Orinda City Council
July 15, 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
Tuesday, July 15, 2025
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 07.15.25
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 07.15.25
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. Proclamation Designating July 2025 as Park and Recreation Month in the City of Orinda
E. PUBLIC FORUM
The public forum provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of the City Council that is not on the agenda.

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

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
F.1. Minutes Approval
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. June 10, 2025 Special Workshop

2. June 17, 2025 Closed Session

3. June 17, 2025 Regular Meeting

4. July 1, 2025 Special Meeting
F.2. Adoption of Two-Year Strategic Plan
Recommendation:

Adopt the City of Orinda's Two-Year Strategic Plan.

F.3. Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Regional Advocacy Agreement with the City of Lafayette, the Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs.

F.4. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution to Adopt a General Plan Amendment to Reclassify Wilder Road as a Collector Road in Table

2.1 Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 3 07.15.25
Adopt Resolution No. 28-25, Amending the General Plan to Include Wilder Road as a Collector Road in Table 2.1 "City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification."
F.5. Public Hearing to Consider Vacation of Public Right-of-Way for a Portion of Wilder Road
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 39-25, Approving the Vacation of the Public Rightof-Way on a 24,561 Square-Foot Portion of Wilder Road at its Southern Terminus, and Reserving Necessary Easements.

F.6. Declaration of Exempt Surplus Land at Southern Terminus of Wilder Road and Authorization to Transfer to the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 42-25 Declaring 24,561 Square Feet at the Southern Terminus of Wilder Road as “Exempt Surplus Land” and Authorizing the Transfer to the Orinda Geological Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”).

F.7. Award Construction Contract to Miksis Services Inc. for Drainage Facilities Improvement (CIP #4111)
Recommendation:

Award a construction contract to Miksis Services Inc. for an amount of $123,105 for storm drain lining on Orinda Way, authorize a contingency of 15%, and authorize City Manager to execute access and cost sharing agreements with Chevron USA Inc. for said work.

F.8. Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split at 88 Sunnyside Lane
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 40-25, Approving Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split at 88 Sunnyside Lane, Orinda, CA.

F.9. Remove Existing “No Left Turn” Sign from southbound Moraga Way at Ivy Drive (North) Intersection and Install a New “No Right Turn” Sign at southbound Ivy Drive and Ardith Drive Intersection Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 4 07.15.25
Approve Resolution 41-25 (Traffic Order 238) to authorize the following:
1) Remove existing “No Left Turn” signs at southbound Moraga Way/Ivy Drive (north) intersection and Rescind Resolution 15-02 (Traffic Order 115);
2) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Southwaite Court on school days to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., Weekdays Only and Rescind Resolution 41-12 (Traffic Order 155);
3) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Whitehall Drive on school days to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., weekdays only and Rescind Resolution 42-12 (Traffic Order 156); and
4) Install new “No Right Turn” sign at southbound Ivy Drive at Ardith Drive restricting turn movements on school days from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., weekdays only.

G. PUBLIC HEARING
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Study Session: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - an Implementing Action of the Housing Element
Recommendation:

Receive a report on the Economic Feasibility and Market Study for a potential inclusionary housing ordinance. Provide direction on preliminary recommendations.

H.2. Correspondence from Nicholas Waranoff Regarding Brown Act and Settlement of Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE) v.

City of Orinda Litigation
Recommendation:

Review, discuss, and provide direction to staff as appropriate regarding correspondence from Nicholas Waranoff.

H.3. Consider Amendments to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (“SSTOC”) Bylaws
Recommendation:

Approve Resolution No. 43-25 Amending the Bylaws for the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission.

H.4. Agreement with Ladris for Evacuation and Wildfire Modeling Services and Software
Recommendation:

Approve a one-year agreement with Ladris for evacuation and wildfire modeling services and software, approve a Budget Change Form #003- 26, and confirm the contract is exempt from competitive bidding.

City Council
Agenda Page 5 07.15.25
H.5. Filling Vacancies on the Planning Commission, Arts in Public Places Committee, and Finance Advisory Committee
Recommendation:

Consider approval of the Mayor's recommendations for Planning Commission (Brenda Davis) and Arts in Public Places (Harmony Anderson) and provide direction on the appointment of Jay Selwitz to the Finance Advisory Committee.

H.6. Board of Forestry Update on Draft Regulations for Zone Zero Recommendation:

Receive the update on the Board of Forestry efforts to establish statewide zone zero regulations and provide direction to Staff, as needed.

I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, August 19, 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 City Council
Agenda Page 6 07.15.25
website at www.cityoforinda.org. Unless otherwise noted, City Council actions include a determination that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply. ~ Accessible Public Meetings ~
The City of Orinda will provide special assistance for disabled citizens to participate in public meetings upon advance notice. If you need auxiliary hearing aid or sign language assistance at least two (2) working days advanced notice is necessary. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, Ca 94563 or 925.253.4221 or [email protected] with the following information: name, mailing address, phone number and type of assistance requested.

PROCLAMATION
Designating July 2025 as Park and Recreation Month in the City of Orinda WHEREAS Parks and Recreation is an integral part of communities throughout this country, including Orinda; and
WHEREAS Parks and Recreation promotes health and wellness, improving the physical and mental health of people who live near parks; and WHEREAS Parks and Recreation promotes time spent in nature, which positively impacts mental health by increasing cognitive performance and well-being, and alleviating illnesses such as depression, attention deficit disorders, and Alzheimer’s; and
WHEREAS Parks and Recreation encourages physical activities by providing space for popular sports, hiking trails, swimming pools and many other activities designed to promote active lifestyles; and
WHEREAS Park and Recreation programming and education activities, such as out of-school time programming, youth sports and environmental education, are critical to childhood development; and
WHEREAS Parks and Recreation increases a community’s economic prosperity through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base, increased tourism, the attraction and retention of businesses, and crime reduction; and WHEREAS Parks and Recreation is fundamental to the environmental well-being of our community; and
WHEREAS our Parks and natural Recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors; and
WHEREAS the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month; and
WHEREAS Orinda California recognizes the benefits derived from Parks and Recreation resources.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ORINDA that July is recognized as Park and Recreation Month in Orinda, California.

Dated this 15th day of July, 2025
Latika Malkani, Orinda Mayor
D.1
Packet Pg. 7
Communication: Proclamation Designating July 2025 as Park and Recreation Month in the City of Orinda (ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.1
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Minutes Approval
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. June 10, 2025 Special Workshop

2. June 17, 2025 Closed Session

3. June 17, 2025 Regular Meeting

4. July 1, 2025 Special Meeting
BACKGROUND:

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

1. June 10, 2025 Special Workshop

2. June 17, 2025 Closed Session

3. June 17, 2025 Regular Meeting

4. July 1, 2025 Special Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2025
B. City Council Closed Session Minutes of June 17, 2025 C. City Council Minutes of June 17, 2025
D. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2025 Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.1
Packet Pg. 8
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 1 06.10.25
JUNE 10, 2025

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
4:00 P.M. – WORKSHOP – SARGE ROOM

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:

Mayor Malkani called the meeting to order at approximately 4:00 p.m.

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Cara Hoxie, Janet Riley Vice Mayor Brandyn Iverson, Mayor Latika Malkani
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None

2. PLEDGE OF ALLGIENCE

3. STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION
The City Council held a follow-up session to the Workshop conducted on May 6, 2025.

They reviewed the draft Strategic Planning Items for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27, discussed them, and gave feedback to the City Manager on the document's Downtown Development and Beautification and Community Engagement and Education sections.

D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) June 17, 2025

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
5:30 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
Mayor Malkani called the meeting to order and noted that all Councilmembers were present.

B. CLOSED SESSION

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters The Closed Session Matters were identified.

2. DESIGNATION OF AGENCY LABOR NEGOTIATORS – UNREPRESENTED

EMPLOYEE CITY ATTORNEY
Mayor Malkani and Vice Mayor Iverson were designated as the Agency Labor Negotiators for the Unrepresented Employee City Attorney.

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

4. CLOSED SESSION
a. CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, performance evaluation of City Attorney Osa Wolff.
b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, conference with the City’s designated labor negotiators (two City Councilmembers), City Attorney.
c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: ORINDANS FOR SAFE EMERGENCY EVACUATION v. City of Orinda, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N23-0579.

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

F. ADJOURNMENT
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Council Closed Session Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) City Council
Agenda Page 2 07.16.24
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 P.M.
_______________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Closed Session Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 7 06.17.25
JUNE 17, 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: Cara Hoxie, Janet Riley, Darlene Gee Mayor Latika Malkani, Vice Mayor Brandyn Iverson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Malkani
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Hoxie, 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
D.1. Historical Society Annual Report
Allison Burns from the Historical Society expressed gratitude to the nine-member Historical Society Board and highlighted their community outreach efforts, including school programs, downtown walks, events like the Glorietta Fun Fest and Trunk or Treat, and collaborations with neighboring historical societies. They recently changed their hours to Saturdays from 11 a.m.–1 p.m., are focusing on digitization and preservation efforts, and have secured grants for recording equipment, software, and a new scanner.

Their website, www.orindahistory.org, features historical content, including items from the 1940s. They’re working on oral histories, refreshing their website, and preparing for participating in the City’s 40th Anniversary. They also are interested in restoring the town’s historic train station from the 1890s to a more authentic state.

Ms. Burns thanked the City for its ongoing support and invited the public to visit and engage with the Historical Society.

Mayor Malkani and Councilmembers thanked Ms. Burns for her presentation and all the hard work of the Historical Society.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 7 06.17.25
City Manager Smith said she has discussed the 40th anniversary with Ms. Burns and is impressed with the work the Historical Society is doing and all of the great programs and events they are handling to support education and the history of Orinda.

Councilmembers congratulated Ms. Burns for the Historical Society’s achievements and in security and receiving various grants, which allows for significant progress, and asked to continue with the 3rd grade tours which kids love.

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

E. PUBLIC FORUM
There were no speakers, and Mayor Malkani stated the Council received one written comment from Nick Waranoff.

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

F.1. Minutes Approval
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. May 30, 2025 Special Closed Session

2. June 3, 2025 Regular Meeting
F.2. Annual Investment Policy Review and Delegation of Investment Authority
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 36-25 Approving an Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and Delegation of Authority to Make Investments.

F.3. Acceptance of the Library Parcel Tax Independent Review Annual Report for the Period Ending (June 30, 2024)
Recommendation:

Accept the Report for the period ending June 30, 2024.

F.4. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Orinda and Teamsters Local No. 856 and Approval of a Revision to the City's Personnel Rules Introductory Period
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 33-25, Approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Orinda and Teamsters Local No. 856 for the Period of July 1, 2025 - June 30, 2029, and adopt Resolution No. 34-25 Approving an Amendment of the Personnel Rules Introductory Period.

F.5. Revisions to the Unrepresented Employee Manual, Creation of New Job Classification, and Approval of Consolidated Salary Schedule F.1.c
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 7 06.17.25
Recommendation:

Take the following actions:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 35-25 Approving Revisions the Unrepresented Employee Manual;
2) Adopt Resolution No. 37-25 Approving the Assistant to the City Manager Classification and Salary Schedule;
3) Adopt Resolution No. 38-25, Approving an Updated Consolidated Salary Schedule; and
4) Approve Budget Change Form #002-26
F.6. Amendments to Annual Contracts with Tripepi Smith, California Consulting and Townsend Public Affairs
Recommendation:

Approve amendments to contracts for Tripepi Smith, California Consulting and Townsend Public Affairs for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

MOTION by Vice Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Riley to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.1.2, F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5, and F.6. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

G. PUBLIC HEARING
G.1. Approval of the Master Fee Schedule
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 22-25 Approving the Master Fee Schedule.

Assistant City Manager Doug Alessio provided an update on the Master Fee Schedule, explaining its purpose and recent adjustments. Most fees were updated based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with the exception of 15 specific items highlighted in the staff report. Parks and Recreation and Police fees remained unchanged except for CPIbased updates, while Administration had minor changes for copying services. Planning Department fees saw additional adjustments.

The Regional Transportation Impact Fee, adjusted annually on January 1st, was incorporated into the schedule administratively, as it’s set by the Fee Authority. Mr.

Alessio noted that some fees linked to housing costs have slightly decreased this year.

If the Council adopts Resolution 22-25, the general fees will take effect on July 1, 2025, except for business registration fees, which will apply to registrations due after December 31, 2025. The Park Dedication fee will become effective 60 days after adoption, per state law. An automatic update to reflect the January 2026 Regional Transportation Fee increase will follow. Alessio made himself available for questions.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 7 06.17.25
Councilmember Hoxie asked whether the City always uses the same fee schedule or if new fees can be implemented. Mr. Alessio responded that some new fees are included in the current schedule and that, while a formal fee study hasn’t been done recently, one is planned. He noted that the City can propose new fees or remove existing ones at any time, subject to Council approval.

When asked if the City’s fees align with those in neighboring communities, Mr. Alessio explained that fees are based on the cost of providing services, which can differ between jurisdictions.

Councilmember Gee asked whether staff looked at the public comment regarding fees. It is along the same questioning of missing opportunities or that the City should have more fees.

City Manager Smith stated that she reviewed the email submitted and emphasized that the City's Housing Element update could lead to a significant population increase. This growth might eventually require evaluating impacts on services, such as staffing needs, space, and facility upgrades. Although staff will review these potential impacts— especially in light of 1,300 new housing units—there is currently no recommendation to proceed with changes.

Vice Mayor Iverson questioned the timing of imposing development fees, noting the challenge of charging fees before development occurs versus missing the opportunity afterward.

City Manager Smith responded that staff will evaluate whether population growth from Housing Element zoning changes will increase service needs. If so, they’ll assess staffing and space requirements and create a document to justify any facility expansions or modifications. The public facility fee could be created and applied to new development for their fair share of the impact of having the new service level required.

Councilmember Riley referred to a study that could be done to update fees and asked if that could explore a user fee study.

City Manager Smith said that a user fee study is about the cost of providing current services in the City.

Mr. Alessio explained that the City has two types of fees: development impact fees and general fees. General fees are charges for services provided to the public and are meant to recover the cost of those services. A user fee study determines these costs, and the City has historically based updates on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, he noted that at some point, the City should conduct a new, updated study.

Mayor Malkani opened the public hearing and public comment period, and there were no speakers. She noted for the record a written public comment was received from Nick Waranoff. She then closed the public hearing.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 7 06.17.25
MOTION by Councilmember Gee, and seconded by Councilmember Riley, to adopt Resolution 22-25 approving the Master Fee Schedule. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) vote.

H. POLICY MATTERS – None.

I. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Gee reported on the 2x2 Subcommittee meeting with MOFDS colleagues, noting Chief Isaacs provided an update on the State Forestry Department’s draft regulations regarding Zone Zero which are now out for public comment and available on the website. They also received an update on the regular annual enforcement which MOFD is busy with. They have a meeting tomorrow evening where they are looking at budget items to continue to add funding to their incentive programs with home hardening issues of mesh and gutter guards. They are also looking at funding additional inspectors.

She said the Mayor provided a good recap on the meeting with Senator Grayson, and they had updates about things in progress right now with maintenance work being done on the fuel breaks and prescribed burns. They discussed the Orinda Oaks area, and it was a good discussion. The next meeting will be held August 25th.

Mayor Malkani said she provided a report at the last Council meeting regarding the Senator Grayson meeting, and asked that the City Manager discuss Orinda Oaks Park.

Councilmember Hoxie reported that their student coming from the Czech Republic’s Visa is being held up by the Trump Student Visa prohibition. The student has been selected as well as a host family, except there is no Visa for her. The Committee has reached out to Senator DeSaulnier’s office and other legislators.

City Manager Smith stated she can speak with Councilmember Hoxie to see whether or not there is anything staff can do to support those efforts to try and get the student here.

Councilmember Hoxie said they have not had a 2x2 meeting since before the end of the school year, but now it is over so there is not anything new to report.

Councilmember Gee added that last week they had their Infrastructure Subcommittee meeting, and the Public Works Director gave an update on the storm drain mapping. They brainstormed a bit about getting additional participation in terms of people agreeing to let people on their property if that was needed. They also had some action items for outreach, and the other main topic was Dave Metz from FM3 there to talk about the draft questionnaire they are sending to folks that live on private roads to answer so they will have more data.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 7 06.17.25
Mayor Malkani reported Orinda Living magazine is having the current Mayor write a column or article which Councilmember Gee was involved in getting started. It is usually “feel good” items for the good of the City topics. She included the link for the storm drain survey and encouraged people to participate. There were many questions about SB 79 because it moved from the House to the Assembly with amendments, and Orinda has submitted a letter of opposition already.

J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Smith gave the following report:

City Hall will be closed Thursday, June 19th for Juneteenth, as well as every other Friday.

Next week, Opera in the Park is occurring on June 26th.

Paving work is starting throughout the City.

Earlier today, there was a prescribed burn in North Orinda that helped conduct some fuels mitigation work which went well. They have been in discussions with MOFD and it was mentioned at the 2x2 meeting last night there is a desire to also conduct a prescribed burn at Orinda Oaks which is something she is supportive of to get fuels down in important areas that will create an additional barrier around the 100-foot perimeter. Once that date becomes more formal, staff will notice the neighborhood to keep windows and doors shut.

The City’s fuels mitigation work is almost complete and work is finishing up on Brookwood Road.

SB 79 is now in the Assembly. The City has submitted its opposition letters to Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan in addition to their opposition in the Senate and it is being referred to Housing and Community Development and the City will be submitting its letter of opposition to that committee portal, as well. She is trying to reach out to the Assemblymember’s office.

K. MATTERS INITIATED
MOTION by Mayor Malkani, and seconded by Councilmember Hoxie, to agendize an update on State regulations on Zone Zero for the July 15, 2025 Council meeting.

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

L. CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Wolff announced that Item c would not need to be discussed in Closed Session as this has been completed, and the Council resumed its earlier Closed Session.

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS of Closed Session Matters - None

3. CLOSED SESSION

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
a. CITY ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, performance evaluation of City Attorney Osa Wolff.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 7 06.17.25
b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, conference with the City’s designated labor negotiators (two City Councilmembers), City Attorney. c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: ORINDANS FOR SAFE EMERGENCY EVACUATION v. City of Orinda, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No.

N23-0579.

M. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m. to the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 01, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City Council Minutes of June 17, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 5 07.01.25
JULY 1, 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. – SPECIAL MEETING– ORINDA LIBRARY AUDITORIUM
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Cara Hoxie, Janet Riley, Darlene Gee Mayor Latika Malkani, Vice Mayor Brandyn Iverson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Malkani
C. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY

1. Welcome and Recognition of City’s Founders – Mayor Malkani Mayor Malkani welcomed everyone to the City’s special meeting held 40 years after the City was incorporated on July 1, 1985. She announced the founders of the City, as Bobbie Landers, Joe Harb, Bill Dabel, Aldo Guidotti, and Richard Heggie.

She also acknowledged subsequent Mayors and Councilmembers who have served over the years, as Linda Knebel, Joyce Hawkins, Greg Wheatland, Sarge Littlehale, Alan Tabor, Laura Abrams, Amy Worth, Bill Judge, Steve Glazer, Victoria Smith, Sue Severson, Thomas McCormick, Dean Orr, Eve Phillips, Inga Miller, Dennis Fay, and Nick Kosla. She then recognized the City’s current Councilmembers Darlene Gee, Brandyn Iverson, Janet Riley, and Cara Hoxie.

Mayor Malkani also recognized and thanked the many City volunteers that have served on the City’s Commissions and Committees and the dedicated service organizations that have put in tireless hours to make the City of Orinda the wonderful place that it is. She thanked the Orinda Association, expressed gratitude to Allison Burns and her team at the Orinda Historical Society for organizing an exhibit for today’s event, and she then moved onto Item 2 to introduce legislators.

2. Honorary Presentations by Legislators
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 5 07.01.25
a. Congressmember DeSaulnier’s Office – Kaylee DeLand, representing Congressman DeSaulnier’s office said it is evident how each member of the community cares and how much each resident loves this City. The passion of providing excellent education, protecting the City’s open spaces, preserving the City’s history, and providing a vibrant hub downtown are all a testament to what makes the City so special.

She relayed the Congressman’s proud honor to have Orinda in his district and she congratulated the Council and Town on their 40-year anniversary today. She presented a certificate to celebrate the occasion and thanked the City Council.
b. Senator Grayson – Mike Sponsler, District Director, said on behalf of Senator Grayson, he was planning on enjoying this moment with the Council but got held up in Sacramento. He has had the pleasure of working with Orinda officials a few brief moments this year, but it is an amazing place. It was sad they had to move their offices from Orinda and he thanked the City for its kindness. He added that one of the best decisions was to hire an Orinda resident to be a part of their team, Rachel Zenner, Senior District Representative. He presented and read a few excerpts from Senator Greyson’s resolution.
c. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan – A representative from Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan’s office said the Assemblywoman is proud to be an Orinda resident and was sorry she could not be at the meeting to present the resolution, which she read into the record celebrating the 40th anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Orinda. d. Supervisor Andersen – Supervisor Candace Andersen said it is an honor to be here to celebrate the City’s 40th anniversary of its incorporation. She said last week was her 13th anniversary as a County Supervisor and she recognized the work in making Orinda the outstanding community it is. She then presented and read portions of a resolution recognizing Orinda.

3. Comments by Founders and Former Mayors
Mayor Malkani introduced and provided a brief background of each former Mayor and asked them to speak of what incorporation efforts were like. e. Former Mayor Joyce Hawkins expressed gratitude for the 40th anniversary celebration of Orinda’s incorporation and acknowledged the presence of former City Manager Janet Keeter. She reflected on the long and challenging journey to cityhood, which involved decades of effort, beginning with feasibility studies in 1953 and 1967 that failed to gain public support.

The successful third campaign, driven by nearly 200 volunteers and centered on the desire for local control of parks, planning, public works, and recreation, ultimately led to a 60% vote in favor of incorporation in 1985.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 5 07.01.25
At the time, local services were minimal—only two sheriff’s deputies covered the area, and planning required long trips to Martinez. Concerns over unchecked development, such as the approval of Theater Square without its iconic theater, spurred grassroots action. Citizens to Preserve Orinda mobilized community support, knocking on thousands of doors and submitting a petition with 4,500 signatures. They ran a traditional, community-driven campaign with videos, house parties, and education sessions to counter fears about taxes.

