Field and Analyze a Questionnaire on Orinda's Privately-Owned Roads DATE December 20, 2024
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) is pleased to submit this brief proposal to conduct opinion research on Orinda's privately-owned roads. We offer a range of options to approaching this project below.

We can approach data collection in three ways: the most cost-effective is online only, obtaining interviews via email and text-cued invitations. Another option is to invite participation by mail -- either a letter from the City or a postcard from FM3 -- which would direct respondents to the survey online. The most expansive approach would supplement the approaches above with some phone interviews (via cell and landline).

The base cost assumes a City-provided sample including address, cell and/or email, with online data collection only. You may consider additional options to broaden the potential pool of respondents (especially if City databases lack sufficient contact information), including:
• Matching the City-provided sample to commercial data sources to obtain additional email and cell information; and/or
• Matching it to the file of registered Orinda voters (which would include accurate and up-to-date contact information but exclude any household without a registered voter).

You may also consider additional contact methods to reach people who may not have available cell or email information, or who may prefer other contact methods for participation:
• A letter from the City with an invitation to each potential respondent; • Having FM3 send a postcard to every relevant property with a unique code to participate in the survey; and/or • The addition of live phone interviews for a subset of up to 200 respondents.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: FM3 - Orinda Roads Questionnaire Proposal (3578 : Funding Request from Infrastructure Committee)

The table below outlines a range of options with their additional costs for surveys at a variety of lengths.

Costs for a Questionnaire with 400 Respondents
Option
Additional Cost
12 Minutes 15 Minutes 18 Minutes
Base Cost $17,000 $18,500 $20,000
Commercial Match $800, regardless of questionnaire length Voter Sample / Match $1,500, regardless of questionnaire length City Letter No additional cost from FM3
Postcard Invitations $4,000, regardless of questionnaire length Additional cost for replacing
up to 200 online interviews
with phones
$5,500 $6,500 $7,500
So, given various potential methodologies, the price for 400 interviews would range between $17,000 and $29,800. Prices could be reduced with smaller sample sizes of 200 or 300 responses.

Again, there are many ways you can approach this research project. We are happy to discuss and modify this proposal in order to best meet your research and budget goals.

If you have any questions or if there is any further information we can provide, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Dave Metz, Partner & President
(510) 451-9521 (Office)
[email protected]
Miranda Everitt, Senior Vice President
(419) 944-9616 (Cell)
[email protected]
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: FM3 - Orinda Roads Questionnaire Proposal (3578 : Funding Request from Infrastructure Committee) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: April 7, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Update on Plans for the City's 40th Anniversary RECOMMENDATION:

Receive update and provide any direction to staff.

BACKGROUND
The City of Orinda was incorporated on July 1, 1985, and is approaching its 40th Anniversary.

At their meeting on February 18, 2025, the City Council discussed ideas for celebrating the 40th Anniversary and appointed Councilmembers Riley and Hoxie to serve on an ad hoc 40th Anniversary Council Subcommittee.

DISCUSSION
The Subcommittee met to discuss ideas and then reached out to community groups such as the Orinda Association and the Orinda Historical Society to gauge their level of involvement. Their recommendations include incorporating a Civic Pride theme and focusing on honoring the City’s founders. The ideas center primarily around hosting a reception at the July 1st City Council Meeting and incorporating the City’s 40th celebration into the 4th of July Parade and Festival. More specifically, the following tasks are being explored by Staff:
• Reach out to City founders to have them “save the date” for both July 1st and July 4 th, and discuss the possibility of participating in an oral history interview. • Collaborate with the Historical Society on hosting a booth after the parade, decorating their display windows, and offering historical tours in the fall. • Procuring a trolley or cable car for the parade to accommodate City Council, City founders, and committee members who campaigned for incorporation. • Work on a City anniversary logo for printing and social media. • Collaborate with a vendor to design streetlamp banners for display throughout the year, excluding the 4th of July, to accommodate Orinda Association banners. • Promote awareness through the City’s publications, social media sites, and other channels.
• Order banners and giveaways (t-shirts, pins, and frisbees – as examples) for use and distribution during the parade and afterward.
• Coordinate with Orinda Association to include a City-sponsored carnival game in the Park to coincide with the old-fashioned carnival theme. • At the July 1, 2025, City Council meeting, honor the founders by presenting a proclamation and hosting an Ice Cream Social event.

H.2
Packet Pg. 139
• Work with the Orinda Association to consider their request to have a tent or shade canopy(ies) at the Park festivities.
• Work on displays at the Community Center to call attention to the 100th Anniversary of the building.

FISCAL IMPACT
While specific costs are currently unknown, Staff estimates that the total cost could be kept under $10,000 and could be included in the 2025/26 Budget.

Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.2
Packet Pg. 140