The campaign culminated in a pivotal moment on March 5, 1985, when residents celebrated the vote to incorporate Orinda as a city. The effort represented a triumph of civic engagement, persistence, and grassroots organizing.
f. Former Mayor Bobbie Landers emphasized that volunteering is central to Orinda’s spirit and a great way to meet its most interesting people.

Reflecting on the city’s early days, she noted that many things they accomplished 40 years ago wouldn’t happen the same way today. She recalled election night when, as the only woman elected to the first City Council, she made local news. Before officially becoming a city, the new Council held a lunch meeting at the Country Club, marking the occasion with photographs and press coverage.

She spoke about the original Council's commitment to the "four P’s" (parks, planning, public works, and recreation), and praised the efforts of local architects who created their first office space. They appointed an interim City Manager from Oakland, who hired long-serving city staffer Nancy Henderson. Later, they selected Tom Sinclair as City Manager from many applicants.

Ms. Landers recounted establishing Tuesday meetings, selecting the city’s blue-and-white logo through a contest, and negotiating public safety contracts. Despite working in small spaces, they managed significant events like the 1989 earthquake and the Oakland Hills Fire, maintained traditions like Council portraits and election celebrations, and enjoyed their early city-building journey. She then spoke of the many people who were instrumental in making Orinda the wonderful city it is today. g. Former Mayor Amy Worth thanked the attending County, State, and Federal representatives and highlighted the decades-long partnerships Orinda has had with various government agencies. She emphasized that incorporation was a vital step that enabled the community to manage its own affairs effectively and efficiently. The city's success, she noted, has come from working on a frugal budget and maintaining strong collaboration among Council members.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 5 07.01.25
Incorporation gave Orinda self-governance, allowing residents easier access to City staff and Council meetings rather than relying on County services in Martinez. It also created opportunities for around 50 volunteers each year to serve on commissions and committees, showcasing the city’s strong culture of civic involvement. Monthly Mayor’s Liaison Meetings further highlight the city's deep community engagement.

Ms. Worth praised Orinda's dedicated City staff and reflected on the positive outcomes of sticking to the “four P’s” (parks, planning, public works, and recreation). These include park expansions, sports field improvements, and community center renovations. Planning control was a key reason for incorporation, and it allowed the community to oversee land use, downtown revitalization, and the preservation of the Orinda Theater.

Public safety improved through partnerships with the Sheriff’s Department and the Fire District. Roads, once among the worst in the Bay Area, are now among the best. Incorporation also empowered Orinda to advocate regionally and secure important projects such as school bus turnouts, the city library and auditorium, and even the third bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, in which Worth played a direct role.

She closed by thanking Allison Burns for chronicling their history and recalled the “Orinda Fight Song” from the incorporation campaign, affirming that incorporation fulfilled its promise and that future leaders will continue this legacy of community commitment.

Mayor Malkani thanked all former Mayors, said staff performs the daily magic that brings the four P’s to life. She acknowledged the staff members who made tonight happen and asked everyone to give them a round of applause.

4. Presentation of City Proclamation
Mayor Malkani asked for comments before presenting the proclamation.

Councilmember Hoxie expressed appreciation for seeing so many former Councilmembers and Mayors gathered for Orinda’s 40th anniversary. She shared a personal memory of being in law school during the incorporation effort and recalled her mother’s involvement. At the time, city government wasn’t a focus for her, but many familiar community members were active in the effort. Now, she feels honored to serve as a Councilmember in the city where she grew up and thanked City staff for organizing the celebration.

F.1.d
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 5 07.01.25
Councilmember Gee echoed the appreciation for the gathering and noted the inspiring precedent set by Bobbie Landers, highlighting the strong presence of women on the Council. Although she and her husband moved to Orinda in 1989 and weren’t part of the original incorporation effort, she acknowledged the remarkable achievements driven by community volunteerism. She expressed pride in serving as a Councilmember, gratitude for the community’s support, and appreciation for being part of such a wonderful city.

Vice Mayor Iverson echoed comments and said it was a joy listening to those who have spoken and it is an honor to get to know everybody.

Councilmember Riley said she also grew up in Orinda, knows the many early founders, remembers her parents being actively involved talking about incorporation, and said they were pleased and excited with the results. She said so many things happen in life and it is wonderful to celebrate the City’s 40th anniversary.

Mayor Malkani thanked staff, fellow Councilmembers, former Councilmembers, and all of the volunteers and residents in Orinda for making this such a place that is welcoming, inclusive, civil, and she then presented the proclamation, recognizing the City of Orinda on the occasion of its 40th anniversary of incorporation 1985-2025, and she and Councilmembers shared in the reading of the proclamation.

5. Public Comments – None.

D. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:18 p.m. to the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2025 (3653 : Minutes Approval) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of Two-Year Strategic Plan
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the City of Orinda's Two-Year Strategic Plan.

BACKGROUND:

Since March of 2025, the City Council has met three times to discuss the two-year Strategic Plan for the City. At the first meeting, the City Council held a day-long Saturday session to review feedback from City Council interviews with the City’s consultant, Raftelis. Following that session, the City Council met two more times with Staff to refine the Strategic Initiatives under the four main areas identified.

DISCUSSION:

The Two-Year Strategic Plan (Attachment A) includes four main areas of strategic focus for the City.

1. Wildfire Resilience and Emergency Preparedness

2. Infrastructure Strategy and Improvement

3. Downtown Development and Beautification

4. Community Engagement and Education
Under each of these topic areas, the City Council has further defined activities and/or actions to help further efforts. Additionally, the items listed in the Strategic Plan have been evaluated as part of the recently adopted Two-Year Budget.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Two-Year Strategic Plan.

NEXT STEPS:

If the City Council adopts the Strategic Plan, the final version will be physically incorporated into the City’s Budget Book.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Items included in this Strategic Plan are reflected in the current Two-Year Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Two-Year Strategic Plan
Respectfully Submitted by:

F.2
Packet Pg. 24
Linda Smith
City Manager
Prepared By: Linda Smith, City Manager
Approved by:

F.2
Packet Pg. 25
Strategic Plan
Fiscal Years 2025-26
and 2026-27

1. Wildfire Resilience and Emergency Preparedness
a) Continue evacuation planning, preparation, and training (tabletop and simulated exercises) with local and regional partners, including MOFD, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, Contra Costa OES, Town of Moraga, City of Lafayette, School Districts, EBMUD, PG&E, and EBRPD.
b) Cultivate shared accountability between the government, partners, and residents in wildfire resilience and preparedness through the support of neighborhood-driven approaches on home hardening and fuel reduction. Lead by example through City initiatives within the public right-of-way.
c) Strengthen regional collaboration and advocacy with state and federal partners regarding wildfire risks (e.g., insurance, infrastructure, mitigation of development, funding, and other resources).
d) Continue outreach with the community through the development of a centralized information platform – www.orindaready.com.
e) Evaluate current incentive programs and recommend changes and actions to bolster wildfire mitigation efforts.
f) Use emerging technologies to guide strategic investments in fuel mitigation and evacuation efforts.
g) Increase collaboration with community non-profits, such as the Fire Safe Moraga Orinda to support the creation of more Firewise neighborhoods.

2. Infrastructure Strategy and Improvement
a) Complete Category A improvements as part of the Storm Drain Repair Plan and shift focus to Category B pipes programmed annually in the Capital Improvement Program.
b) Develop a long-term infrastructure vision and funding strategy. c) Continue supporting the Infrastructure Subcommittee’s work on privately maintained roads and storm drains.
d) Focus on capital projects that enhance circulation, mobility, and transportation and improve road safety overall.

F.2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Two-Year Strategic Plan (3671 : Two-Year Strategic Plan) Strategic Plan
Fiscal Years 2025-26
and 2026-27

3. Downtown Development and Beautification
a) Facilitate the development of high-quality mixed-use projects. b) Evaluate existing conditions and its impact on business growth and seek to create certainty in City process for prospective business owners. c) Engage with Downtown property owners to understand their barriers, goals and needs, and work to encourage development, reuse and tenanting of vacant and under-utilized properties.
d) Revisit Connect Orinda, explore new ideas to create vitality within the public right of way, and report on the most effective strategies for economic development. e) Enhance beautification efforts, including outdoor dining, lighting, landscaping, and signage. Consider establishing a facade improvement program. f) Organize events and activate public spaces to foster community engagement.

Collaborate with the Chamber of Commerce to support local businesses. g) Develop and launch a DowntownOrinda.com platform.

4. Community Engagement and Education
a) Expand the City’s communication efforts to include more information on local events, services and activities of interest to residents. b) Partner with the school district to educate and inform families (e.g., wildfire safety and preparedness).
c) Host two-way forums, including town halls and parent education nights. Collaborate with partners to efficiently deliver education in community spaces (e.g., Fire Safe Moraga-Orinda FSMO).
d) Celebrate the City’s 40th anniversary in a way that highlights stability and civic pride. e) Develop a communication strategy around housing element implementation. f) Expand community education on emergency preparedness (i.e., Six Ps, resident responsibility). Enhance collaboration with the Moraga-Orinda Fire Department (MOFD).
g) Consider the development and implementation of a Citizen’s Academy to help build engaged residents and future leaders in the community.

F.2.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Two-Year Strategic Plan (3671 : Two-Year Strategic Plan) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Regional Advocacy Agreement with the City of Lafayette, the Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs.

BACKGROUND:

At its May 2025 meeting, the city councils of Lafayette, Orinda and Town of Moraga discussed the idea of working together on regional advocacy. Townsend Public Affairs made a presentation and demonstrated the ways in which the region could work together to better its efforts in Sacramento and Washington. The consensus at the meeting was that the three cities were interested in moving forward with a regional approach.

DISCUSSION:

Following the discussion at the meeting, the city managers continued their discussion with Townsend Public Affairs to develop a more detailed scope of work.

Currently, the cities of Lafayette and Orinda use Townsend Public Affairs for their individual advocacy efforts. In the case of Orinda, the City Council, at its second meeting in June, approved its annual contract for services with Townsend. The addition of a regional advocacy contract would likely result in a change to the current contract. A significant portion of time under the current contract is to assist the City in its efforts to support and oppose legislation tied to the City Council’s adopted Legislative Platform.

Like the City of Orinda, the region would establish a legislative platform. Once that platform is established, it would be appropriate to revise the current contract with Townsend to lower the City’s individual contribution. That would be expected to occur by end of September/beginning of October. Currently, the City is working closely with Townsend to oppose SB79, which is designed to intensify transit-oriented development, including places like Orinda, where a large majority of the area sits within a very high fire severity zone. Staff would not recommend changing the current agreement at this time, as the City advocates important pieces of legislation.

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into the agreement with Townsend, the City of Lafayette and the Town of Moraga. The agreement form and scope of work is attached and may be modified upon feedback by the other two agencies.

F.3
Packet Pg. 28
NEXT STEPS:

If the City Council agrees to form a regional advocacy coalition with Lafayette and Moraga, the City Manager will execute the agreement in a form consistent with the attached agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The contract for regional advocacy services would be $18,000 per year, or $1,500 per month. The current contract is $60,000 per year, or $5,000 per month. Staff would address any incremental cost increase during the mid-year update with a portion of funding for Townsend’s services coming from the General Fund and a portion coming from Measure R, assuming a platform is developed with items consistent with Measure R expenditures.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Draft Agreement for Regional Advocacy
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.3
Packet Pg. 29
Master Contract between City of Lafayette, City of Orinda, Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc 1

CONTRACT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS CONTRACT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES ("Contract") is made and entered into as of this 1st day of September 2025 by and between City of Lafayette, City of Orinda, and Town of Moraga collectively known as “Lamorinda Regional Legislative Coalition” (“Client”), and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc., a California corporation (“Consultant”). For valuable consideration, Client and Consultant agree:

1. Term.

This Contract is effective as of the date above. The terms and conditions of this Contract shall remain in full force for the period set forth in Exhibit “A.”

2. Services.

Consultant will, in accordance with the terms of this Contract, perform the services described in Exhibit “A,” (“Services”).

3. Fees.

Client agrees to pay Consultant for the Services in accordance with the provisions of the Fee Schedule set forth in Exhibit "A." The Consultant will submit a monthly invoice to Client reflecting the fee and including any expenses incurred for such month. Client shall pay each billing within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof.

4. Laws, Rules and Regulations.

Consultant shall perform the Services in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations, exercising the standard of care applicable to Consultant’s profession.

5. Lobbyist Registration
As a lobbyist employer, Client is required to file a Form 602 with the California Secretary of State, a quarterly Form 635, and register with the United States Congress. Consultant will prepare all forms for Client’s signature and will file the forms on your behalf of Client.

6. No Condition to Payment.

It is the intention of the parties to this Contract that the Services rendered hereunder and the payments made hereunder are not in any way contingent upon the achievement of any specific result including, without limitation, the defeat or enactment of any legislative or administrative proposal. Consultant does not guarantee, represent or warrant any specific results in connection with the provision of Services. The parties hereto agree that such sums as are paid pursuant to this Contract shall be deemed to be the reasonable value of Services rendered hereunder.

7. Confidentiality.

Consultant agrees to maintain the confidentiality of files or other information it is provided or develops during the course of its work for Client. It is understood, however, that disclosure of certain information provided by Client may be necessary or appropriate in the course of its representation of Client. Such disclosures shall be made upon consultation with Client or Client’s designated representative and with written consent from the Client.

8. Independent Contractor.

Client confirms to Consultant that the Services provided by Consultant to Client hereunder are not of a type performed by Client on its own behalf and are not within the scope of Client’s usual business. It is the intention of the parties to this Contract that the Services rendered F.3.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Draft Agreement for Regional Advocacy (3672 : Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend) Master Contract between City of Lafayette, City of Orinda, Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc 2 hereunder shall be so rendered by Consultant as an independent contractor and not as an employee, agent, joint venturer or partner of Client. Nothing in this Contract shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Client and Consultant or any employee or agent of Consultant.

Consultant’s performance of the Services shall not be subject to the control and direction of Client. Both parties acknowledge that Consultant is not an employee for state or federal tax purposes. Consultant fully retains the right to contract with and perform services for other parties during the entire term hereof.

9. Termination.

This Contract may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party specifying desired date of termination.

10. Mutual Participation and Termination Clause
This Contract is entered into by and between multiple parties, each of whom is an essential signatory to this Contract. The obligations and rights under this Contract are contingent upon the continued participation of all signatory parties. In the event that any one party elects to withdraw from this Contract for any reason, the Contract shall be deemed null and void in its entirety, effective as of the date of such withdrawal, and all work will cease to exist.

11. Contract Modifications.

Client and Consultant agree that the terms and conditions of this Contract shall constitute the entire Contract between the parties signatory hereto as to the matters set forth herein. Client and Consultant may modify the terms of this Contract only by executing a written Contract Addendum, which shall reference this Contract and shall be executed by the parties’ signatory hereto.

12. Attorneys Fees.

Client and Consultant agree that the prevailing party in any dispute under this Contract shall be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

13. Certification of Non-Discrimination.

By signing this Contract, Consultant certifies that it does not discriminate in hiring on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, age, marital status, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap or medical conditions.

14. Mutual Indemnification.

Each party (“Indemnifying Party”) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other party, its officers, directors, employees, agents, and affiliates (collectively, the “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of or related to: (i) any breach by the Indemnifying Party of any representation, warranty, or obligation under this Contract; or (ii) the negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnifying Party in the performance of its obligations under this Contract.

This indemnification obligation is conditioned upon the Indemnified Party providing the Indemnifying Party with prompt written notice of any claim, allowing the Indemnifying Party to control the defense and settlement of the claim (provided such settlement does not impose any liability or obligation on the Indemnified Party without its prior written consent), and cooperating fully in the defense of such claim.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Draft Agreement for Regional Advocacy (3672 : Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend) Master Contract between City of Lafayette, City of Orinda, Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc 3

15. Insurance.

Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Contract the following insurance coverage with insurance companies authorized to do business in the jurisdiction where services are performed:
• Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate, covering bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, and contractual liability.
• Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per claim.
• Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by applicable law, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $500,000 per occurrence (if Consultant has employees).
• Automobile Liability Insurance covering all owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles used in connection with the performance of services under this Contract, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident (if applicable).

Upon request, Consultant shall provide Client with certificates of insurance evidencing the required coverage and naming Client as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability policy. All policies shall be primary and non-contributory with any insurance maintained by Client.

Failure to maintain the required insurance shall be deemed a material breach of this Contract.

16. Notice.

Notice and written communications sent by one party to the other shall be personally delivered or sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses:

To Client: City of Lafayette
Attention: City Manager
3675 Mount Diablo Blvd., #210
Lafayette, CA 94549
City Of Orinda
Attention: City Manager
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Town of Moraga
Attention: Town Manager
329 Rheem Boulevard
Moraga, CA 94556
To Consultant: Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.

Attention: Christopher Townsend, President
1401 Dove Street, Ste. 430
Newport Beach, CA 92660
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Draft Agreement for Regional Advocacy (3672 : Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend) Master Contract between City of Lafayette, City of Orinda, Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc 4

17. Execution.

The representatives of Client and Consultant warrant that they have authority to sign on behalf of and bind their principals and have caused this Contract to be duly executed the day and year first above written.
"CONSULTANT" "CLIENT"
TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC., CITY OF LAFAYETTE
By: ________________________________ By: ________________________________ Name: _____________________________ Name: ______________________________

Title: _______________________________ Title:________________________________

CITY OF ORINDA
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________

Title:________________________________

TOWN OF MORAGA
By: ________________________________
Name: ______________________________

Title:________________________________
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Draft Agreement for Regional Advocacy (3672 : Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend) Master Contract between City of Lafayette, City of Orinda, Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc 5 EXHIBIT “A”
TO

CONTRACT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
TERM: September 1, 2025 through August 31, 2026
FEE SCHEDULE: Consultant shall provide services to the following Clients on a monthly retainer basis. Each Client shall be individually responsible for the monthly fee listed below:

Client Monthly Retainer
City of Lafayette $1,500
City of Orinda $1,500
Town of Moraga $1,500
SERVICES: Please see attached Addendum to Exhibit “A” for full description of services provided.

Client Initials _________
Client Initials _________
Client Initials _________
Consultant Initials ________
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Draft Agreement for Regional Advocacy (3672 : Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend) Master Contract between City of Lafayette, City of Orinda, Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc 6

ADDENDUM
TO
EXHIBIT “A”
The Services provided pursuant to the terms of the Contract for Consultant Services are the following:

COALITION ACTIVITIES:

Specific activities can be undertaken including, but not limited to:
• Monitoring state/federal legislation in areas of interest • Adopting and advocating on behalf of specific positions on legislation o Communication of adopted positions to relevant legislators, committees, and stakeholders
• Advocacy trips to Sacramento and/or Washington DC to advocate on behalf of regional priorities
o Meeting with legislators and key stakeholders to educate them, and raise overall awareness, on issues impacting Lamorinda
o Meeting with key committee members/staff to advocate on behalf of specific legislation
• Pursuing funding opportunities for projects of regional importance through legislative or congressionally directed funding opportunities
• Other activities as mutually agreed upon by Coalition members o Advocate for issues of regional importance on a regional/county level ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT:

In addition to support to carry out Coalition activities by each of the participating member agencies, organizational support will be provided by TPA. TPA will work with the Coalition Chair, and member agencies, to help carry out the activities of the Coalition in Sacramento and Washington DC. These activities may include, but are not limited to:
• Provide state/federal updates on the issues identified by the Coalition • Review state/federal legislation to identify bills of interest to the Coalition • Provide analysis/recommendations on state/federal legislation considered by the Coalition • Advocate on behalf of any positions taken by the Coalition o Draft/deliver letters of support/opposition
o Testify at committee hearings on behalf of Coalition positions o Advocate on behalf of Coalition positions with the Governor’s Office and impacted state/federal agencies
• Assist with the coordination of any advocacy trips to Sacramento/Washington DC o Identify and schedule relevant meetings
o Develop background materials and talking points for meetings F.3.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Draft Agreement for Regional Advocacy (3672 : Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend) Master Contract between City of Lafayette, City of Orinda, Town of Moraga and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc 7 o Participate in advocacy meetings
o Assist with any follow-up generated from meetings
• Assist with any legislative or congressionally directed funding opportunities o Advise on state/federal priorities that may align with regional projects o Assist with the development of background materials
o Work with Coalition Chair on the submission of funding request o Advocate with relevant state/federal committees on behalf of funding requests • Ensure compliance with all relevant state/federal requirements related to advocacy work undertaken by the Coalition
o State/federal lobbyist employer registration
o Quarterly filing requirements
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Draft Agreement for Regional Advocacy (3672 : Regional Advocacy Agreement with Townsend) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.4
Date: July 15, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Resolution to Adopt a General Plan Amendment to Reclassify Wilder Road as a Collector Road in Table 2.1 RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 28-25, Amending the General Plan to Include Wilder Road as a Collector Road in Table 2.1 "City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification." BACKGROUND:

On November 15, 1994, the City Council entered into a development agreement to set forth terms for developing Gateway Valley, located south of State Route 24 and Gateway Boulevard. Since that time, the development agreement has undergone multiple amendments, and the City Council has taken various actions, some of which directly impact Wilder Road (formerly Gateway Boulevard), as described below.

On March 30, 1999, the City Council approved the first amendment to the Development Agreement, which modified provisions for Gateway Boulevard design standards. The amendment stipulated that Gateway Boulevard would be dedicated as public right-ofway.

Resolutions
On July 22, 2008, OG Property Owners, LLC (“OGLLC”), the land developer, recorded the Wilder Phase 1 Subdivision Final Map 9074 in the official records of Contra Costa County to develop the “Wilder Project” Subdivision. On September 16, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 43-08 to rename Upton Road and Gateway Boulevard to Wilder Road and rename Shakespeare Festival Way to California Shakespeare Theater Way.

On September 23, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 56-08 accepting the dedication of additional lands into the Wilder Road public right-of-way, and on August 19, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolutions No. 69-09 and 70-09 to vacate an unused portion of the Wilder Road right-of-way and dedicate additional lands into the Wilder Road right-of-way. These actions were related to Wilder entry signage.

On March 2, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-10 accepting the dedication of additional lands into the Wilder Road public right-of-way for landscaping.

On June 15, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 28-21 to accept the offer of dedication of Wilder Road, which made Wilder Road a public road, maintained by the City.

F.4
Packet Pg. 37
Federal Aid Eligible Roads
The Federal-Aid Highway Program provides financial assistance for the construction, maintenance, and operations of the Interstate Highway System, primary highways, and secondary local roads. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) uses road classifications to determine which roads qualify for federal funding. (US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaidessentials/federalaid.cfm.) Roadway Classification
Most vehicular travel occurs through a network of interdependent roadways, with each road moving traffic towards destinations. The concept of functional classification defines the role that a particular road plays in serving this flow of traffic through the City.

Roadways are assigned to a Functional Classification according to the character of travel service the roadway provides. These classifications are essential in identifying which roads qualify for federal funding.

There are seven Functional Classifications: Interstate (e.g. I-680), Other Freeway or Expressway (e.g. Highway 24), Other Principal Arterial (e.g. Camino Pablo), Minor Arterial (e.g. Glorietta Blvd), Major “Primary” Collector (e.g. Altarinda Rd), Minor Collector, and Local (e.g. Ardilla Rd).

Collector Roads primarily funnel traffic between Local and Arterial roadways. To bridge this gap, Collectors typically provide access to residential neighborhoods as well as commercial, industrial, and civic districts. For a road to be classified as a Collector Road, it must span less than 10 miles, have posted speeds between 25-55 mph, and contain lane widths of 10-12 feet. (Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/hwyfunctional-classification-2023.pdf.) Gateway Boulevard, currently Wilder Road, was identified as a Primary Collector Road when the development was planned, as shown in The Gateway Valley Final Development & Pre-Annexation Agreement’s Infrastructure and Utilities Plan. (Refer to Attachment B, an excerpt from the 1999 Agreement.) Although the City Council has accepted Wilder Road as a public road, the General Plan was not amended to list it as a Collector Road.

Orinda roads classified as Collector Roads or Arterials may be maintained and improved using federal funding. According to Caltrans, which administers federal funds, “all routes are federal aid eligible except for Minor Rural Collectors and Local/Residential roads. Minor Collectors or Local/Residential roads are non-federal-aid routes.” Agencies and organizations distributing federal funding refer to the Caltrans California Road System (CRS) maps to confirm road classifications. The CRS maps currently show Wilder Road as a local road, and therefore it is not eligible for federal aid.

DISCUSSION:

F.4
Packet Pg. 38
On May 27, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-04 (Attachment C) to recommend City Council adopt a General Plan amendment to revise Table 2.1 “City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification” to reclassify Wilder Road from a Local Road to a Collector Road. All Collector Roads listed in Table 2.1 are Primary Collector Roads. The revised Table 2.1 (Attachment D) includes Wilder Road.

Tonight, the City Council is separately considering adoption of Resolution No. 39-25 proposing to vacate a 24,561 square foot portion of the public right-of-way located at the southern terminus of Wilder Road and a determination that the property is surplus and should be offered to the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), as it is no longer necessary or appropriate for public vehicular access. As part of the proposed vacation, the City will reserve and establish easements to ensure continued access for emergency vehicles, public pedestrian and bicycle trail use, utility infrastructure, and other purposes as deemed appropriate.

Currently, the CRS maps reflect Wilder Road as a Local Road. This conflicts with the Gateway Valley Development Plan and the Wilder Design Review Handbook. The misclassification of Wilder Road renders it ineligible for federal aid. Wilder Road does meet the Collector Road classification design criteria and connectivity guidelines established by the FHWA and implemented by Caltrans for funding eligibility.

The subject City Council action is required to request that Caltrans designate Wilder Road as a Collector Road on CRS maps via a Functional Classification Change Request Form (Attachment E). The reclassification allows the City to apply future federal funding towards maintaining Wilder Road, as historically done with other federal aid eligible routes within the City. A map (Attachment F) shows the location of the proposed reclassification of Wilder Road.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon City Council approval, Public Works staff will seek letters of concurrence from Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), as required by Caltrans. After such letters are received, Staff will submit a Functional Classification Change Request Form to Caltrans, to reclassify Wilder Road as a Collector Road within the Caltrans California Road System (CRS) maps.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff expects this project to have a beneficial fiscal impact, since Wilder Road would become eligible for federal aid funding.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. 28-25, Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Reclassify Wilder Road as a Collector Road in Table 2.1
B. Infrastructure and Utilities Plan, Gateway Development (excerpt) C. Approved PC Resolution No. 25-04 Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Reclassify Wilder Road
F.4
Packet Pg. 39
D. Revised Table 2.1 City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification, General Plan E. Caltrans Change Request Form & Wilder Road CCRS Map
F. Collector Road Map for Wilder Road
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jihawna Johnson, Assistant Engineer
Approved by:

F.4
Packet Pg. 40
RESOLUTION NO. 28-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO RECLASSIFY WILDER ROAD AS A COLLECTOR ROAD IN TABLE 2.1
WHEREAS, City Council entered into a development agreement November 15, 1994, to establish the Gateway Valley Final Development Plan which identifies Gateway Boulevard, currently Wilder Road, as a Primary Collector Road; and WHEREAS, Major “Primary” Collector Roads within the City are listed in Table 2.1 Roadway Functional Classification Table within the City’s General Plan. Any road excluded from Table 2.1 is considered a Local Road by default. City staff confirms Wilder Road satisfies the Collector Road classification design criteria and connectivity guidelines, and therefore should be included in Table 2.1; and
WHEREAS, roads classified as Collector Roads may be maintained and improved using federal funding; and
WHEREAS, amending the General Plan will not impact the environment as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, at a regularly held Planning Commission meeting held May 27, 2025, the Planning Commission took testimony, discussed the issues, and considered all written and oral evidence presented on Resolution 25-04 recommending City Council adopt the General Plan amendment to revise the Table 2.1 City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification in order to reclassify Wilder Road from Local Road to Collector Road; and WHEREAS, City Council held a duly noticed public hearing consistent with Government Code section 65358; and
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing consistent with state law, City Council took testimony, discussed the issues and considered all written and oral evidence presented at the public hearing in making its decision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City Council of the City of Orinda, State of California, hereby adopts the General Plan amendment to include Wilder Road from Highway 24 to south of Dairy Creek Lane as a Collector Road on Table 2.1 City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification of Section 2.0 Land Use and Circulation.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on July 15, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
Latika Malkani, Mayor
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Resolution No. 28-25, Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Reclassify Wilder Road as a Collector Road in Table 2.1 (3656 :

ATTEST:
_________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
1929713.1
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Resolution No. 28-25, Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Reclassify Wilder Road as a Collector Road in Table 2.1 (3656 :

F.4.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Infrastructure and Utilities Plan, Gateway Development (excerpt) (3656 : Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment to F.4.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Infrastructure and Utilities Plan, Gateway Development (excerpt) (3656 : Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment to F.4.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Infrastructure and Utilities Plan, Gateway Development (excerpt) (3656 : Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment to F.4.c
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Approved PC Resolution No. 25-04 Adopting a General Plan Amendment to Reclassify Wilder Road (3656 : Resolution Adopting a Street From Location To Location Classification Comments Camino Pablo Bear Creek Rd Moraga Wy
Principal
Arterial
Connection to highway and City
limit with heavy traffic volume.

Moraga Wy Camino Pablo City Limit (south)
Principal
Arterial
Connection to highway and City
limit with heavy traffic volume.

Brookwood Rd Camino Pablo Moraga Wy Minor Arterial
Connects arterial and residential
areas.

Bryant Wy Moraga Wy Davis Rd Minor Arterial
Connection of arterial and to
highway.

Camino Sobrante Camino Pablo Orinda Wy Minor Arterial
Downtown commercial area with
significant traffic.

El Nido Ranch Rd E. Altarinda Dr City Limit (east) Minor Arterial Connection of frontage road
paralleling highway and connection
to adjoining jurisdiction.

Glorietta Blvd Moraga Wy Rheem Blvd Minor Arterial
Connection to arterial and
significant route to adjoining
jurisdiction.

Glorietta Blvd Rheem Blvd City Limit (east) Minor Arterial Connects to adjoining jurisdiction
and residential areas.

Miner Rd Camino Pablo Lombardy Ln Minor Arterial
Connection to Arterial and
residential areas.

Moraga Wy Bryant Wy Camino Pablo Minor Arterial
Downtown commercial area with
significant traffic.

Orinda Wy Santa Maria Wy Camino Pablo Minor Arterial
Downtown commercial area with
significant traffic.

Rheem Blvd Glorietta Blvd City Limit (west) Minor Arterial Significant route to adjoining
jurisdiction.

St. Stevens Dr Hidden Valley Via Las Cruces Minor Arterial Connection to highway and
residential areas.

Santa Maria Wy Camino Pablo Orinda Wy Minor Arterial
Downtown commercial area with
significant traffic.

Via Las Cruces St. Stephens Honey Hill Rd Minor Arterial Connection to highway and
residential areas.

Altarinda Dr Santa Maria Wy Orinda Woods Dr Collector
Connection with commercial areas
and residential areas.

Bear Creek Rd Camino Pablo City Limit (east) Collector
Direct Connection to adjoining
jurisdiction; matches Caltrans
classification of Collector with
adjoining jurisdiction.

Brookwood Rd Camino Pablo Spring Rd Collector
Connects to arterial and to
residential neighborhoods.

City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification
Table 2.1 (Rev. 05.13.2025)
F.4.d
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Revised Table 2.1 City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification, General Plan (3656 : Resolution Adopting a General Plan Camino Sobrante Orinda Wy El Ribero (South) Collector
Connects to arterial and to
residential neighborhoods.

Charles Hill Rd Honey Hill Rd El Nido Ranch Rd Collector Connection with highway and
arterial traffic.

E. Altarinda Dr
Orinda Woods
Dr El Nido Ranch Rd Collector
Connection with highway and
arterial traffic.

El Toyonal Camino Pablo Loma Vista (east) Collector Connection with arterial.

El Toyonal
Loma Vista
(west) Vista del Orinda Collector
Connection between arterial and
adjoining jurisdiction.

Ivy Dr
Moraga Wy
(south) Moraga Wy (north) Collector
Connection with residential area
and arterial.

Hall Dr Moraga Wy Donald Dr Collector
Connection with residential area
and arterial.

Happy Valley Rd City Limit (east) City Limit (north) Collector Connecting Road to adjoining
jurisdiction and consistent with
funcional classification in adjoing
jurisdiction.

Hidden Valley Rd St. Stephens Hwy-24-east Collector
Connection with residential and
highway.

Honey Hill Rd Miner Rd Charles Hill Rd Collector Connection with residential areas.

Las Piedras Vista Del Orinda Lomas Cantadas Collector
Connection with residential areas
and adjoining jurisdiction.

Loma Vista El Toyonal (west) El Toyonal (east) Collector Connection between arterial and
adjoining jurisdiction.

Lomas Cantadas City Limit (west) Las Piedras Collector
Connection with adjoining
jurisdiction.

Lombardy Ln Miner Rd Dalewood Dr Collector Connection with residential areas.

Miner Rd Lombardy Ln Honey Hill Rd Collector
Connection with arterial with
significant traffic.

Orinda woods Dr Altarinda Rd East Altarinda Dr Collector Connection with residential areas
and downtown.

Overhill Rd Moraga Wy Glorietta Blvd Collector
Connection with residential areas
and downtown.

Santa Maria Wy Orinda Wy Altarinda Dr Collector
Connection with residential areas
and downtown.

Southwood Dr Moraga Way Tara Rd Collector
Connection with residential areas
and downtown.

Tara Rd Southwood Dr Overhill Rd Collector
Connection with residential areas
and downtown.

Valley View Moraga Wy Don Gabriel Collector Connection with residential areas.

Vista Del Orinda El Toyonal Las Piedras Collector
Connection with adjoining
jurisdiction.

F.4.d
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Revised Table 2.1 City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification, General Plan (3656 : Resolution Adopting a General Plan Wilder Road
HWY 24 WB OnrampSouth of Dairy
Creek ln Collector
Connection with residential
neighborhood & highway.

Coral Dr Moraga Wy Ivy Dr School Route
Connection with school generated
traffic.

Don Gabriel Wy Valley View El Camino Moraga School Route Connection with school generated
traffic.

El Camino Moraga Moraga Wy Don Gabriel School Route
Connection with school generated
traffic.

Hillcrest Dr Martha Rd Overhill Rd School Route
Connection with school generated
traffic.

Ivy Dr Moraga Wy Cul-de-sac (west) School Route
Connection with school generated
traffic.

Martha Rd Glorietta Blvd Hillcrest Dr School Route
Connection with school generated
traffic.

Sleepy Hollow Ln Lombardy Ln Tarry Ln School Route
Connection with school generated
traffic.

Tarry Ln Lombardy Ln Sleepy Hollow Ln School Route
Connection with school generated
traffic.

Washington Ln Sleepy Hollow Cul-de-sac School Route
Connection with school generated
traffic.

Note: All other public roads are designated Local roads.

F.4.d
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Revised Table 2.1 City of Orinda Roadway Functional Classification, General Plan (3656 : Resolution Adopting a General Plan Functional Classification Change Request Form
Please refer to page two for specific data entry for each column.

CRS Map
Number
Coordinate
CT District
County
Jurisdiction Change/ New/ Delete Road From To (From) Class (To) New Class Length (mi) Number of Through Lanes AADT Submitted by:

Date:

EXHIBIT 2

CITY OF ORINDA
May 13, 2025
5L14 A6 4 CC CITY OF ORINDA CHANGE WILDER ROAD HWY 24 WB ON-RAMP SOUTH OF DAIRY CREEK LN 7 5 1.65 2 3525 F.4.e
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Caltrans Change Request Form & Wilder Road CCRS Map (3656 : Resolution Adopting a 5 F.4.e
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Caltrans Change Request Form & Wilder Road CCRS Map (3656 : Resolution Adopting a

WILDER ROAD

DAIRY CREEK LANE
HWY 24 WB ON-RAMP
F.4.f
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Collector Road Map for Wilder Road (3656 : Resolution Adopting a General Plan Amendment City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.5
Date: July 15, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Vacation of Public Right-of-Way for a Portion of Wilder Road
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 39-25, Approving the Vacation of the Public Right-of-Way on a 24,561 Square-Foot Portion of Wilder Road at its Southern Terminus, and Reserving Necessary Easements.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Orinda (the “City”) holds right-of-way on Wilder Road in fee simple title, including a portion located at the southern terminus of the roadway. This 24,561- square-foot area (the “Property”), as shown in Attachment B, a location map, is no longer needed for public vehicular access. The City has installed a gate at the southern side of the bridge to prevent the public from accessing the Property.

Originally, the Property was intended to provide vehicular access to a proposed trailhead and recreational facility known as the Art & Garden Center. However, those facilities were ultimately constructed at the northern end of Wilder Road, thereby eliminating the need for public vehicular use of the Property.

As a result, the City now proposes to vacate the public right-of-way over the Property.

As part of this action, the City will reserve easements to allow for: emergency vehicle access; public trail use by pedestrians and bicycles; utility infrastructure; and other appropriate uses.

In accordance with Streets and Highways Code section 8313, the City Council must consider whether the proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan. Further, under Government Code § 65402, the City is required to submit the proposed vacation to the Planning Commission for a determination of General Plan conformity.

On May 27, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-05 (Attachment C), finding that the proposed vacation and potential transfer of the Property are consistent with the Orinda General Plan.

DISCUSSION:

In accordance with the requirements of California Streets and Highways Code sections 8300–8363, the City has taken all necessary procedural steps to initiate the proposed vacation of the 24,561-square-foot portion of Wilder Road at its southern terminus.

F.5
Packet Pg. 53
In compliance with the notice requirements set forth in the California Streets and Highways Code, written notice was provided by the City Engineer to all affected utility providers on May 8, 2025; public notice of the proposed vacation was duly published in the newspaper, and notices were posted at the Property since June 24, 2025.

The proposed vacation aligns with General Plan policies by maintaining trail connectivity and emergency access, preserving the semi-rural character of the area, and supporting the City’s open space goals. Furthermore, the vacation facilitates a responsible transition in land use that reflects current conditions and planning priorities.

Before a right-of-way can be vacated, Streets and Highways Code sections 892 and 8314 require the City to determine that the right-of-way is not useful as a nonmotorized transportation facility. This vacation, however, establishes a nonmotorized transportation facility. Streets and Highways Code section 8340(d) explicitly allows the City to reserve an easement for nonvehicular public use. Such a reservation is included in this proposal. Therefore, the City need not make a determination that the portion of Wilder Road to be vacated is not useful as a nonmotorized transportation facility.

This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), as it involves only a minor change in land use without any increase in density or intensity.

Also being considered at tonight’s City Council meeting is a resolution to declare the subject vacated Property as surplus land. A future action by the GHAD board would consider accepting the Property.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon City Council approval and adoption of the Resolution, a certified copy along with legal descriptions and plat maps will be recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 39-25 Approving the Vacation of the Public Right-of-Way on a 24,561 Square Foot Portion of Wilder Road at its Southern Terminus, and Reserving Necessary Easements
B. Location Map
C. PC Resolution 25-05 Wilder Road Vacation GP Conformity D. Exhibit A - Legal Description
E. Exhibit B - Plat Map
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Ha Nguyen,
F.5
Packet Pg. 54
Approved by:

F.5
Packet Pg. 55
RESOLUTION NO. 39-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
APPROVING THE VACATION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A 24,561-

SQUARE-FOOT PORTION OF WILDER ROAD AT ITS SOUTHERN TERMINUS, AND RESERVING NECESSARY EASEMENTS.

WHEREAS, the City of Orinda (“City”) holds fee simple title to Wilder Road, including a 24,561-square-foot portion located at the southern terminus (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property was originally intended to provide vehicular access to a proposed trailhead and recreational facility, the Art & Garden Center, which was ultimately constructed at the northern end of Wilder Road, thereby eliminating the need for public vehicular access to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City now proposes to vacate the public right-of-way over the Property, while reserving easements to preserve essential public purposes, including:
emergency vehicle access, pedestrian and bicycle trail access, public utility infrastructure, and other public agency or service uses as appropriate; and WHEREAS, reservation of the public trail easement for nonvehicular public access under Streets and Highways Code section 8340(d) obviates the need for a determination under Streets and Highways Code section 892(a); WHEREAS, in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code Sections 83008363, the City has complied with all statutory requirements for vacating public right-of-way, including: providing written notice to all affected utility providers on May 8, 2025; publishing public notice of the proposed vacation in the newspaper for two successive weeks; and posting notice at the Property since June 24, 2025; WHEREAS, under Streets and Highways Code § 8313 and Government Code § 65402, the City Council must determine that the proposed vacation conforms to the Orinda General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-05, determining that the proposed vacation and potential transfer of the Property are consistent with the City’s General Plan, and recommending City Council adoption of a confirming resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed vacation, the staff report, the Planning Commission’s resolution, and all other supporting documents, and concurs that the proposed vacation aligns with applicable General Plan policies supporting open space, emergency access, and the City’s semi-rural character; and WHEREAS, the vacation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15305 (Minor F.5.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Resolution 39-25 Approving the Vacation of the Public Right-of-Way on a 24,561 Square Foot Portion of Wilder Road at its Alterations in Land Use Limitations), as the action involves a minor change in land use with no increase in density or intensity;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby declare:

1. The facts in the above recitals are true and incorporated herein.

2. The City Council approves the vacation of the public right-of-way over the 24,561- square-foot portion of Wilder Road at its southern terminus, as more particularly described in Exhibits A and B to this resolution.

3. The vacated portion of the Property shall remain subject to the following reserved easements:
a. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (E.V.A.E.)
b. Public Trail Easement (P.T.E.)
c. Public Utility Easement (P.U.E.)
d. Sanitary Sewer Easement (S.S.E.)

4. The details of those reserved easements shall be as described for easements so identified in the Wilder phase 1 subdivision map, Subdivision 9074, which was recorded in the official records of Contra Costa County beginning at 2008-0162764

5. Nothing in this resolution impacts in any way the East Bay Municipal Utility District (E.B.M.U.D.) easement recorded in the official records of Contra Costa County beginning at 07-252971. City staff are directed to record a certified copy of this resolution, along with applicable legal descriptions and plat maps, with the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on July 15, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A - Legal Description - Wilder Rd Vacation
Exhibit B - Plat Map - Wilder Rd Vacation
1929766.1
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Resolution 39-25 Approving the Vacation of the Public Right-of-Way on a 24,561 Square Foot Portion of Wilder Road at its F.5.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Location Map (3657 : Vacation of Public Right-of-Way for a Portion of Wilder Road) F.5.c
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: PC Resolution 25-05 Wilder Road Vacation GP Conformity (3657 : Vacation of Public Right-of-Way for a Portion of Wilder Road) F.5.c
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: PC Resolution 25-05 Wilder Road Vacation GP Conformity (3657 : Vacation of Public Right-of-Way for a Portion of Wilder Road)

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LCC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.
930 ESTUDILLO STREET
MARTINEZ, CA 94553 EXHIBIT A
WWW.LCC-INC.COM Page 1 of 1
Real property in the City of Orinda, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows:

Being a portion of that certain parcel of land described in the Grant Deed (Correction Deed) to the City of Orinda, recorded January 13, 2022, in Document 2022-0008725 of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County, State of California, more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at the most northerly corner of Parcel II, as said parcel is shown on the Final Map of Subdivision 9074, recorded July 22, 2008 in Book 507 of Maps at Page 11, in the office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County, State of California, said point being also an angle point in the southwesterly line of Wilder Road, as shown on said Final Map (507 M 11); thence, along the northeasterly line of said Parcel II, also being said southwesterly line of Wilder Road (507 M 11), easterly along a non-tangent curve to the left, the center of which curve bears North 26°36’09” East, having a radius of 115.00 feet, through a central angle of 30°55’12”, an arc length of 62.06 feet; thence, along a tangent reverse curve to the right, having a radius of 125.00 feet, through a central angle of 47°08’18”, an arc length of 102.84 feet; thence South 47°10’45” East, 380.57 feet; thence, leaving said northeasterly line of Parcel II, along the southeasterly line of Wilder Road as shown on said Final Map (507 M 11), North 42°49’15” East, 45.00 feet; thence along the northeasterly line of Wilder Road as shown on said Final Map (507 M 11), North 47°10’45” West, 380.57 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 170.00 feet, through a central angle of 47°08’18”, an arc length of 139.86 feet; thence along a tangent reverse curve to the right, having a radius of 70.00 feet, through a central angle of 20°55’13”, an arc distance of 25.56 feet to an angle point in said northeasterly line of Wilder Road (507 M 11); thence, leaving said northeasterly line of Wilder Road (507 M 11), South 41°23’04” West, 47.64 feet to the point of beginning.

Containing an area of 24,561 square feet, more or less.

This parcel is as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.

Prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act:
5/14/2025
Date
Christine M. Leptien-Parks, LS 7893
F.5.d
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Exhibit A - Legal Description (3657 : Vacation of Public Right-of-Way for a Portion of Wilder Road)

DEED TO CITY OF ORINDA
(DOC. 2022-008725)

WILDER ROAD

PARCEL II
SUBD. 9074
(507 M 11)

PARCEL CC

PARCEL PP

PARCEL KK

PARCEL MM

WILDER ROAD

PARCEL CC

PLAT MAP

TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
930 Estudillo Street
Martinez, California 94553-1620
(925) 228-4218 Fax (925) 228-4638
www.lcc-inc.com
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.

F.5.e
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Exhibit B - Plat Map (3657 : Vacation of Public Right-of-Way for a Portion of Wilder Road) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.6
Date: July 15, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Declaration of Exempt Surplus Land at Southern Terminus of Wilder Road and Authorization to Transfer to the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD)
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 42-25 Declaring 24,561 Square Feet at the Southern Terminus of Wilder Road as “Exempt Surplus Land” and Authorizing the Transfer to the Orinda Geological Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”).

BACKGROUND:

The City owns Wilder Road in fee simple title. This action concerns the 24,561 square foot area at the southern terminus of Wilder Road, depicted in Exhibits A and B to the Resolution (the “Property”). The adjacent parcel south of the Property was originally intended to be the location of the City’s Art and Garden Center, but the center was ultimately built elsewhere (at Wilder Fields) and the parcel is now owned by the GHAD.

The City is tonight separately considering vacation of the public right-of-way on the Property.

DISCUSSION:

If the City Council approves the vacation, vehicular access to Wilder Road by the general public will terminate prior to (and not be permitted on) the Property. Therefore, continued City ownership of the Property in fee title will not be necessary or appropriate.

Staff recommends the City transfer the Property to GHAD. GHAD currently owns the parcel on one side of the Property (former Art & Garden Center site) and will own the other adjacent parcel (open space) in the future. Thus, transfer to the GHAD will facilitate easier land management of the area as a contiguous site.

The Surplus Land Act, California Government Code section 54220 et seq., establishes procedures generally intended to make a local agency’s “surplus land” available for potential acquisition by affordable housing sponsors or other local public entities before disposition. However, pursuant to section 54222.3, these procedures do not apply to the disposal of “exempt surplus land” as defined in section 54221(f)(1)(A) through 54221(f)(1)(S).

Per section 54221(b)(1), City Council must take formal action at a regular public meeting declaring land to be either “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” as supported by written findings prior to transfer to the GHAD. Here, the proposed transfer qualifies as exempt surplus land under two exemptions. First, under section 54221(f)(1)(D), F.6
Packet Pg. 63
surplus land being transferred from one local agency to another local agency is “exempt surplus land.” Second, under section 54221(f)(1)(E), surplus land that is a former street, right-of-way, or easement, and is conveyed to an owner of an adjacent property is “exempt surplus land.”
As set forth in the attached Resolution, the Property is “exempt surplus land” pursuant to section 54221(f)(1)(D) because the property will be transferred to another local agency, namely the GHAD. If City Council approves the vacation of the public right-ofway on the Property, the Property will also be “exempt surplus land” pursuant to section 54221(f)(1)(E) because it will be a former right-of-way and will be conveyed to the current/future owner of the adjacent properties, namely the GHAD.

The transfer of the City-owned property triggers certain requirements. Under Government Code section 65402(a), the City must determine that the transfer conforms with the City’s General Plan. The Planning Commission has made this determination as part of Resolution No. PC 25-05, adopted May 27, 2025.

Additionally, under section 400(e) of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) 2024 Surplus Land Act Guidelines, the City must send the adopted Resolution declaring the exemption and written findings supporting the declaration to HCD at least 30 days prior to disposition. As required by section 400(e), the Resolution constitutes those written findings and includes a description of which exemptions apply to the surplus land and how the surplus land meets the requirements of those exemptions.

Usually, subdividing property also triggers requirements under the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code sections 66410 to 66499.41. However, conveyances of land to or from a governmental agency for rights-of-way are exempt pursuant to Government Code section 66426.5. Since both the City and GHAD are governmental agencies, this transfer is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act.

This action is also exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15312 (Surplus Government Property Sales).

NEXT STEPS:

The City will send the adopted Resolution to HCD for review, provided the City Council also approves the proposed vacation.

After the required 30-day period, assuming HCD does not contest the exemption, the City will offer to transfer the Property to GHAD by grant deed, and take any actions necessary to effectuate the transfer. The GHAD Board is expected to consider acceptance at its next meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

F.6
Packet Pg. 64
This action facilitates the transfer of a 24,561 square foot area at the southern terminus of Wilder Road to the GHAD for ease of future land management. Associated costs involve Staff time to effectuate the transfer.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 42-25 Declaring the Southern Terminus of Wilder Road as Exempt Surplus Land and Authorizing the Transfer to the Orinda Geological Hazard Abatement District
B. Exhibit A - Legal Description
C. Exhibit B - Plat Map
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.6
Packet Pg. 65
RESOLUTION NO. 42-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
DECLARING 24,561 SQUARE FEET AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF WILDER ROAD AS “EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND” AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER TO THE ORINDA

GEOLOGICAL HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, this is one of two related items regarding an area at the southern terminus of Wilder Road; and
WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act, California Government Code section 54220 et seq., establishes procedures generally intended to make a local agency’s “surplus land” available for potential acquisition by affordable housing sponsors or other local public entities before disposition; however, pursuant to section 54222.3, these procedures do not apply to the disposal of “exempt surplus land” as defined in section 54221(f)(1)(A) through 54221(f)(1)(S); and
WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act defines “surplus land” as land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orinda (the “City”) owns Wilder Road in fee simple as noted in the Corrected Grant Deed recorded in the official records of Contra Costa County on January 13, 2022 as DOC-2022-0008725; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution applies only to a 24,561 square foot area at the southern terminus of Wilder Road, which is depicted in Exhibits A and B hereto (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, City Council is separately considering vacation of the public rightof-way on the Property with Resolution No. 39-25]; and WHEREAS, if the City approves the vacation, continued City ownership of the Property in fee title will not be necessary or appropriate because vehicular access to Wilder Road by the general public would terminate prior to (and not be permitted on) the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City’s vacation would ensure various easements will be in place over the Property to allow continued access rights for emergency vehicles, public trail uses, and others as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”) is a local agency as defined in Government Code section 54221(a)(1) and is the current/future owner of both parcels adjacent to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to transfer the Property to GHAD for ease of future land management; and
F.6.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Resolution 42-25 Declaring the Southern Terminus of Wilder Road as Exempt Surplus Land and Authorizing the Transfer to the WHEREAS, Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(D) defines “exempt surplus land” to include surplus land that a local agency is transferring to another local, state, or federal agency; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 54221(f)(1)(E) defines “exempt surplus land” to include surplus land that is a former street, right-of-way, or easement, and is conveyed to an owner of an adjacent property; and
WHEREAS, the Property is “exempt surplus land” pursuant to section 54221(f)(1)(D) because the property will be transferred to another local agency, namely GHAD; and
WHEREAS, if City Council approves the vacation of the public right-of-way on the Property, the Property will be “exempt surplus land” pursuant to section 54221(f)(1)(E) because the property will be a former right-of-way and will be conveyed to the current/future owner of the adjacent properties, namely GHAD; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined in Resolution No. PC 25-05, adopted May 27, 2025, that the transfer of the Property to GHAD conforms with the City’s General Plan, as required by Government Code section 65402(a); and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 400(e) of the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) 2024 Surplus Land Act Guidelines, the City must send this adopted Resolution and written findings supporting the declaration of exemption to HCD at least 30 days prior to disposition; and WHEREAS, this Resolution constitutes the written findings supporting the declaration of exemption, and includes a description of which exemptions apply to the surplus land and how the surplus land meets the requirements of those exemptions; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66426.5, the transfer of the Property to GHAD is exempt from the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act because it is a conveyance of land to and from a governmental agency for rights-of way.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby declare that:

Section 1. The facts in the above recitals are true and incorporated herein.

Section 2. The Property is exempt surplus land under Government Code sections 54221(f)(1)(D) and 54221(f)(1)(E), contingent upon the Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 39-25 vacating the public right-of-way on the Property.

Section 3. The City is authorized to transfer the Property to GHAD by grant deed, contingent upon the City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 39-25 vacating the public right-of-way on the Property and HCD’s 30-day review and non-contest of the City’s declaration of exemption. The City may take any further action necessary to effectuate the transfer.

F.6.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Resolution 42-25 Declaring the Southern Terminus of Wilder Road as Exempt Surplus Land and Authorizing the Transfer to the Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15312 (Surplus Government Property Sales).

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on July 15, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A - Legal Description - Subject portion of Wilder Rd (PDF) Exhibit B - Plat Map - Subject portion of Wilder Rd (PDF) 1906602.5
F.6.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Resolution 42-25 Declaring the Southern Terminus of Wilder Road as Exempt Surplus Land and Authorizing the Transfer to the

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LCC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.
930 ESTUDILLO STREET
MARTINEZ, CA 94553 EXHIBIT A
WWW.LCC-INC.COM Page 1 of 1
Real property in the City of Orinda, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows:

Being a portion of that certain parcel of land described in the Grant Deed (Correction Deed) to the City of Orinda, recorded January 13, 2022, in Document 2022-0008725 of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County, State of California, more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at the most northerly corner of Parcel II, as said parcel is shown on the Final Map of Subdivision 9074, recorded July 22, 2008 in Book 507 of Maps at Page 11, in the office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County, State of California, said point being also an angle point in the southwesterly line of Wilder Road, as shown on said Final Map (507 M 11); thence, along the northeasterly line of said Parcel II, also being said southwesterly line of Wilder Road (507 M 11), easterly along a non-tangent curve to the left, the center of which curve bears North 26°36’09” East, having a radius of 115.00 feet, through a central angle of 30°55’12”, an arc length of 62.06 feet; thence, along a tangent reverse curve to the right, having a radius of 125.00 feet, through a central angle of 47°08’18”, an arc length of 102.84 feet; thence South 47°10’45” East, 380.57 feet; thence, leaving said northeasterly line of Parcel II, along the southeasterly line of Wilder Road as shown on said Final Map (507 M 11), North 42°49’15” East, 45.00 feet; thence along the northeasterly line of Wilder Road as shown on said Final Map (507 M 11), North 47°10’45” West, 380.57 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 170.00 feet, through a central angle of 47°08’18”, an arc length of 139.86 feet; thence along a tangent reverse curve to the right, having a radius of 70.00 feet, through a central angle of 20°55’13”, an arc distance of 25.56 feet to an angle point in said northeasterly line of Wilder Road (507 M 11); thence, leaving said northeasterly line of Wilder Road (507 M 11), South 41°23’04” West, 47.64 feet to the point of beginning.

Containing an area of 24,561 square feet, more or less.

This parcel is as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.

Prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act:
5/14/2025
Date
Christine M. Leptien-Parks, LS 7893
F.6.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Exhibit A - Legal Description (3658 : Declare Wider Rd portion surplus)

DEED TO CITY OF ORINDA
(DOC. 2022-008725)

WILDER ROAD

PARCEL II
SUBD. 9074
(507 M 11)

PARCEL CC

PARCEL PP

PARCEL KK

PARCEL MM

WILDER ROAD

PARCEL CC

PLAT MAP

TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
930 Estudillo Street
Martinez, California 94553-1620
(925) 228-4218 Fax (925) 228-4638
www.lcc-inc.com
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.

F.6.c
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Exhibit B - Plat Map (3658 : Declare Wider Rd portion surplus) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.7
Date: July 15, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Award Construction Contract to Miksis Services Inc. for Drainage Facilities Improvement (CIP #4111)
RECOMMENDATION:

Award a construction contract to Miksis Services Inc. for an amount of $123,105 for storm drain lining on Orinda Way, authorize a contingency of 15%, and authorize City Manager to execute access and cost sharing agreements with Chevron USA Inc. for said work.

BACKGROUND:

The City has identified a 24-inch diameter corrugated metal storm drain pipe on Orinda Way to be in failing condition, which requires rehabilitation. The pipe crosses Orinda Way and traverses Chevron property, as shown in attached location map (Attachment A). There is no manhole or access structure between the City-owned pipe on Orinda Way and the pipe under the Chevron property, which is considered private, and owned by Chevron. The repair options are to perform an open trench pipe replacement or to internally line the pipe. It is significantly more cost effective to line the pipe, and beneficial to both the City and Chevron to do the lining as a single project.

DISCUSSION:

Staff solicited bids for work on May 29, 2025, with an engineer’s estimated cost of $125,000. Bids were opened on June 17, with one bid received by Mikis Services for $123,105. Mikis meets the experience requirements in the specifications and has performed comparable work successfully for the City on many occasions.

Staff also negotiated cost sharing and access agreements (Attachments B & C) for the work, in which Chevron will pay a pro-rated portion of the cost based on their respective portion of ownership. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute these agreements in substantial conformance to the ones attached herein. Based on the bid price, Chevron’s share will be $71,548, and the City’s share will be $51,557.

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 June 17, 2025.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon approval of the award, the contract (standard city construction contract) will be routed for signatures. Project construction is estimated to begin this summer, after materials are ordered.

F.7
Packet Pg. 71
FISCAL IMPACT:

The current fiscal year budget for the Annual Drainage Facilities Improvement Project (CIP #4111) has adequate funding for this work with the authorized amount of $141,570 (includes 15% contingency).

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Location Map
B. Cost Sharing Agreement (Final Draft)
C. Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.7
Packet Pg. 72
F.7.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Location Map (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way)

Cost Sharing Agreement
Internally Line Storm Drain Pipe
This Agreement is made and entered into this ____ day of ________, 2025, (the “Effective Date”) by and between Chevron U.S.A. Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (“Chevron”) and the City of Orinda (“Orinda”). Chevron and Orinda may be referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

R E C I T A L S
A. Chevron owns that real property located at 11 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA (the “Property”). Chevron owns and operates a retailer service station (“Station”) on the Property.

B. An underground storm drain pipe (“Pipe”), approximately 24” diameter and 234 feet, conveys stormwater from a manhole near the north corner of Orinda Way and Santa Maria Way to an outlet located on the embankment of the Station.. The alignment of the Pipe is shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

C. Orinda has concluded that the Pipe has deteriorated and is in need of repair.

D. Orinda intends to use a non-destructive method to repair the Pipe (the “Work”).

E. Because the Work will benefit both Parties, the Parties have agreed to share in the cost of the Work, pursuant to the following terms and conditions:

T E R M S
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Responsibilities of the Parties.

1.1 Orinda. Orinda agrees to do the following:
(a) Hire a licensed general engineering contractor
(“Contractor”) to perform the Work. Orinda estimates the cost for the Work will be approximately $120,000, based on a per lineal foot cost estimate of $515/ft. The final cost of the Work will be based on the lowest bid (after Orinda proceeds with the public bid process), plus approved change orders. Any change orders shall be subject to Chevron’s review and written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If Orinda does not obtain Chevron’s approval, Chevron shall not be obligated to pay any costs associated with the change orders.

F.7.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Cost Sharing Agreement (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way)

(b) Enter into a written contract with the Contractor on a form approved by Orinda, which contract will require the Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless both Orinda and Chevron and to name both Parties as additional insureds. (c) Pay for the Work on a pro-rated basis based on the
respective pipe length within the Orinda right-of-way (98 ft.). Based on the estimated cost, this would be an amount of 98/234 x $120,000 = $50,000.

1.2 Chevron. Chevron agrees to do the following:
(a) Provide temporary access to Orinda and Contractor in the form of an Access Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B. (b) Once the Cost Sharing Agreement and Access Agreement have been fully executed, cooperate with Orinda and Contractor in performance and completion of the Work.
(c) Pay for the Work on a pro-rated basis based on the
respective pipe length within the Property (136 ft.). Based on the estimated cost, this would be an amount of 136/234 x $120,000 = $70,000.
(d) Provide a deposit to Orinda, prior to the work commencing and upon receipt of an invoice from Orinda, in the amount of $35,000, and pay the balance due of its shared costs of $35,000 ($70,000-35,000= $35,000) upon completion of the Work and within 14 days after receipt of invoice from Orinda.

2. Mutual Indemnification.

2.1 Chevron hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, assume all liability for and hold harmless Orinda and its officers, employees, agents and representatives, to the maximum extent allowed by law, from all actions, claims, suits, penalties, obligations, liabilities, damages to property, costs and expenses (including without limitation any fines, penalties, judgments, actual litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees), environmental claims or bodily and/or personal injuries or death to any persons (“Claims”), arising out of or in any way connected to the negligence or willful misconduct of Chevron, its officers, agents or employees in connection with or arising from any of the activities under this Agreement, except to the extent Claims are indemnified by the contractors pursuant to Section 1.1(b) above.

2.2 Orinda hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, assume all liability for and hold harmless Chevron and its officers, employees, agents and representatives, to the maximum extent allowed by law, from all Claims arising out of or in any way connected to the negligence or willful misconduct of Orinda, its officers, agents or employees in connection with or arising from any of the activities under this Agreement, except to the extent Claims are indemnified by the contractors pursuant to Section

1.1(b) above.

F.7.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Cost Sharing Agreement (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way)

3. No Waiver. The waiver by any Party of any breach or violation of any requirement of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such breach in the future, or of the breach of any other requirement of this Agreement.

4. Notices. Any notice or other communication (“Notice”) which either Party may desire to give to any other Party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given by any commercially acceptable means, including via first class Certified Mail, personal delivery or overnight courier, to the Party to whom the Notice is directed at the address of the Party as set forth below, or at any other address as that Party may later designate by Notice. Any Notice shall be deemed received immediately if delivered by hand, on the third day from the date it is postmarked if delivered by first-class mail, Certified and postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and on the next business day if sent via nationally recognized overnight courier.

Orinda: City of Orinda
Attention: City Manager
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Chevron: Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
5001 Executive Parkway, Suite 200
San Ramon, CA 94583
Property Manager, Chevron Products

5. Interpretation; Venue.

5.1 Interpretation. The headings used herein are for reference only.

The terms of the Agreement are set out in the text under the headings. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to the choice of law or conflicts.

5.2 Venue. This Agreement is made in Contra Costa County, California. The venue for any legal action in state court filed by a Party to this MOU for the purpose of interpreting or enforcing any provision of this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa. The venue for any legal action in federal court filed by a Party to this Agreement for the purpose of interpreting or enforcing any provision of this Agreement lying within the jurisdiction of the federal courts shall be the Northern District of California.

6. Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create any rights in third parties and the Parties do not intend to create such rights.

F.7.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Cost Sharing Agreement (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way)

7. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, is found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, such provision shall be severable and shall not in any way impair the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement.

8. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the Parties. Any amendment shall be in writing and signed by both Parties.

9. Entirety of Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject of this Agreement and supersedes all previous agreements, promises, representations, understandings and negotiations, whether written or oral, among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed by the Parties as of the date first above written.

CITY OF ORINDA, a municipal corporation Chevron U.S.A. Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation

By: By:

City Manager

F.7.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Cost Sharing Agreement (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way) CUSA ver 5.2020

ACCESS AGREEMENT
This Access Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of ________________, 20 (“Effective Date”) by and between Chevron U.S.A. Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (“Chevron”), and City of Orinda, a municipal corporation (“Licensee”), each a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”.

A. Chevron owns or has possession of certain real property located 11 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563 (“Property”) a certain portion of which is shown or described at Exhibit A (“License Area”).

B. Licensee desires to access the License Area for the purpose described on Exhibit A (“Activity”).

C. In order for Licensee to perform the Activity, Chevron is willing to grant to Licensee a limited right of entry to the License Area on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and conditions contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Term. This Agreement is for the period (“Term”) commencing on the Effective Date and expiring at 12:01 a.m. on September 30, 2025 (“Expiration Date”), unless terminated earlier.

2. Limited Right to Enter. During the Term, Chevron grants to Licensee, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees a non-exclusive license to enter upon the License Area for the purpose of the Activity only.

2.1 Licensee will secure all governmental permits prior to commencement of the Activity.

2.2 The Activity will be performed pursuant to a Cost Sharing Agreement between the Parties attached as Exhibit B (“Cost Sharing Agreement”).

2.3 Chevron reserves the right to determine in its sole discretion any conditions under which the License Area may be used by Licensee, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees, including but not limited to the number of invitees allowed on the License Area, and the date, time and duration of usage of the License Area for the Activity. Licensee will not allow any of its agents, employees, contractors and invitees to stay overnight at the License Area; any shift workers must leave and not sleep and or stay in trailers, campers or anywhere on or adjacent to the License Area.

2.4 Licensee will coordinate ingress and egress to the License Area and the timing of the Activity with Chevron’s designated representatives. The coordination will include, without limitation, any safety precautions and site inspections as may be required by Chevron.

Chevron reserves the right to have its personnel and/or representatives accompany Licensee and its agents, employees, contractors and invitees at all times when at the Property.

2.5 The Parties’ initial representatives for purposes of the coordination required under this Agreement are listed below, and the Parties may designate additional representatives in writing to the other Party:

For Chevron: For Licensee:

Evangelene Glickman
Telephone: (925) 878-5650
Linda Smith
Telephone: 925-253-4222
F.7.c
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way) 2 CUSA ver 5.2020
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

2.6 Licensee will surrender the License Area to Chevron no later than the end of the Term and in accordance with the obligations set forth in Section 7.

2.7 Chevron may immediately terminate this Agreement prior to the Expiration Date for any reason whatsoever without liability to Chevron, including without limitation, if Licensee violates any of the provisions of this Agreement.

2.8 In the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason, Chevron may prevent Licensee, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees from using or remaining in the License Area.

3. Non-Exclusivity. Licensee shall not have possession of the License Area to the exclusion of Chevron or any other party that has obtained permission or authority from Chevron to use the License Area. Licensee agrees that Chevron shall be under no obligation to protect the license privileges granted hereunder as against third parties or trespassers by legal proceedings or otherwise, and it is further agreed that Chevron shall not be liable in any way for any interference with any license privileges to which Licensee is entitled.

4. Compliance With Laws. Licensee will not use any part of the License Area for any unlawful conduct or purpose. Licensee, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees will comply with all laws and governmental orders, rules and regulations applicable to the License Area and the Activity thereon.

5. Hazardous Materials. Licensee will not use, handle, store, transport, generate, release, or dispose of any Hazardous Materials on, under, or about the License Area. Licensee will immediately provide notice to Chevron upon knowledge of any personal injury, property damage or actual or alleged discharge, leakage, spillage or emission of any Hazardous Materials occurring on or affecting the License Area. The term “Hazardous Materials” as used in this Agreement means any substance, product, waste or other material of any nature whatsoever which is or becomes listed, regulated, or addressed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601, et seq.) or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901, et seq.) all as amended from time to time, or any other federal, state or local statute, law, ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation, order or decree regulating, relating to, or imposing liability or standards of conduct concerning any hazardous, toxic or dangerous waste, substance or material, as now or at any time hereafter may be in effect.

6. Safety. Licensee will cause its agents, employees, contractors and invitees to comply with the following:

6.1 The Activity conducted on the License Area will be performed in a good, safe, careful and proper manner, and at all times Licensee will keep the License Area free from accumulation of all waste and debris associated with the performance of the Activity.

6.2 In the event of any breach of the limitations in this Agreement, or in the event that an unsafe condition arises with regard to the Activity in the sole opinion of any Chevron employee, contractor or representative, any such person shall have the authority to order the Activity to stop without liability to Chevron.

F.7.c
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way) 3 CUSA ver 5.2020

6.3 Licensee will not allow, commit or cause to be committed any destruction, misuse, alteration or neglect of the License Area. There shall not be any interference with normal operations on the Property. Other than as permitted by this Agreement, Licensee will not disturb anything on the Property without specific written approval by Chevron, which it may withhold in its sole discretion.

6.4 The possession or use of any illegal drugs or substances (or any substance, including marijuana, banned from a Chevron site regardless of local law), alcoholic beverages, explosives, firearms or weapons on the License Area is prohibited.

6.5 Licensee will take reasonable steps and use its best efforts to minimize disruption to Chevron’s business operations while performing the Activity.

7. Restoration of Property. Upon completion of the Activity, or expiration or termination of this Agreement, Licensee will remove its personal property from the License Area and repair any damage to the License Area (and other portions of the Property if applicable) caused by the Activity, restoring the area to as good condition as existed before entry by License to the satisfaction of Chevron. At Chevron’s election, Chevron may make any such repairs and Licensee will upon demand reimburse Chevron for all expenses incurred in doing so.

8. Indemnification.

8.1 The term “Indemnitees” as used in this Agreement shall collectively mean Chevron, Chevron Corporation, and their respective and direct and indirect and subsidiaries and affiliates, and the directors, officers, employees, contractors and agents of each of them.

8.2 Licensee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees from and against all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, losses, liabilities, damages, injuries and expenses (including without limitation any fines, penalties, judgments, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees) which Indemnitees may sustain, incur or become liable for, (including, but not limited to liability for injury to or death of any person, and for loss or destruction of or damage to real or personal property), arising out of or in any way connected with the rights and obligations of Licensee under this Agreement, or the acts or omissions of the employees, agents or contractors of Licensee on or about the License Area, except where such liability, costs, claims, losses, damages, injuries or expenses are caused by the negligence or misconduct of any Indemnitee.

9. No Warranty; Release.

9.1 Licensee accepts the use of the License Area in its present condition “AS IS” and “WITH ALL FAULTS” and Licensee agrees that its use of the License Area shall be at its sole risk.

9.2 LICENSEE HEREBY RELEASES AND FOREVER DISCHARGES THE

INDEMNITEES OF AND FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, ACTIONS

OR CAUSES OF ACTION WHATSOEVER THAT LICENSEE MAY HAVE, OR MAY

HEREAFTER HAVE, AGAINST THE INDEMNITEES SPECIFICALLY ARISING OUT OF THE MATTER OF THE ENTRY OF LICENSEE INTO THE LICENSE AREA.

THIS IS A COMPLETE AND FINAL RELEASE AND SHALL BE BINDING UPON

THE UNDERSIGNED AND THE HEIRS, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS,

SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF LICENSEE AND COVERS CLAIMS ARISING F.7.c
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way) 4 CUSA ver 5.2020
OUT OF OR CONNECTED WITH LICENSEE’S USE OF THE LICENSE AREA.

LICENSEE HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT UNDER OR BENEFIT OF

ANY LAW OF ANY JURISDICTION WHATSOEVER PROVIDING TO THE CONTRARY. NEITHER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS RELEASE NOR ANY

PAYMENT MADE HEREUNDER SHALL CONSTITUTE ANY ADMISSION OF ANY LIABILITY OF CHEVRON.

10. Insurance.

10.1 Without in any way limiting the liability of Licensee under this Agreement, Licensee shall maintain during the term of this Agreement the following insurance with companies and on terms satisfactory to Chevron:
(A) Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability Insurance as prescribed by applicable law;
(B) Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability Insurance (Bodily Injury and Property Damage), with contractual liability insurance to cover liability arising from the obligations of the Licensee under this Agreement. The limits of liability of such insurance shall not be less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence; and
(C) Automobile Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Insurance, the limits of which shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per person and one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for Bodily Injury and one million dollars ($1,000,000) Property Damage per occurrence. Such insurance shall extend to owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles used by the agents or contractors of Licensee, and its or their employees, agents and/or subcontractors.

10.2 The Indemnitees shall be named as additional insureds on the insurance policies specified in Section 10.1 with respect to the Activities and each policy shall include a requirement that the insurer provide Chevron with 30 days’ written notice prior to the effective date of any cancellation or material change of the insurance. The insurance specified in Section 10.1(A) shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the Indemnitees.

10.3 Prior to commencing any Activities, Licensee will provide Chevron with certificates of insurance or other documentary evidence satisfactory to Chevron of Licensee’s compliance with the insurance requirements set forth herein in this Section 10, and at all times, upon request, Licensee will provide Chevron with certificates or other documentary evidence satisfactory to Chevron of the insurance and endorsements described in this Section 10.

10.4 Self-Insurance Election. If this Section 10.4 is initialed below by both Parties, then in lieu of procuring the insurance policies and certificates described in Section 10.1, Licensee shall have the right to self-insure with respect to the insurance requirements of this Section

10. In that case, prior to commencing any Activities, Licensee will submit to Chevron a certificate of self-insurance signed by an authorized representative of Licensee, in a form satisfactory to Chevron.

Chevron Licensee
F.7.c
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way) 5 CUSA ver 5.2020

11. No Recording; No Title; Liens. Neither this Agreement nor any memorandum or other record of it shall be recorded. No legal title, easement or leasehold interest in the License Area shall be deemed or construed to have been created or vested in Licensee by anything contained in this Agreement or the conduct of the Activity. Licensee agrees to promptly pay and discharge any and all liens arising out of the Activity.

12. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be either personally delivered or sent by certified or registered United States mail with any necessary postage and charges prepaid, or by a nationally recognized courier, addressed as follows:

If to Chevron: If to Licensee:

Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
5001 Executive Parkway
San Ramon, CA 94583
Attention: Property Manager, Chevron Products
Email: [email protected]
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Attention: Linda Smith, City Manager
Telephone: 925-253-4222
and shall be effective as of the date delivered or the date postmarked, whichever is earlier. Any Party hereto may change its address for receiving notice at any time by giving written notice of the change to the other Party to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties’ designated representatives under Section 2.5 may engage in routine communications, including via email, with a view to facilitating efficient performance under this Agreement.

13. Governing Law; Resolution of Disputes.

13.1 Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of California, without regard to its choice of law rules.

13.2 Resolution of Disputes. The Parties shall exclusively and finally resolve any dispute between them using direct negotiations, mediation, and then arbitration as set out in this Section 13, except as permitted in Section 13.3. If a dispute arising out of this Agreement is not resolved by direct negotiations, either Party may initiate mediation by giving notice to the other setting out the disputed issues and the value of the claim. If the Parties fail to resolve the dispute within 60 days from notice of mediation, either Party may initiate binding arbitration by giving notice to the other Party. The place of arbitration must be San Francisco, California. One arbitrator (or 3 arbitrators if the monetary value of the dispute is more than $5,000,000, or if there is a dispute whether the monetary value exceeds the $5,000,000) will conduct the arbitral proceedings in accordance with the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (“CPR”) Rules. To the extent of any conflicts between the CPR Rules and the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement prevail. The CPR is the appointing authority. The maximum number of witnesses each Party may call to give evidence is 3 witnesses of fact and 1 expert witness. The arbitration award is final and binding.

13.3 Injunctive Relief. The Parties waive irrevocably their right to any form of appeal, review, or recourse to any court or other judicial authority under any applicable law, except for proceedings to (i) preserve property or seek injunctive relief, or (ii) enforce an award under this Section, which may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction.

F.7.c
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way) 6 CUSA ver 5.2020

13.4 Legal Fees and Costs. If any Party to this Agreement obtains an award or judgment against any other Party by reason of breach of this Agreement, costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees as fixed by the arbitrator(s) or court shall be included in such award or judgment.

14. No Waiver. No covenant or term of this Agreement shall be waived except with the express written consent of the waiving Party whose forbearance or indulgence in any regard shall not constitute a waiver of such covenant or term. Failure to exercise any right in one or more instances shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to strict performance or as an amendment to this Agreement.

15. Successors and Assigns. Licensee shall not sell, assign or sublet this Agreement or its license rights hereunder to any party without the prior written consent of Chevron, which consent may be withheld in Chevron’s sole and absolute discretion, and any attempt by Licensee to do so without obtaining such consent shall be void and of no force or effect. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and assigns.

16. Survival. Expiration or termination of this Agreement will not affect the right to enforce any obligation or liability accruing under this Agreement upon or prior to the expiration or termination, including in respect of indemnification or repairs.

17. Interpretation. Before signing this Agreement, each of the Parties has had the opportunity to receive full legal advice from their respective legal counsel, and each signatory certifies that he or she has read all of this Agreement and understands it. This Agreement has been fully negotiated between Licensee and Chevron and shall be interpreted neutrally and not for or against any Party. Headings are for convenience only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement in any way. Time is of the essence under this Agreement, and in the performance of every term, covenant, and obligation contained herein.

18. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between Chevron and Licensee on the subject matter herein and supersedes any and all prior agreements and representations made relative to the subject matter. This Agreement may be amended or modified in writing only, signed by the parties in interest at the time of the modifications.

19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, including through electronically exchanged signature pages (e.g., emailed PDFs), each of which will be deemed an original, and all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument; provided that no Party will be bound to this Agreement unless and until each Party has delivered to the other an executed counterpart.

Electronically exchanged signature pages are fully binding on the parties and effective for all purposes; they will be treated the same as physically exchanged signatures. [Signatures Follow]
F.7.c
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way) 7 CUSA ver 5.2020
The Parties have executed this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of authorized representatives of the Parties:

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.

By:

Print Name:

Title:

CITY OF ORINDA
By:

Print Name:

Title:

F.7.c
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way)

EXHIBIT A
(License Area and Activity)
Repairing/lining an existing 24-inch diameter storm drain pipe crossing under Orinda Way and then continuing under subject property to an outlet on the embankment of the property. City will also install a PVC liner inside the pipe. Access would be needed at the storm drain outlet and also at the adjacent level area to temporarily place contractor’s equipment.

F.7.c
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Access Agreement for Stormdrain Pipe Installation (Final Draft) (3659 : Award contract Miksis SD pipe lining Orinda Way) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.8
Date: July 15, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split at 88 Sunnyside Lane
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 40-25, Approving Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split at 88 Sunnyside Lane, Orinda, CA.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council recently adopted Resolution No. 68-23 which included approval of the Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane (MS 2015-001) for the development of the 88 Sunnyside Lane minor subdivision including subdivision of the existing 24.03-acre lot into four parcels suitable for development.

Subsequently, under SB9 legislation, which was effective January 1, 2022, the subject property owner, Nafis Jamal, Trustee of the Nafis Jamal Revocable Trust dated April 17, 2014, submitted an application for a lot split for 88 Sunnyside Lane. The application was deemed complete, and the Tentative Parcel Map was approved on February 13, 2025 (Attachment B); no discretionary approvals are required/allowed under SB9.

DISCUSSION:

The owners have submitted the Parcel Map (Attachment C) for MS 2024-001 with all supplementary documents and fees, to the Planning and Public Works departments for filing in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Title 16 of the City of Orinda Municipal Code (OMC), and the Conditions of Approval. The required signatures are in the process of being acquired.

Public Works reviewed the Parcel Map for the 88 Sunnyside Lane Minor Subdivision (MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split) and found it to be in conformance with the Tentative Parcel Map and Conditions of Approval. Planning determined that all applicable requirements, including the Conditions of Approval, have been satisfied for the 88 Sunnyside Lane Minor Subdivision (MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split).

According to the Subdivision Map Act section 66458(a), and the provisions of Chapter 16 of the OMC, the City Council must approve the Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Minor Subdivision (MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split) if it substantially conforms to all the requirements. Resolution No. 40-25 (Attachment A) formalizes the City Council’s action with related findings, including approving the Parcel Map.

F.8
Packet Pg. 86
Public Works prepared an exhibit of the Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Minor Subdivision (MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split) overlaid on an aerial for reference (Attachment D).

Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) Plan Approval Letter and MOFD stamped plan approval are provided in Attachments E and F.

NEXT STEPS:

The Parcel Map will be fully executed by the City, subject to non-substantive corrections if required by City Attorney and then processed for recordation with the County Clerk Recorder.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The owners of 88 Sunnyside Lane (MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split) have paid the required fees and reimbursed City for Staff and consultant review costs.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 40-25 Approving Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split at 88 Sunnyside Lane, Orinda, CA
B. Approval SB9 Lot Split Tentative Parcel Map 88 Sunnyside Lane C. Parcel Map 88 Sunnyside Lane
D. 88 Sunnyside Overlay Exhibit
E. 88 Sunnyside MOFD Plan Approval Letter
F. 88 Sunnyside MOFD Stamped Plan Approval
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.8
Packet Pg. 87
Resolution 40-25

RESOLUTION NO. 40-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
APPROVING PARCEL MAP FOR SUBDIVISION MS 2024-001 URBAN LOT SPLIT AT 88 SUNNYSIDE LANE, ORINDA, CA
WHEREAS, an application for a SB9 Urban Lot Split subdivision Tentative Map of property at 88 Sunnyside Lane, Orinda California was deemed complete by the Orinda Planning Department on February 13, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the owners have submitted the Final Map for Subdivision MS 2024- 001 and it is in the process of being signed by all parties required to execute the certificates on the map (owner and surveyor), together with all supplementary documents and fees, to the Public Works Department for filing in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Orinda Municipal Code and the tentative map conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has determined that the Parcel Map, all associated documents and fees are satisfactory in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Orinda Municipal Code and the tentative map conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orinda finds that the Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2024-001 substantially conforms with the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map and must now be approved pursuant to State law.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve the Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2024-001 with all supplementary documents.

Approved by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on July 15, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
_________________________________
Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.8.a
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Resolution 40-25 Approving Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2024-001 Urban Lot Split at 88 Sunnyside Lane, Orinda, CA (3654 :
1 Celina Palmer
From: Celina Palmer
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 4:52 PM
To: 'Sean'
Cc: Ryan O'Kane
Subject: RE: Diamond Construction SB9 Submittal - APN 266-270-029 88 Sunnyside Lane Good Afternoon,
With this email, effective today, I am memorializing City of Orinda staff’s ministerial approval of the attached Tentative Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane. This Tentative Parcel Map is being approved ministerially in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 9 as well as the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Orinda Municipal Code, and all applicable objective standards. Because all applicable standards were met, City staff determined they have no discretion under State Law to deny this SB9 lot split.

The Tentative Parcel Map is subject to the following conditions of approval:
• The applicant shall provide a final parcel map including closure calculations, supporting documents and title report as listed in the SB 9 Lot Split application. • The applicant shall provide any public or private agreements required (i.e. drainage, easements, utilities).
• The applicant shall provide a tax letter stating all liens have been paid. • This approval is limited to the SB9 lot split and does not include approval of any proposed structures. The applicant shall obtain the required permits for any proposed structures.

In addition, I would like to note the MOFD requirements as stated in the stamped plans dated 9/21/2022 that you provided. You are also subject to MOFD requirements:

The next step in the lot split process is for the City to review, and for you to obtain an approval of, the (final) Parcel Map. The Parcel Map is reviewed and processed by the Public Works Department, and typically appears on the City Council consent calendar. Per the State of California Subdivision Map Act, the Council’s role is limited (e.g., confirming consistency with the approved Tentative Parcel Map and F.8.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Approval SB9 Lot Split Tentative Parcel Map 88 Sunnyside Lane (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Urban Lot 2 compliance with any associated conditions). The Final Parcel Map needs to be approved prior to the expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map. The expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map is governed by the State of California Subdivision Map Act.

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Thank you,
Celina F. Palmer, AICP
Associate Planner

City of Orinda
Planning Department
22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563
Tel: 925.253.4212
[email protected]
https://www.cityoforinda.org/153/Planning-Department
City Hall Hours of Operations:

Mondays – Thursdays 8 AM-noon and 1-5:30 PM
Alternate Fridays 8 AM-noon and 1-5 PM or Closed
Planning Department Appointments: Check the City's website City Hall is closed alternating Fridays
Upcoming 2024 City Hall Closures/Celina’s Out of OƯice Days:

February 14-17, 2025 | February 28, 2025
March 14, 2025 | March 28, 2025
April 10, 2025 | April 11, 2025 | April 25, 2025
May 9, 2025 | May 23-26, 2025
June 6, 2025 | June19- 20, 2025
July 3-4, 2025 | July 18, 2025
August 1, 2025 | August 15, 2025 | August 29, 2025
September 1, 2025 | September 12, 2025 | September 26, 2025 October 10, 2025 | October 24, 2025
November 7, 2025 | November 11, 2025 | November 21, 2025 | November 27-28, 2025 December 5, 2025 | December 19, 2025 | December 24-31, 2025 From: Sean <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:00 PM
To: Celina Palmer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Diamond Construction SB9 Submittal - APN 266-270-029 88 Sunnyside Lane EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.

Hey Celina,
Sounds great thank you for the updated and look forward to hearing from ya.

Thanks and talk soon,
F.8.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Approval SB9 Lot Split Tentative Parcel Map 88 Sunnyside Lane (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Urban Lot 266-270-031 24120 1 2
__________________________________________
EASTON C. McALLISTER
L.S. 9583

THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN

CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF JONATHAN BRIAN HILL IN JUNE 2024. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP

SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY.

I FURTHER STATE THAT THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN. ALL MONUMENTS WILL BE OF THE CHARACTER SHOWN, AND WILL BE SET IN THOSE POSITIONS ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER, 2025, AND THAT THE MONUMENTS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED.

SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT

CITY OF ORINDA

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PARCEL MAP
SUBDIVISION MS 2024-001

URBAN LOT SPLIT
DeBolt Civil Engineering
Danville, California 94526
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL "B" OF MINOR SUBDIVISION
MS 2015-001 (222-PM-21),

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS
MAY 2025

TRUSTEE'S STATEMENT
THE UNDERSIGNED, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST RECORDED JULY 15, 2020, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2020-0141169 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DOES HEREBY JOIN IN AND CONSENT TO THE

EXECUTION OF THE FOREGOING OWNER'S STATEMENT AND TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF THIS MAP AND ALL DEEDINGS AND DEDICATIONS THEREON.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

BY: ___________________________________
NAME:

TITLE:

BY: ___________________________________
NAME:

TITLE:

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE

IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ________________________ ) SS
ON ______________________ BEFORE ME, ___________________________________ , A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED _____________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE

BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO

THE ABOVE STATEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN

HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE ABOVE

STATEMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE ABOVE STATEMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.

SIGNATURE OF NOTARY:______________________________
PRINT NAME OF NOTARY: ______________________________
MY COMMISSION NUMBER: _____________________________
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _____________________________
COUNTY OR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS:_____________

TRUSTEE'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE

IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ________________________ ) SS
ON ______________________ BEFORE ME, ___________________________________ , A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED _____________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE

BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO

THE ABOVE STATEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN

HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE ABOVE

STATEMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE ABOVE STATEMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.

SIGNATURE OF NOTARY:

PRINT NAME OF NOTARY: _______________________________
MY COMMISSION NUMBER: ______________________________
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ______________________________
COUNTY OR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: ______________
______________________________________________________

OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

OWNER'S STATEMENT

THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE ONLY PARTY HAVING A RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LANDS

DELINEATED AND EMBRACED WITHIN THE HEAVY BLACK LINES UPON THIS MAP, DOES HEREBY JOIN IN AND CONSENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDATION OF THE SAME.

THE AREA MARKED "NEW PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT" OR "NEW PA & UE" IS NOT

DEDICATED FOR THE USE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT IS FOR THE USE OF THE OWNERS OF PARCEL "A" OF SUBDIVISION MS 2024-001 FOR, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACCESS, RECREATION, PARKING, UTILITIES, DRAINAGE, INGRESS AND EGRESS. SAID EASEMENT SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PARCEL "A" OF SUBDIVISION MS 2024-001, THEIR SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS.

THIS MAP SHOWS ALL EASEMENTS ON THE PREMISES, OR OF RECORD.

AS OWNER:

NAFIS JAMAL, TRUSTEE OF THE NAFIS JAMAL REVOCABLE TRUST DATED APRIL 17, 2014 _______________________________________
NAME: NAFIS JAMAL
TITLE: TRUSTEE

CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
I, SIVAKUMAR NATARAJAN, P.E., CITY ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF ORINDA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THIS PARCEL MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP ~ SUBDIVISION MS 2015-001", AND THAT SAID SUBDIVISION IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT

APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP AND THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES GOVERNING THE FILING OF SUBDIVISION MAPS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

DATE: __________________ __________________________________________ SIVAKUMAR NATARAJAN, P.E.

CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ORINDA
R.C.E. 74789
__________________________________________

CHRISTINE LEPTIEN-PARKS

ACTING CITY SURVEYOR, CITY OF ORINDA
P.L.S. 7893
DATE: __________________

I, CHRISTINE LEPTIEN-PARKS, ACTING CITY SURVEYOR FOR THE CITY OF ORINDA, COUNTY OF

CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS PARCEL MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP ~ SUBDIVISION MS 2015-001", AND I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID PARCEL MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT.

CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT

I, SHERI SMITH, CITY CLERK AND EX-OFFICIO CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA,

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING PARCEL MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP ~ SUBDIVISION MS 2015-001" WAS PRESENTED TO SAID CITY COUNCIL, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ______ DAY OF __________________, 20____, AND THAT SAID CITY COUNCIL DID THEREUPON BY RESOLUTION DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED AT SAID MEETING, APPROVE SAID PARCEL MAP.

I FURTHER STATE THAT ALL BONDS AS REQUIRED BY LAW TO ACCOMPANY THE WITHIN MAP HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA, AND ARE FILED IN MY OFFICE.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND THIS ______ DAY OF _________________, 20____.

CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
__________________________________________

SHERI SMITH, CITY CLERK

CITY OF ORINDA

CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STATEMENT
I STATE, AS CHECKED BELOW, THAT:
( ) A TAX BOND ASSURING PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES WHICH ARE NOW A LIEN, BUT NOT YET

PAYABLE, HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND FILED WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
( ) ALL TAXES DUE HAVE BEEN PAID, AS CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY REDEMPTION OFFICER.

DATED:______________ MONICA NINO ________________________________________

CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OF CONTRA

COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BY: _____________________________________

DEPUTY CLERK
FILED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 20____, AT ________.M. IN BOOK __________ OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE __________, AT THE REQUEST OF FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY.

RECORDER'S STATEMENT
BY:

KRISTIN B. CONNELLY

COUNTY RECORDER IN AND FOR THE

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
_______________________________________________

DEPUTY COUNTY RECORDER
BY:

THIS MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND CORRESPONDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS MAP HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ME AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. __________________________________________

ROBERT REBER

PLANNING DIRECTOR

CITY OF ORINDA

PLANNING DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT
DATE: __________________

VICINITY MAP
SITE
F.8.c
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Parcel Map 88 Sunnyside Lane (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Urban Lot Split) BASIS
OF

BEARINGS

PARCEL B

PARCEL A
Line Table
Line #
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
Direction
N45°48'52"E
N47°25'25"E
S04°55'00"E
N43°41'35"E
N52°01'08"E
N53°00'43"W
S00°14'19"W
S53°00'43"E
S43°41'35"W
S52°01'08"W
N04°01'30"E
S04°01'30"W
N14°21'26"E
S14°21'26"W
N85°50'00"W
Length

36.42'

62.77'

74.68'

38.62'

51.35'

69.04'

24.96'

52.87'

28.91'

51.35'
142.83'
142.83'

31.59'

27.99'

20.32'
Curve Table
Curve #
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
Delta
008°19'33"
053°10'56"
035°54'00"
129°41'39"
008°19'33"
047°59'38"
047°59'38"
012°05'38"
069°07'51"
010°19'56"
010°19'56"
Length

6.98'

25.99'

50.13'

90.54'

9.88'

50.26'

67.01'

16.89'

33.78'

37.87'

34.26'
Radius

48.00'

28.00'

80.00'

40.00'

68.00'

60.00'

80.00'

80.00'

28.00'
210.00'
190.00'
266-270-031 24120 2 2
LEGEND
FOUND 1/2" REBAR CAP (LS 9583 | 222-PM-21)
SET 1/2" REBAR & CAP -- LS 9583

SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LINE

NEW LOT LINE

CENTERLINE

ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE

PARCEL MAP

NEW EASEMENT LINE

CITY OF ORINDA

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SUBDIVISION MS 2024-001

URBAN LOT SPLIT
DeBolt Civil Engineering
Danville, California 94526
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL "B" OF MINOR
SUBDIVISION MS 2015-001 (222-PM-21),

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS
MAY 2025

BASIS OF BEARINGS

THE FOUND MONUMENTS ON THE WESTERN LINE
OF PARCEL B, TAKEN AS NORTH 15°21'55" EAST,

AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SUBDIVISION MS
2015-001 (222-PM-21). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN
ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
(R1)
(R2)
(R3)
SUBD MS 2015-001 (222-PM-21)
SUBD MS 31-84 (116-PM-40)
SUBD 3072 (94-M-48)

REFERENCES

PA & UE PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT

GHAD GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT
(R) RADIAL BEARING

ITEMS THAT AFFECT TITLE

THE FOLLOWING NON-PLOTTABLE ITEMS AFFECT TITLE TO BOTH
PARCELS A AND B OF THIS MAP.
- "DECLARATION OF DISCOLSURES, RIGHT OF ENTRY AND

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS REGARDING ORINDA GEOLOGIC
HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT" RECORDED APRIL 18, 2024 AS
INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2024-0036137 OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
- "STORMWATER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ENTRY" RECORDED APRIL 18, 2024 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2024-0036145 OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICIAL
RECORDS.

DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE

EXISTING EASEMENT LINE

ACCESS THROUGH SUNNYSIDE LANE IS PROVIDED THROUGH
AN EXISTING 30' WIDE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
(116-PM-35) AND AN EXISTING 60' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE
ROADWAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT (2535-OR-390).

ACCESS NOTE
F.8.c
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Parcel Map 88 Sunnyside Lane (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Urban Lot Split)

PARCEL A

PARCEL B
F.8.d
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: 88 Sunnyside Overlay Exhibit (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Urban Lot Moraga-Orinda Fire District | 1280 Moraga Way | Moraga, California 94556 | 925.258.4599 | www.mofd.org May 6, 2025,

PLAN APPROVAL LETTER
Diamond Construction MOFD Number: 25-0128
Sean Sweeney
PO Box 477
Lafayette, CA 94549
Email: [email protected]
Re: Plan Review: SB-9 Parcel Split of existing SFR parcel into two parcels (High Fire Severity Zone)
Address: 88 Sunnyside Ln, Orinda, CA
Fire and Life Safety Review
Dear Sean:

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

1. Lot Split Vesting Tentative Parcel Map: Dated 1/7/25 (Revision 3), by Debolt Civil Engineers.

Our review was conducted based on the 2022 California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (as amended by the State of California and the MOFD Fire District Local Ordinance 23-01), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Title 19, along with applicable NFPA Standards.

The Moraga-Orinda Fire District Fire Code Ordinance 23-01, section 105.6.27 requires an application for a construction permit for any subdivision of land within the district. This requirement allows the Fire District to review the proposed subdivision and advise the Applicant of the specific fire code requirements for road access, water supply, construction, and vegetation management. The recent passage of Senate Bill 9 changed planning law in the California Government Code but did not change or alter the Fire Code and the Fire Code review process.

You are hereby notified that the Lot Split plans dated 1/7/2025 (Revision 3) is approved with conditions as shown on the plans.

The electronic plans were stamped approved. The permit will become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit commences within 12 months after its issuance or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 12 months after the work is commenced.

A permittee holding an unexpired permit shall have the right to apply for an extension of the time within which the permittee will commence work under that permit where work is unable to be Moraga-Orinda Fire District
F.8.e
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: 88 Sunnyside MOFD Plan Approval Letter (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Urban Lot Split) Moraga-Orinda Fire District | 1280 Moraga Way | Moraga, California 94556 | 925.258.4599 | www.mofd.org commenced within the time required for good and satisfactory reasons. The fire code official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of the time period of a permit for periods of not more than 180 days each. Such extensions shall be requested by the permit holder in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. A new permit is required for expired permits.

Sincerely,
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. (WC3)
Fire Plan Review By: Bob King, CFPE Senior Fire and Life Safety Plans Examiner Plan Review Questions may be sent to: [email protected] or (801) 547-8133.

Please call MOFD at (925) 258-4599 to request an extension or for any other assistance.

F.8.e
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: 88 Sunnyside MOFD Plan Approval Letter (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside Lane Urban Lot Split) F.8.f
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: 88 Sunnyside MOFD Stamped Plan Approval (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside F.8.f
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: 88 Sunnyside MOFD Stamped Plan Approval (3654 : Approving Parcel Map for 88 Sunnyside City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.9
Date: July 15, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Remove Existing “No Left Turn” Sign from southbound Moraga Way at Ivy Drive (North) Intersection and Install a New “No Right Turn” Sign at southbound Ivy Drive and Ardith Drive Intersection
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Resolution 41-25 (Traffic Order 238) to authorize the following:
1) Remove existing “No Left Turn” signs at southbound Moraga Way/Ivy Drive (north) intersection and Rescind Resolution 15-02 (Traffic Order 115); 2) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Southwaite Court on school days to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., Weekdays Only and Rescind Resolution 41-12 (Traffic Order 155);
3) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Whitehall Drive on school days to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., weekdays only and Rescind Resolution 42-12 (Traffic Order 156); and
4) Install new “No Right Turn” sign at southbound Ivy Drive at Ardith Drive restricting turn movements on school days from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., weekdays only.

BACKGROUND:

In 1999, the City conducted a study to review the traffic concerns in the Ivy Drive neighborhood. There are three grade schools in the vicinity of the Ivy Drive neighborhood with multiple school start times. Del Rey Elementary School started at 8:00 a.m., Orinda Intermediate School (OIS) started at 8:45 a.m., and Miramonte High School started at 8:00 a.m. in 1999. Based on results of the study and feedback from residents, traffic issues were caused by three major factors at that time:

1. Speeding by neighborhood residents.

2. Drop off and pickup traffic at Orinda Intermediate School.

3. Traffic to Miramonte High School utilizing Ivy Drive to bypass congestion on Moraga Way.

At the direction of the City Council, several measures were implemented. These included restriping Ivy Drive and installing stop signs at three intersections: Ardith Drive and Coral Drive, Eastwood Drive and Coral Drive, and Ardith Drive and Ivy Drive. The traffic study did not recommend measures such as no left turn restrictions that would reduce volumes on Ivy Drive because it would increase volumes on adjacent streets such as Coral Drive.

At the June 20, 2000, City Council meeting, Ivy Drive neighborhood traffic calming measures were further discussed. Various traffic calming recommendations were presented to City Council including installation of a “No Left Turn” Sign from southbound Moraga Way at Ivy Drive (North) 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday during F.9
Packet Pg. 98
the school year for a trial period. During the trial period, Staff would evaluate compliance with the prohibition and what effect it has had on traffic patterns in the area.

The City Council adopted Resolution 55-00 (Traffic Order 86) on August 1, 2000, for a three-month trial period that prohibited left turns from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday beginning August 28, 2000.

Staff evaluated the traffic patterns and found the new “No Left Turn” signs had the desired effect, and therefore they were approved for permanent installation at the April 2, 2002, City Council meeting by Resolution 15-02 (Traffic Order 115). Traffic Order 115 states, “Left Turns from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive shall be prohibited on school days between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday beginning April 3, 2002. This shall rescind the Traffic Order No. 86, passed by Resolution 55-00 on August 1, 2000.” The existing “No Left Turn” signs still reflect these hours and are removed every summer and reinstalled when school is back in session.

In August of 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution 41-12, Traffic Order 155, prohibiting U-turns and left turns from Moraga Way onto Southwaite Court on school days between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 a.m., Monday through Friday. At the same meeting, the City Council also adopted Resolution 42-12, Traffic Order 156, prohibiting U-turns and left turns from Moraga Way onto Whitehall Drive on school days between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 a.m., Monday through Friday.

In January 2017, per request from then Chair Roberts, the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) considered adjusting the hours for the restricted “No Left Turn” from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive (north) due to a change in the Miramonte High School start times on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. The TSAC discussed adjusting the time to later than 8:00 a.m. but realized that it would negatively impact those traveling to OIS which starts at 8:45 a.m. and will not align well with the days when school started earlier. Members of the Orinda Union School District (OUSD) and the OIS Principal also expressed concerns that extending the turn restriction time would negatively affect vehicles traveling to OIS. Following discussion and feedback from neighbors and school district, TSAC did not take any action to modify the timings on the sign.

The location map in Attachment B shows the existing intersections with turn restriction signs and evaluated intersections.

DISCUSSION:

California's SB 328, approved in 2019, required high schools to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. and middle schools no earlier than 8:00 a.m. to be implemented no later than July 1, 2022. Miramonte High School start time was changed on all days to 8:30 a.m. starting the 2022-2023 school year.

In January 2023, the TSAC was requested by OIS staff to re-evaluate the need for the “No Left Turn” signs from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive (north) because the prohibited left F.9
Packet Pg. 99
was no longer serving its intended purpose after Miramonte High School changed the start time from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. for all days, and it adversely affected staff and students who have earlier classes at OIS before 8:00 a.m., which required them to take alternate routes to school. The current start time for OIS is 8:45 a.m.

The existing restriction from southbound Moraga Way turning movement onto Ivy Drive requires southbound vehicles to use Coral Drive (a signalized intersection) as an alternate route to access Ivy Drive, including traffic going to OIS. Vehicles taking a left from southbound Moraga Way onto Coral Drive, must wait for a break in traffic without the benefit of a dedicated left-turn arrow or a separate left-turn signal.

A Public Meeting was held on October 25, 2023, via Zoom, to discuss potential changes to the existing “No Left Turn” signs at the Moraga Way and Ivy Drive (north), Moraga Way and Southwaite Court, and Moraga Way and Whitehall Drive intersections. Further outreach included mailing approximately 675 mailers to the property owners of the Ivy Drive neighborhood, as well as notifying students, teachers and administration of Miramonte High School and Orinda Intermediate School. The Zoom meeting was attended by approximately 90 people. Staff also received numerous emails before and after the meeting, both in support of keeping the signs and removing them. Most comments and concerns regarded the “No Left Turn” signs, volume of vehicles, and speeding in the neighborhood.

Staff presented the findings to the TSAC at the May 13, 2024 meeting and recommended funding a traffic study to review the nature and composition of traffic utilizing Ivy Drive from the Moraga Way and Ivy Drive (north) intersection to the Moraga Way and Ivy Drive (south) intersection. In May of 2024, the City issued a task order to Advanced Mobility Group (AMG), who is an on-call traffic engineering firm under contract with the City to conduct the study during the 2024-2025 school year, to evaluate existing traffic patterns on Ivy Drive and Ardith Drive and provide recommendations to deter cut-through traffic and improve safety conditions in the Ivy Drive neighborhood. The Moraga Way Circulation Study was completed in December 2024 (Attachment C).

The study evaluated if the times posted on the “No Left Turn” and “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs at the intersections of Moraga Way and Ivy Drive (north), Moraga Way and Southwaite Court, and Moraga Way and Whitehall Drive should remain, be modified, or the signs removed. Additional conditions that would improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood were also evaluated.

The Traffic Study Recommendations Include:
1) Remove the “No Left Turn” sign at southbound Moraga Way and Ivy Drive (north) intersection;
2) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Southwaite Court and on southbound Moraga Way at Whitehall Drive, to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m.;
3) Install new “No Right Turn” sign on southbound Ivy Drive at Ardith Drive, restricting right turn movements from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m.; and
F.9
Packet Pg. 100
4) Modify traffic signal “Maximum Limit” parameters at Moraga Way and Coral Drive and Moraga Way and Ivy Drive (south) intersections to improve circulation on Moraga Way.

The traffic study noted that very few vehicles make the left turn at southbound Moraga Way at Southwaite Court and on southbound Moraga Way at Whitehall Drive but stated that “removing the signs will likely prompt vehicles into making the left turn movement onto Southwaite Court and Whitehall Drive. Removing the signs would potentially increase the number of conflicts occurring on Southwaite Court since it is a dead end and increase the cut-through traffic on Whitehall Drive since it connects to Ardith Drive and Coral Drive to the north.”
The traffic study recommends the changes to be implemented on a trial basis to monitor performance and take corrective actions if required.

Staff presented the study and recommendations to the TSAC on February 24, 2025.

Staff recommended that TSAC recommend to the City Council approval to implement the changes. The TSAC meeting was well attended by Ivy Drive neighborhood residents, and teachers and students of OIS. After reviewing the study and hearing public comments, the TSAC requested Staff to perform additional public outreach in the form of a second public meeting via Zoom to present a “Yes/No” survey requesting additional feedback about the prohibited turn movement signs and other recommendations presented in the study.

The second public meeting was held on April 16, 2025 via Zoom. Outreach included mailing approximately 675 mailers to the property owners of the Ivy Drive neighborhood, as well as students, teachers and administration of Miramonte High School and OIS.

The Zoom meeting was attended by 41 people and an additional six survey responses were received from people that had technical difficulties during the meeting. Staff also received numerous emails regarding the “No Left Turn” signs, the proposed “No Right Turn” sign from Ivy Drive to Ardith, volume of vehicles, and speeding in the neighborhood.

Nine survey questions were presented during the meeting as polls. The second public meeting survey results were then presented to the TSAC at the May 19, 2025, meeting.

Responses received from the survey were somewhat distributed, but the overall preference was in support of removing or modifying the existing turning restriction time and support for removal of the “No Left Turn” signs on Moraga Way at Ivy Drive (north) as part of a pilot program for five to six months in the 25/26 school year as supported by the traffic study. The TSAC recommended City Council approval of the proposed changes.

Consistent with the direction of TSAC, Staff is recommending that the City Council approve Resolution 41-25, Traffic Order 238, which will:
1) Remove the existing “No Left Turn” signs at southbound Moraga Way/Ivy Drive (north) intersection and Rescind Resolution 15-02 (Traffic Order 115); F.9
Packet Pg. 101
2) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Southwaite Court on school days to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., Weekdays Only and Rescind Resolution 41-12 (Traffic Order 155); 3) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Whitehall Drive on school days to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., weekdays only and Rescind Resolution 42-12 (Traffic Order 156); and 4) Install new “No Right Turn” sign at southbound Ivy Drive at Ardith Drive restricting turn movements on school days from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., weekdays only.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon City Council approval, Staff will implement the changes prior to start of the 2025/2026 school year. The changes will be monitored during the first year and Staff will bring back recommendations to the City Council if further changes are necessary.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost for implementing the proposed changes and reevaluation in the first year is estimated to be about $7,000 plus Staff time for procurement and managing the project, plus ongoing maintenance expenditure of installation and removal of the restricted turn movement signs at the beginning and end of each school year. There are sufficient funds available under Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Program (CIP # 4107) budget, which is funded by Fund #200, Gas Tax.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 41-25 Traffic Order 238
B. Location Map
C. Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.9
Packet Pg. 102
RESOLUTION NO. 41-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 15-02 (TRAFFIC ORDER 115) AND REMOVING THE “NO LEFT TURN” AT SOUTHBOUND MORAGA WAY/IVY DRIVE; RESCINDING RESOLUTION 41-12 AND 42-12 MODIFYING RESTRICTED TURN TIMES AT SOUTHWAITE COURT AND WHITEHALL DRIVE; AND INSTALLING A NEW “NO RIGHT TURN” SIGN AT SOUTHBOUND IVY DRIVE TO ARDITH DRIVE ON SCHOOL DAYS
TRAFFIC ORDER NO. 238
WHEREAS, the existing signs on Moraga Way at the intersections of Ivy Drive (North), Southwaite Court and Whitehall Drive do not serve their originally intended purpose due to recent changes to school start times as required per SB238; and WHEREAS, an engineering study of the Ivy Drive neighborhood recommended changes to improve traffic safety and circulation on Ivy Drive and Moraga Way; and WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 10.04.040 authorizes Traffic Orders prohibiting the making of any turning movement by any vehicle at any intersection, and a local agency to establish parking regulations on streets and roads under their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 10.04.040 authorizes Traffic Orders regulating the installation and operation of mechanical devices for the control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and
WHEREAS, Orinda Municipal Code Section 10.04.040 requires the adoption of a resolution for a traffic order to become effective.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve the following:
1) Remove the existing “No Left Turn” signs at southbound Moraga Way/Ivy Drive (north) intersection and Rescind Resolution 15-02 (Traffic Order 115); 2) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Southwaite Court on school days to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., Weekdays Only and Rescind Resolution 41-12 (Traffic Order 155); 3) Change existing time restriction on “No U-Turn/No Left Turn” signs on southbound Moraga Way at Whitehall Drive on school days to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., Weekdays Only and Rescind Resolution 42-12 (Traffic Order 156); 4) Install new “No Right Turn” sign at southbound Ivy Drive at Ardith Drive restricting turn movements on school days from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30.a.m., Weekdays Only.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on July 15, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

F.9.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Resolution 41-25 Traffic Order 238 (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri M. Smith, City Clerk
F.9.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Resolution 41-25 Traffic Order 238 (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) ATTACHMENT A: Map
Existing No
Left Turn Sign
@ Ivy Drive
(north)
Existing No UTurn/No Left Turn
Sign @
Southwaite Ct.

Existing No UTurn/No Left Turn
Sign @ White Hall
Drive
Proposed No Right
Turn sign From Ivy
Drive to Ardith Drive
Moraga Way and
Ivy Drive (south)
Intersection
F.9.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Location Map (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) To:

Sivakumar Natarajan, PE
City Engineer, City of Orinda
From:

Joy Bhattacharya, PE &
Andrea Flores, EIT
Address: 22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Email: [email protected] Date: December 18, 2024 Subject: Moraga Way Circulation Studies
Introduction
This technical memorandum summarizes the results and recommended solutions of two circulation studies on Moraga Way. The first study (i) reviews the applicability and effectiveness of three existing No Left Turn signs on Moraga Way. The second study (ii) examines the need of installing a new No Left Turn sign on Moraga Way at the Moraga Way & Orchard Road (north) intersection.

Study #1: Circulation Study near Ivy
Drive and Ardith Drive
There are 3 existing No Left Turn signs along
Moraga Way at the following intersections,
shown in Figure 1:
• Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (north)
• Moraga Way & Southwaite Court
• Moraga Way & Whitehall Drive
These signs were installed to deter vehicles
from taking Ivy Drive and Ardith Way to get to
the signalized Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (south)
and Moraga Way & Coral Drive intersections.

The city wants to study the effectiveness of
these signs since the three nearest schools (Del
Rey Elementary, Orinda Intermediate School,
and Miramonte High School) have changed
their start times since the installation of these
No Left Turn signs. Currently, the signs restrict
the left turns at these intersections from 7:00am
to 8:00am.

Figure 1: Study Segments &
No Left Turn sign locations along Moraga Way
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Figure 2 shows both of the roadway segments (Ivy
Drive and Ardith Drive) and the intersections that
currently have the No Left turn signs. Additionally, the City wants to determine the feasibility of installing a No Right Turn sign at the intersection of Ivy Drive &
Ardith Drive (shown in Figure 2) to deter cut-through
traffic from taking Ardith Drive to get to the
intersection of Moraga Way & Coral Drive.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate existing traffic patterns on Ivy Drive & Ardith Way and make
recommendations to deter cut-through traffic and
improve safety conditions on these roadways.

Existing Roadway Infrastructure & Traffic
Operations
Moraga Way is a bi-directional two-lane north-south
roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per
hour (mph) throughout the study area. However,
specific speed limits are enforced between Coral
Drive and Ivy Drive (north) as stated on signage near
the segment, as shown in Figure 3. The speed limit
is reduced to 25 mph from Monday to Friday during
school hours (7:30-8:30 AM and 2:00-4:00 PM). The
roadway features a horizontal S-curve just north of
Coral Drive and connects several roadways,
including Ivy Drive, Eastwood/Estabueno Drive,
Coral Drive, Lavenida Drive, Whitehall Drive, and El
Camino Moraga. There are marked crosswalks
present at Ivy Drive (south), Eastwood Drive, Coral
Drive, and El Camino Moraga to facilitate pedestrian
movement across Moraga Way.

On-street parking is allowed along Moraga Way
between Altamount Drive and Leslee Lane. There
are Class II Bike Lanes throughout the entire
segment providing a dedicated space for cyclists.

Parking is restricted where bike lanes are present.

Parking is only allowed beyond the bike lanes or off
the roadway edge. This can be seen on Moraga Way between Ivy Drive (north) and El Camino Moraga.

Sidewalks are present on the southbound side of the street between Ivy Drive (south) and Altamount Figure 3: Special 25 mph speed limit sign on
Moraga Way between Coral Dr & Ivy Dr (north)
Figure 2: Study Roadway Segments & location
of proposed No Right Turn sign at Ivy/Ardith
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Drive. Pedestrian safety signs are installed near the Eastwood intersection and approaching the El Camino Moraga crosswalk to further enhance safety at those intersections.

Ivy Drive is a bi-directional, two-lane east-west roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). The roadway features gradual horizontal curves north of Ramona Drive and connects Moraga Way to Arroyo Drive, Coral Drive, and Ardith Drive. There are marked crosswalks located at Moraga Way (south), Risa Court, and Descanso Drive, as well as at Coral Drive (crossing Coral Drive instead of Ivy Drive). On-street parking is available on both sides of the street, with signage indicating "2-hour parking from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM on school days" between Moraga Way (south) and Arroyo Drive.

There are no bike facilities on this segment. Sidewalks are present on the northbound side of the street from Moraga Way (south) to between Corte Sombrita and Ramona Drive, Fiesta Circle (north) to Risa Court, and Cielo Court to Descanso Drive. On the eastbound direction of the street, sidewalks extend from Descanso Drive to Ardith Drive. Pedestrian safety signs are installed approaching crosswalks at Moraga Way, Coral Drive, and Descanso Drive to enhance pedestrian safety.

Ardith Drive is a bi-directional, two-lane north-south roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). The roadway features horizontal S-curves throughout its entire segment and connects Ivy Drive to several courts, including Westover Cout, Totterdell Court, Beaconsfield Court, and Darnby Court, as well as Whitehall Drive and Coral Drive. There are no marked crosswalks, sidewalks, or pedestrian safety signs along Ardith Drive. On-street parking is available on both sides of the street throughout the entire segment, but there are no bike facilities.

Southwaite Court is a bi-directional, two-lane north-south roadway with a 25 miles per hour (mph) speed limit. The road features a gradual horizontal curve and has on-street parking available on both sides throughout the entire segment. There are no crosswalks, sidewalks, bike facilities, or pedestrian safety signs along Southwaite Court.

Whitehall Drive is a bi-directional, two-lane east-west roadway with a 25 miles per hour (mph) speed limit. The road features two significant horizontal curves and connects Moraga Way to Chelton Court and Ardith Drive. On-street parking is available on both sides throughout the entire segment. There are no crosswalks, sidewalks, bike facilities, or pedestrian safety signs along Whitehall Drive.

F.9.c
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Data Collection
AMG collected intersection turning movement counts (TMC) on Thursday, May 24, 2024, at six (6) locations during the weekday a.m. (7:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.) peak period. The following are the seven intersections where data was collected, including the three intersections with the No Left Turn signs, as shown in Figure 4:

1. Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (north)

2. Moraga Way & Southwaite Court

3. Moraga Way & Whitehall Drive

4. Moraga Way & Coral Drive
(Signalized Intersection)

5. Moraga Way & Ivy Drive
(Signalized Intersection)

6. Ivy Drive & Ardith Drive
Speed Data was also collected on Ardith
Drive during the same weekday a.m. (7:30
a.m.-10:30 a.m.) peak period. It should be
noted that the data was collected during
these specific times to capture entrance and
dismissal times of nearby Miramonte High
School, Orinda Intermediate School, and
Del Rey Elementary School. Appendix A
contains the existing traffic counts.

The data collected was utilized to evaluate if
the times posted on the No Left Turn signs
at the intersections of Moraga Way & Ivy
Drive (north), Moraga Way & Southwaite
Court, and Moraga Way & Whitehall Drive
should be changed/modified.

Timing information was collected at the intersections of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (south) and Moraga Way & Coral Drive to improve signal timing parameters and deter cut-through traffic.

Figure 4: Turning Movement Count (TMC) locations for
Study #1
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Analysis
Field Observations & Visual Assessments
Field observations and visual assessments were conducted on Thursday, May 23, and Tuesday, May 28, 2024, during the weekday a.m. peak period. The purpose of this field review was to analyze any potential conflicts, safety issues, existing roadway conditions, and existing traffic to propose any potential improvements and recommendations.

Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (North) Intersection
At this intersection, there is currently a No Left Turn sign that restricts the left turn movement from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive from 7:00am to 8:00am, as shown in Figure 5. It was observed that a few vehicles would make the illegal left turn/U-turn movement during the restricted time slot,
however, most of the traffic at the intersection seemed to occur from 8:00am to 9:00am. Figure 6 shows the queueing that is generated by the left turn/U-turn movement from 8:00am to 9:00am.

Moraga Way & Southwaite Court Intersection
At this intersection, there is currently a No Left Turn sign that restricts the left turn movement from Moraga Way
onto Southwaite Court from 7:00am to 8:00am. The sign at this intersection is identical to the sign shown in Figure 4.

No vehicles were observed making the illegal left turn/Uturn movement at the intersection.

Moraga Way & Whitehall Drive Intersection
At this intersection, there is currently a No Left Turn sign that restricts the left turn movement from Moraga Way
onto Whitehall Drive from 7:00am to 8:00am. The sign at this intersection is identical to the sign shown in Figure 4.

No vehicles were observed making the illegal left turn/Uturn movement at the intersection.

Ivy Drive & Ardith Drive Intersection
At this intersection, it was observed that many vehicles would make a right turn from Ivy Drive onto Ardith Drive from around 8:00am to 8:20am. Due to the nature of the roadway, there are sight visibility issues for drivers making that right turn movement from Ivy Drive onto Ardith Way.

Figure 5: No Left Turn Sign @ Moraga
Way & Ivy Drive
Figure 6: Congestion after 8:00 am @
Moraga Way & Ivy Drive
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (South) Intersection
Traffic congestion was observed at the intersection during the AM Peak. The movements with the longest queues were movements heading towards Miramonte High School, the eastbound right turn from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive, the westbound left turn from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive, and the southbound through movement on Ivy Drive. Figure 7 shows the queue that forms for the eastbound right turn movement.

Several pedestrians and school children were observed crossing all the crosswalks at the intersection. It was also observed that most pedestrians would cross the intersection at the unmarked crossing, across the north leg approach. While most pedestrians crossed the unmarked crossing during phases that did not conflict, there were several conflicts with vehicles making the eastbound right turn movement from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive.

Figure 7: Eastbound right-turn queue on Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive (towards Miramonte High School) F.9.c
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Cut-Through Analysis
AMG conducted a cut-through analysis on Ivy Drive
and Ardith Drive to see what percentage of trips on
these roadways were cut-through trips using
Streetlight Insight1
. Origin-Destination Analysis with
gates was used to calculate the percentage of trips
that were cut-through.

On Ivy Drive, the cut-through movement that was
analyzed was from vehicles getting on Ivy Drive
through the intersection of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive
(north) and ending up on Ivy Drive at the intersection
of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (south) or ending up on
Coral Drive at the intersection of Moraga Way &
Coral Drive. Figure 8 shows the area used in the
origin-destination analysis. Table 1 shows the
percentage of cut-through trips on Ivy Drive during
the peak AM period. During the AM Peak hour (7:45am-8:45am) the average number of cut-through trips was 94 out of a total of 397 vehicles (24%) on Ivy Drive towards Coral Drive and the southern limit of Ivy Drive. It was also observed that while the percentage of cut-through trips is substantial during that AM Peak hour, the percentage of cut-through trips is reduced to 0% after 9:15am, showing that there is a definite peak of cut-through trips during the AM Peak hour.

Table 1: Percentage of Cut-Through Trips on Ivy Drive during the AM period Day Time % of Cut-Through Trips
from Monday-Friday
7:15am-7:30am 0%
7:30am-7:45am 0%
7:45am-8:00am 17%
8:00am-8:15am 20%
8:15am-8:30am 26%
8:30am-8:45am 27%
8:45am-9:00am 19%
9:00am-9:15am 2%
9:15am-9:30am 0%
1 Streetlight Insight uses “Big Data” analytics such as connected vehicle and location based services data. Data outputs can be queried down to the network link level or to a specified geometry. It is a nationwide model that reports near-real-time data on mobility, traveler attributes, and trip attributes.

Figure 8: Origin-Destination Analysis on Ivy Drive
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

No Left Turn Signs Analysis
Besides using Streetlight Insight data to determine cut-through movements on Ivy Drive and Ardith Drive, turning movement counts were also used to evaluate whether the No Left Turn signs on Ivy Drive, Southwaite Court, and Whitehall Drive should be removed or have a time change, and if new restricted movement signs should be installed on Ardith Drive. Figure 9 shows the number and percentage of vehicles making the southbound left turn from Moraga Way onto Ivy Drive compared to the rest of the movements at the intersection. The peak for the southbound left movement at the intersection occurs at 8:00am with 148 vehicles (53%) making this movement, and then dips significantly after 8:45am.

While the cut-through analysis and the turning movements at the intersection support a No Left turn sign at the intersection from 7:45am to 8:45am, this intersection is not only used by Miramonte High School students for cut-through, but it is also the main access point for Orinda Intermediate School (OIS). Consequently, most of the congestion for the southbound left movement, particularly from 8:30am to 8:45am is not only due to cut-through trips to the high school, but trips to OIS, since OIS starts school at 8:45am. Installing a No Left Turn sign at the intersection from 7:45am to 8:45 will likely prompt vehicles going to OIS to alternate routes that will increase cut-through trips on the neighboring roadways and worsen congestion on Moraga Way. Therefore, it is recommended that the No Left turn sign at the intersection of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive be removed.

Figure 9: Number & Percentage of SBL movements on Moraga Way & Ivy Drive 4 vehs
(20%) 3 vehs
(7%)
3 vehs
(4%)
5 vehs
(4%)
7 vehs
(5%)
22 vehs
(12%)
148 vehs
(53%)
97 vehs
(36%)
99 vehs
(44%)
21 vehs
(15%) 17 vehs
(14%) 16 vehs
(17%)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM Number (%) of SBL movements on Moraga Way @ Ivy Drive (north) F.9.c
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Figure 10 shows the number and
percentage of vehicles making the
eastbound right turn from Ivy Drive
to Ardith Drive compared to the
rest of the movements at the
intersection. The peak for the
eastbound right movement at the
intersection occurs at 8:00am with
44 vehicles (29%) making this
movement, and gradually
decreases after. These turning
movements support installing a No
Right Turn sign on Ivy Drive onto
Ardith Way from 7:30am to
8:30am. This right turn restriction
will deter vehicles from using
Ardith Drive as a cut-through route
while also accommodating vehicles trying to go to OIS.

Figure 11 shows the percentage of
vehicles making the southbound left
turn from Moraga Way onto
Whitehall Drive compared to the rest
of the movements at the
intersection. The peak for the
southbound left movement at the
intersection occurs at 8:30am with 8
vehicles (7%) making this
movement. At the intersection of
Moraga Way & Southwaite Court,
very few vehicles are making the
southbound left turn movement
during the AM peak period. The
highest occurrence (2 vehicles) for
the southbound left movement at
this intersection occurs at 8:15am.

While the No Left Turn is recommended to be removed at the intersection of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive, it is recommended to maintain the No Left Turn signs at the intersections of Moraga Way & Southwaite Court and Moraga Way & Whitehall Drive and change the timing restriction on the signs from 7:00am to 8:00am to 7:30am to 8:30am.
2 vehs
(50%) 1 vehs
(33%)
1 vehs
(33%)
2 vehs
(33%) 1 vehs
(13%)
10 vehs
(30%)
44 vehs
(29%)
23 vehs
(22%)
4 vehs
(4%)
5 vehs
(21%)
6 vehs
(35%) 3 vehs
(19%)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM Number (%) of EBR movements on Ivy Dr @ Ardith Way
Figure 10: Number & Percentage of EBR movements on Ivy Dr & Ardith Dr
Figure 11: Number & Percentage of SBL movements on Moraga Way & Whitehall Drive
0 vehs
(0%)
0 vehs
(0%)
0 vehs
(0%)
2 vehs
(2%)
2 vehs
(2%)
3 vehs
(2%)
5 vehs
(3%)
3 vehs
(2%)
8 vehs
(7%)
3 vehs
(2%)
0 vehs
(0%)
3 vehs
(4%)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM Number (%) of SBL movements on Moraga Way @ Whitehall Dr F.9.c
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Although very few vehicles are making the left turn at both intersections, removing the signs will likely prompt vehicles into making the left turn movement onto Southwaite Court and Whitehall Drive.

Removing the signs would potentially increase the number of conflicts occurring on Southwaite Court since it is a dead end and increase the cut-through traffic on Whitehall Drive since it connects to Ardith Drive and Coral Drive to the north.

Speed Analysis
AMG utilized the speed data collected on Ardith Drive to determine if any traffic calming or speed limit changes were necessary on those roadways. The speed data was collected adjacent to 4 Westover Court.

The posted speed limit on Ardith Drive is 25 miles per hour (mph). Going more than 5+ miles per hour over the speed limit is considered speeding, so any vehicles going more than 30 miles per hour on Ardith Drive are speeding. Table 2 shows the results of the speed analysis. The number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour and over during the entire day was 10 out of 309 vehicles (3%) in the southbound direction and 10 out of 221 vehicles (5%) in the northbound direction, respectively.

During the AM Peak period, the number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour was 6 out of 109 vehicles (6%) in the southbound direction and 1 out of 53 vehicles (2%) in the northbound direction, respectively. Since the percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour does not vary significantly between the AM Peak period and the daily period, no traffic calming improvements or speed limit changes are recommended on Ardith Drive at this time.

Table 2: Ardith Drive Speed Analysis results
Time Period # of NB trips
going 30+ mph
% of NB trips
going 30+ mph
# of SB trips
going 30+ mph
% of SB trips
going 30+ mph
Daily 10 5% 10 3%
6:30am-9:30am 1 2% 6 6%
To verify results of this speed analysis, the Orinda Police Department set up a speed trailer on Ardith Drive to get additional speed data. The speed data was collected from Monday, November 25th, 2024, to Sunday, December 8th, 2024, near the Ardith Drive & Westover Court intersection, for vehicles driving in the southbound direction. Table 3 shows the results of the speed analysis using this data.

From the speed data collected, the number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour and over during the thirteen-day period at all hours (24-hour period) was 254 out of 4,873 vehicles (5%) in the southbound direction. The number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour and over during the thirteen-day period during the a.m. peak period (7:00am to 9:00am) was 117 out of 3,647 vehicles (12%) in the southbound direction.

Table 3: Ardith Drive Speed Analysis results
Time Period
(Over 13-days)
# of SB trips
going 30+ mph
% of SB trips
going 30+ mph
Daily 254 5%
7:0am-9:00am 117 12%
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Based on the results, the daily percentage of southbound trips going over 30 miles per hour is similar, confirming the previous analysis. However, the new data suggests that during the AM Peak Period, the percentage of southbound trips going over 30 miles per hour is substantially higher than the previous analysis proposes. Due to the high percentage of speeding in the southbound direction, the City could consider installing a No Right Turn sign at the intersection of Ivy Drive & Ardith Drive. The City could also consider some traffic calming improvements, including additional speed limit signage throughout the entire roadway section.

Additionally, the City could change the prima facie speed limit on Ardith Drive from 25 mph to 15 mph.

Ardith Drive meets the requirements to change the prima facie speed limit per California Vehicle Code 22358.4, and it would require the City to conduct an Engineering & Traffic Study and then pass an ordinance/resolution. After the ordinance/resolution is passed, the City would be required to install advanced speed limit warning signs.

Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (south) and Moraga Way & Coral Drive Timing Evaluation AMG utilized the existing timing sheet and field evaluation to prepare the existing Synchro for the intersections of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (south) and Moraga Way & Coral Drive. Currently, the timing parameters favor the movements through Moraga Way, but the delays on the westbound approaches of Ivy Drive and Coral Drive are currently Level of Service (LOS) E & C, respectively. Therefore, AMG proposes changes to the max limits for the phases that control those approaches to change the delays on those approaches to LOS F at the Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (south) and to LOS E at Moraga Way & Coral Drive intersection. At Moraga Way & Coral Drive, the minimum green time and the Flash Don’t Walk parameter were also modified based on the crosswalk length and the updated MUTCD recommendations. This change will deter drivers from using Ivy Drive and Coral Drive as cut-through roadways, since there will be more delays. AMG will go to the field and implement these changes on the controller. Minimum gap times were also reviewed but no changes to existing minimum gap times are recommended. Appendix B shows the proposed changes on the intersection timing sheets.

Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (south) Intersection Evaluation
As mentioned in the field review, and supported by the pedestrian counts at the intersection, a large number of students and pedestrians use the unmarked crossing across the north approach on Moraga Way. The City could consider installing crosswalk markings at that approach to improve pedestrian safety and improve driver awareness. However, this could lead to further delays and congestion at the intersection due to more pedestrians feeling safe to use this crossing.

It was also observed that there is a long queue for the eastbound right turn movement at the intersection. Due to the long queue for that movement, drivers are inpatient and try to make that movement as soon as they can. However, due to the large numbers of pedestrians using the west crosswalk while it is also green for that movement, there was a potential conflict for pedestrians getting hit by impatient drivers. A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) could be implemented in the future at that crossing to help mitigate that conflict.

F.9.c
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Conclusion
Based on the results of the analysis, the existing No Left Turn sign at the intersection of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (north) should be removed, while the existing No Left Turn sign at the intersections of Southwaite Court and Whitehall Drive should have timing changes. A No Right Turn sign should be installed at the intersection of Ivy Drive & Ardith Drive and timing changes should be applied to the intersections of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (south) and Moraga Way & Coral Drive to deter cut-through trips. All these proposed changes should be implemented as part of a “pilot” program. A few months after implementing these changes, AMG will review their effectiveness through data collection and field review. If cut-through trips have not decreased, the No Left Turn sign at the intersection of Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (north) should be reinstalled with timing changes. Table 4 below summarizes the priority, locations, and recommended actions to reduce cut-through trips and improve safety throughout the entire study segment.

Table 4: Recommendations for Circulation Study #1
Priority
Time Period Recommended Actions
Near-Term
(“Pilot” Program)
- Remove No Left Turn sign at Moraga/Ivy (north) to allow vehicles going to OIS access to Ivy Drive
- Change Existing time on No Left Turn sign restriction to 7:30am to 8:30am at Moraga/Southwaite & Moraga/Whitehall to prevent potential conflicts and cutthrough movements - Install No Right Turn sign at Ivy/Ardith from 7:30am to 8:30am to deter cut-through movements
- Change Maximum Limit parameters at Moraga/Coral & Moraga/Ivy (south) to deter cut-through movements at intersections
Medium-Term
(Few months after
implementation of
“Pilot” program)
- Perform Data Collection to determine efficacy of “Pilot” Program - If “Pilot” Program is not effective
o Reinstall No Left Turn sign on at Moraga/Ivy (north) and restrict from 7:45am to 8:15am
- Perform speed data collection on Ardith Drive to confirm speed data and see if installing any traffic calming measures is feasible to reduce speeds Long-Term
- Consider E&TS in the future to see if speed limit reduction on Ardith Drive is feasible - Consider installing High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings across the north Moraga Way Approach
- Consider installing an LPI for the west approach to help improve pedestrian safety at the intersection of Moraga/Ivy (south)
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Study #2: Circulation Study near Orchard Rd
The purpose of this study is to evaluate existing
traffic patterns on Orchard Road and make
recommendations to deter cut-through traffic and
improve safety conditions on this roadway.

The feasibility of installing a No Left Turn sign at
the intersection of Moraga Way & Orchard Road
(north) to deter cut-through traffic from taking
Orchard Road to get to the intersection of Orchard
Road & Glorietta Boulevard was analyzed. Figure
12 shows the study roadway segment (Orchard
Road) and the intersection of Moraga Way &
Orchard Road (north) where the No Left turn sign is
considered.

Existing Roadway Infrastructure & Traffic
Operations
Orchard Road is a bi-directional, two-lane northsouth roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph), which reduces to 15 mph around
areas with significant horizontal and vertical
curvatures, as shown in Figure 13. The road features
numerous horizontal curves that influence the speed
limit, ensuring safer travel through the winding
segments. Orchard Road connects Moraga Way to
Oakwood Road, Brookside Road, Scenic Drive,
Valley Drive, and Glorietta Boulevard. There are no
marked crosswalks, sidewalks, or pedestrian safety
signs along Orchard Road. Although there are no
posted signs regarding on-street parking, vehicles
are observed to park in areas with enough space to
avoid disrupting road traffic. The street does not
include any dedicated bike facilities.

Data Collection
AMG collected intersection turning movement
counts (TMC) on Thursday, May 24, 2024, at the
study intersection, Moraga Way & Orchard Road
(north) during the weekday a.m. (7:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.) peak period. Speed Data was also collected on Figure 12: Study Roadway Segments & location
of proposed No Left Turn sign at Moraga/Orchard
Figure 13: 15 mph warning speed limit sign on
Orchard Road
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Orchard Road during the same weekday a.m. (7:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.) peak period. It should be noted that the data was collected during these specific times to capture entrance and dismissal times of nearby Glorietta Elementary School, Miramonte High School, Orinda Intermediate School, and Del Rey Elementary School. Additional speed data was collected from Tuesday, October 8th, 2024 to Sunday, October 13th, 2024 to verify speed results. Appendix C contains the existing traffic counts for this study.

The data collected was utilized to evaluate the need for installing a No Left Turn sign at the intersection of Moraga Way & Orchard Road and additional traffic calming measures on Orchard Road.

Analysis
Field Observations & Visual Assessments
Field observations and visual assessments were conducted on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, during the weekday a.m. peak period. The purpose of this field review was to analyze any potential conflicts, safety issues, existing roadway conditions, and existing traffic to propose any potential improvements and recommendations.

Moraga Way & Orchard Rd (North) Intersection
Not many vehicles were observed making a left turn movement from Moraga Way onto Orchard Rd at this intersection during the am peak period. However, for the few vehicles making that left turn, it was observed that it took vehicles a long time to find a gap in traffic that allowed them to safely complete the left turn maneuver.

Cut-Through Analysis
AMG conducted a cut-through analysis on Orchard
Road to see what percentage of trips on these
roadways were cut-through trips using Streetlight
Insight2
. Origin-Destination Analysis with gates was
used to calculate the percentage of trips that were cutthrough.

On Orchard Road, the cut-through movement that
was analyzed was from vehicles getting on Orchard
Road through the intersection of Moraga Way &
Orchard Road (north) and ending up on Orchard Road
at the intersection of Glorietta Blvd & Orchard Road.

Figure 14 shows the area used in the origin-destination analysis. Table 5 shows the percentage of cut-through
trips on Orchard Road during the peak AM period.

During the AM Peak hour (7:45am-8:45am) the
2 Streetlight Insight uses “Big Data” analytics such as connected vehicle and location based services data. Data outputs can be queried down to the network link level or to a specified geometry. It is a nationwide model that reports near-real-time data on mobility, traveler attributes, and trip attributes.

Figure 14: Origin-Destination Analysis on
Orchard Road
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

average number of cut-through trips was 9 out of a total of 47 vehicles (20%) on Orchard Road. It was also observed that while the percentage of cut-through trips is substantial during that AM Peak hour, the percentage of cut-through trips is reduced to 0% after 8:45am, showing that there is a definite peak of cut-through trips during the AM Peak hour.

Table 5: Percentage of Cut-Through Trips on Orchard Road during the AM period Day Time % of Cut-Through Trips
from Monday-Friday
7:15am-7:30am 0%
7:30am-7:45am 5%
7:45am-8:00am 19%
8:00am-8:15am 29%
8:15am-8:30am 22%
8:30am-8:45am 10%
8:45am-9:00am 0%
9:00am-9:15am 0%
9:15am-9:30am 0%
No Left Turn Signs Analysis
Besides using Streetlight Insight
data to determine cut-through
movements on Orchard Road,
turning movement counts were
also used to evaluate whether new
restricted No Left Turn movement
signs should be installed on
Orchard Road. Figure 15 shows
the percentage of vehicles making
the southbound left turn from
Moraga Way onto Orchard Road
compared to the rest of the
movements at the intersection.

The peak for the southbound left
movement at the intersection
occurs at 8:00am with 9 vehicles (4%) making this movement, and gradually decreases after. Based on the cut-through analysis and the turning movements at the intersection, the installation of a No Left Turn sign is not supported currently.
1 veh
(2%)
0 veh
(0%)
1 veh
(1%)
1 veh
(1%)
4 vehs
(2%)
6 vehs
(2%)
9 vehs
(4%)
5 vehs
(2%)
4 vehs
(2%)
3 vehs
(2%)
3 vehs
(2%)
6 vehs
(4%)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM Number (%) of SBL movements on Moraga Way @ Orchard Rd (North) Figure 15: Number & Percentage of SBL movements on Moraga Way & Orchard Road (north)
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

Speed Analysis
AMG utilized the speed data collected on Orchard Road to determine if any traffic calming or speed limit changes were necessary on those roadways. The speed data was collected in front of 50/53 Orchard Road and 68/70 Orchard Road.

The posted speed limit on Orchard Road is 25 miles per hour (mph), however there are multiple warning signs for 15 miles per hour (mph) wherever there is horizontal curvature. Going more than 5+ miles per hour over the speed limit is considered speeding, so any vehicles going more than 30 miles per hour on the straight sections of Orchard Road are speeding. Table 6 & Table 7 show the results of the speed analysis. From the speed data collected in front of 50/53 Orchard Road, the number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour and over during the entire day was 22 out of 156 vehicles (14%) in the southbound direction and 23 out of 262 vehicles (9%) in the northbound direction, respectively.

During the AM Peak period, the number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour was 5 out of 35 vehicles (14%) in the southbound direction and 2 out of 59 vehicles (3%) in the northbound direction, respectively. From the speed data collected in front of 68/70 Orchard Road, the number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour and over during the entire day was 59 out of 483 vehicles (12%) in the southbound direction and 39 out of 426 vehicles (9%) in the northbound direction, respectively. During the AM Peak period, the number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour was 15 out of 97 vehicles (15%) in the southbound direction and 7 out of 97 vehicles (7%) in the northbound direction, respectively. The percentages of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour do not significantly increase during the AM Peak period at both locations.

Table 6: 50/53 Orchard Road Speed Analysis results
Time Period # of NB trips
going 30+ mph
% of NB trips
going 30+ mph
# of SB trips
going 30+ mph
% of SB trips
going 30+ mph
Daily 23 9% 22 14%
6:30am-9:30am 2 3% 5 14%
Table 7: 68/70 Orchard Road Speed Analysis results
Time Period # of NB trips
going 30+ mph
% of NB trips
going 30+ mph
# of SB trips
going 30+ mph
% of SB trips
going 30+ mph
Daily 39 9% 59 12%
6:30am-9:30am 7 7% 15 15%
To verify results of this speed analysis, the Orinda Police Department set up a speed trailer on Orchard Road to get additional speed data. The speed data was collected from Tuesday, October 8th, 2024, to Sunday, October 13th, 2024, just north of the Orchard Road & Brookside Drive intersection, for vehicles driving in the northbound direction. Table 8 shows the results of the speed analysis using this data.

From the speed data collected, the number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour and over during the six-day period at all hours (24-hour period) was 598 out of 15,049 vehicles (4%) in the northbound direction. The number and percentage of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour and over F.9.c
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) No Left Turn from Moraga Way Study
December 18, 2024

during the six-day period during the a.m. peak period (7:00am to 9:00am) was 195 out of 3,647 vehicles (5%) in the northbound direction.

Table 8: Orchard Road/Brookside Road Speed Analysis results Time Period
(Over 6-days)
# of NB trips
going 30+ mph
% of NB trips
going 30+ mph
Daily 598 4%
7:0am-9:00am 195 5%
Since the percentages obtained with the additional speed data are similar to the previous speed analysis, the new data confirms that the percentages of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour do not significantly increase during the AM Peak period at both locations.

Conclusion
Based on the results of the analysis, installing a new No Left turn sign at the intersection of Moraga Way & Orchard Road (north) is not feasible at the moment. Based on the speed analysis, the percentages of vehicles going over 30 miles per hour do not significantly increase during the AM Peak period at both locations. However, due to the high percentage of speeding in the southbound direction throughout the day, the City could consider some traffic calming improvements, including additional speed limit signage throughout the entire roadway section, and speed cushions at selected locations.

Per the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), speed cushions on Orchard Road may be feasible since it is a residential road and has low average daily traffic.

Additionally, the City could change the prima facie speed limit on Orchard Road from 25 mph to 15 mph. Orchard Road meets the requirements to change the prima facie speed limit per California Vehicle Code 22358.4, and it would require the City to conduct an Engineering & Traffic Study and then pass an ordinance/resolution. After the ordinance/resolution is passed, the City would be required to install advanced speed limit warning signs.

F.9.c
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Appendix A – Study #1 Existing Traffic Data
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-080155-002 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 0 600 366 1 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 0 0 238
0 000
000 00 004
000 0 TEV 1866 0 0 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.92
000 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 0 626 31 AM
0 NONE
NONE 0
Moraga Way & Ivy Dr North
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Moraga Way Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 5/23/2024

PEAK HOURS
NONE
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 865 6:30 AM - 09:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
0 0 397
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Ivy Dr North

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Ivy Dr North
000

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 604

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

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

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 000
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0 0 000 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
1 0
0 0
0 0
066
020
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
238
0 0 4
0 0
0600366
062631
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-080155-003 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 0 593 3 2 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 007
0 000
000 00 003
000 0 TEV 1273 0 0 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.96
000 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 0 660 5 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 596

NORTHBOUND
Moraga Way
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
008
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Southwaite Ct

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Southwaite Ct
000

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(WB)
0 NONE
NONE 0
Moraga Way & Southwaite Ct
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Moraga Way Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 5/23/2024

PEAK HOURS
NONE
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 669 6:30 AM - 09:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS

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

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 000
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0 0 000 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
090
020
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
7 0
0 3
0 0
05933
06605
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-080155-004 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 3 626 19 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 0 0 30
0 000
000 00 004
100 0 TEV 1251 0 0 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.93
300 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 1 563 1 AM
0 NONE
NONE 0
Moraga Way & Whitehall Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Moraga Way Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 5/23/2024

PEAK HOURS
NONE
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 594 6:30 AM - 09:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
0 0 20
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Whitehall Dr

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Whitehall Dr
400

CONTROL
2-Way Stop(EB/WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 633

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

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

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
3 0
0 3
0 0 000
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0 0 000 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
070
010
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
30 0
3 4
0 1
362619
15631
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-080155-005 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 0 568 43 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 0 0 42
0 000
000 00 0 0 74
100 0 TEV 1267 0 0 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.91
000 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 0 527 12 AM
0 NONE
NONE 0
Moraga Way & Coral Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Moraga Way Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 5/23/2024

PEAK HOURS
NONE
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 570 6:30 AM - 09:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
0 0 55
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Coral Dr

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Coral Dr
000

CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 642

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

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

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
10 0
0 1
0 0 000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 12150 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
020
010
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
42 0
0 74
0 1
056843
052712
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-080155-006 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 341 297 17 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 0 0 25
0 0 0 95
000 00 0 0 56
139 0 0 0 TEV 1637 0 0 0 000
48 0 0 0 PHF 0.73
75 0 0 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 128 376 40 AM
0 NONE
NONE 0
Moraga Way & Ivy Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Moraga Way Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 5/23/2024

PEAK HOURS
NONE
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 540 6:30 AM - 09:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
0 0 105
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Ivy Dr

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Ivy Dr
564 0 0

CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 428

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

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

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
7 0
0 90
0 0 13160
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 0 0 0370 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 3
0 1
0 0
200
410
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
25 95
75 56
48 139
34129717
12837640
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-080155-007 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 0000 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 000
0 0 0 244
000 00 003
100 0 TEV 647 0 0 0 000
301 0 0 0 PHF 0.81
76 0 0 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 20 0 2 AM
0 NONE
NONE 0
Ardith Dr & Ivy Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Ardith Dr Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 5/23/2024

PEAK HOURS
NONE
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 1 6:30 AM - 09:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
0 0 303
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Ivy Dr

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Ivy Dr
264 0 0

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(NB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 79

NORTHBOUND
Ardith Dr
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

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

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 610
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 300 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
5 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 244
76 3
301
1 000
2002
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_001
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 0:00 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1 0010000000000 1
1:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:00 0010000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1
4:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:00 0022000000000 4 1000000000000 1 1022000000000 5
6:00 0243000000000 9 0021000000000 3 0264000000000 12
7:00 1192100000000 14 1 1 10 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 2 2 19 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 8:00 0 1 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10 27 38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 11 38 46 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 9:00 1366000000000 16 1373000000000 14 2 6 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 10:00 0 5 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0161100000000 9 0 6 16 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 11:00 0 2 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2275100000000 17 2 4 18 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 12:00 2013000000000 6 1 2 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 3 2 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 13:00 0249300000000 18 0 2 11 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 4 15 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 14:00 0282100000000 13 0343100000000 11 0 5 12 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 15:00 0 1 10 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 3 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 1 4 24 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 16:00 1564000000000 16 1 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 5 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 17:00 0155000000000 11 0085000000000 13 0 1 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 18:00 0356200000000 16 0 1 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 4 16 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 19:00 0126000000000 9 0 5 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 6 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 20:00 0022100000000 5 0 1 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 1 14 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21:00 0010000000000 1 0102000000000 3 0112000000000 4
22:00 0002000000000 2 1012000000000 4 1014000000000 6
23:00 0000100000000 1 0030000000000 3 0030100000000 4
Totals 5 29 98 79 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 9 35 157 98 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 14 64 255 177 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 530 % of Totals 2% 13% 44% 36% 5% 100% 3% 11% 51% 32% 3% 100% 3% 12% 48% 33% 4% 100% 00:00 ‐ 12:00 2 14 54 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 5 17 60 52 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 7 31 114 81 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 % 1% 6% 24% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 45% 2% 8% 27% 24% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 64% 3% 14% 52% 37% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 110% Peak Hour 11:30 9:45 7:45 8:00 6:30 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 9:45 11:30 8:00 7:45 7:45 7:30 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7:45 11:30 8:00 7:45 8:00 7:15 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7:45 Peak Volume 2 5 12 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 3 10 33 39 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 5 11 45 46 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 12:00 ‐ 24:00 3 15 44 50 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 4 18 97 46 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 7 33 141 96 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 % 1% 7% 20% 23% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 55% 2% 8% 44% 21% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 76% 3% 15% 64% 43% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 130% Peak Hour 12:00 15:30 14:45 15:00 13:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 15:15 12:00 18:30 15:00 15:15 12:30 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 15:00 12:00 14:45 15:00 15:15 13:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 15:15 Peak Volume 2 5 10 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 6 14 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 3 7 24 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 07:00 ‐ 09:00 1 2 20 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 1 11 37 42 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 2 13 57 52 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 % 0% 1% 9% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 5% 17% 19% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44% 1% 6% 26% 24% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 59% Peak Hour 7:00 7:30 7:45 8:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 8:00 7:00 8:00 7:45 7:45 7:30 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:45 7:00 8:00 7:45 8:00 7:15 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:45 Peak Volume 1 2 12 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 10 33 39 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 2 11 45 46 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 16:00 ‐ 18:00 1 6 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 19 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 2 6 30 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 % 0% 3% 5% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 0% 9% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 1% 3% 14% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% Peak Hour 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:30 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 17:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:15 16:00 16:00 16:00 17:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 Peak Volume 1 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 5 17 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Ardith Dr S/O 4 Westover Ct
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total

HOURLY BREAKDOWN STATISTICS
Direction Percentiles 15th 50th Average 85th 95th ADT
309
TOTALS 20 24 24 28 30 530
SOUTHBOUND 20 24 23 28 28
NORTHBOUND 20 24 24 29 30 221
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_001
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Ardith Dr S/O 4 Westover Ct
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total
0:00 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1 0010000000000 1
0:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
0:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
0:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:15 0010000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1
3:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:00 0001000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0001000000000 1
5:15 0020000000000 2 0000000000000 0 0020000000000 2
5:30 0000000000000 0 1000000000000 1 1000000000000 1
5:45 0001000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0001000000000 1
6:00 0000000000000 0 0001000000000 1 0001000000000 1
6:15 0001000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0001000000000 1
6:30 0021000000000 3 0010000000000 1 0031000000000 4
6:45 0221000000000 5 0010000000000 1 0231000000000 6
7:00 0031000000000 4 0001000000000 1 0032000000000 5
7:15 1030100000000 5 0010000000000 1 1040100000000 6
7:30 0111000000000 3 0110000000000 2 0221000000000 5
7:45 0020000000000 2 1083200000000 14 1 0 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 8:00 0013000000000 4 0 6 9 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 6 10 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 8:15 0132000000000 6 0 1 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 2 15 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 8:30 0061000000000 7 0241000000000 7 0 2 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 8:45 0012000000000 3 0122000000000 5 0134000000000 8
9:00 0122000000000 5 0240000000000 6 0362000000000 11
9:15 1101000000000 3 0011000000000 2 1112000000000 5
9:30 0111000000000 3 0011000000000 2 0122000000000 5
9:45 0032000000000 5 1111000000000 4 1143000000000 9
10:00 0031000000000 4 0030000000000 3 0061000000000 7
10:15 0342000000000 9 0020000000000 2 0362000000000 11
10:30 0211000000000 4 0110000000000 2 0321000000000 6
10:45 0021000000000 3 0001100000000 2 0022100000000 5
11:00 0041000000000 5 0011000000000 2 0052000000000 7
11:15 0110000000000 2 0012000000000 3 0122000000000 5
11:30 0042000000000 6 0121100000000 5 0163100000000 11
11:45 0120000000000 3 2131000000000 7 2251000000000 10
15‐MINUTE BREAKDOWN
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_001
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Ardith Dr S/O 4 Westover Ct
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total
12:00 1001000000000 2 0020000000000 2 1021000000000 4
12:15 1011000000000 3 1002000000000 3 2013000000000 6
12:30 0001000000000 1 0240000000000 6 0241000000000 7
12:45 0000000000000 0 0042000000000 6 0042000000000 6
13:00 0101000000000 2 0120000000000 3 0221000000000 5
13:15 0124000000000 7 0132100000000 7 0256100000000 14
13:30 0004100000000 5 0040000000000 4 0044100000000 9
13:45 0020200000000 4 0021000000000 3 0041200000000 7
14:00 0032000000000 5 0120000000000 3 0152000000000 8
14:15 0010000000000 1 0102000000000 3 0112000000000 4
14:30 0020100000000 3 0020000000000 2 0040100000000 5
14:45 0220000000000 4 0101100000000 3 0321100000000 7
15:00 0020000000000 2 0120000000000 3 0140000000000 5
15:15 0031000000000 4 1253000000000 11 1284000000000 15 15:30 0134000000000 8 0064000000000 10 0198000000000 18 15:45 0026100000000 9 0015000000000 6 0 0 3 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 16:00 0120000000000 3 0021000000000 3 0141000000000 6
16:15 1300000000000 4 0031000000000 4 1331000000000 8
16:30 0112000000000 4 1010000000000 2 1122000000000 6
16:45 0032000000000 5 0050000000000 5 0082000000000 10
17:00 0011000000000 2 0022000000000 4 0033000000000 6
17:15 0001000000000 1 0010000000000 1 0011000000000 2
17:30 0012000000000 3 0011000000000 2 0023000000000 5
17:45 0131000000000 5 0042000000000 6 0173000000000 11
18:00 0212200000000 7 0072000000000 9 0284200000000 16
18:15 0114000000000 6 0013000000000 4 0127000000000 10
18:30 0010000000000 1 0121000000000 4 0131000000000 5
18:45 0020000000000 2 0012000000000 3 0032000000000 5
19:00 0011000000000 2 0151000000000 7 0162000000000 9
19:15 0110000000000 2 0420000000000 6 0530000000000 8
19:30 0004000000000 4 0040000000000 4 0044000000000 8
19:45 0001000000000 1 0011000000000 2 0012000000000 3
20:00 0000000000000 0 0031000000000 4 0031000000000 4
20:15 0002000000000 2 0051000000000 6 0053000000000 8
20:30 0010000000000 1 0020000000000 2 0030000000000 3
20:45 0010100000000 2 0121000000000 4 0131100000000 6
21:00 0000000000000 0 0102000000000 3 0102000000000 3
21:15 0010000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1
21:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
21:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
22:00 0001000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0001000000000 1
22:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
22:30 0001000000000 1 0001000000000 1 0002000000000 2
22:45 0000000000000 0 1011000000000 3 1011000000000 3
23:00 0000100000000 1 0000000000000 0 0000100000000 1
23:15 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1 0010000000000 1
23:30 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1 0010000000000 1
23:45 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1 0010000000000 1
Totals 5 29 98 79 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 9 35 157 98 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 309 14 64 255 177 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 530 % of Totals 2% 13% 44% 36% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 3% 11% 51% 32% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 3% 12% 48% 33% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 15‐MINUTE BREAKDOWN
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Appendix B – Study #1: Modified Timing Sheets
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) 7(67
,17(56(&7,21
3DJH
RI


*URXS$VVLJQPHQW
166WUHHW1DPH
0RUDJD:D\ /DVW'DWDEDVH&KDQJH

)LHOG0DVWHU$VVLJQPHQW
(:6WUHHW1DPH
&RUDO'ULYH
6\VWHP5HIHUHQFH1XPEHU

1RWHV

&KDQJH %\ 'DWH %\ 'DWH
'URS1XPEHU &!=RQH1XPEHU &!$UHD1XPEHU &! )(! ([FOXVLYH:DON )! $UHD$GGUHVV &! &$! ))! ([FOXVLYH)': )!4XLF1HW&KDQQHO 4XLF1HW
&%! )&! $OO5HG&OHDU )!
&RPPXQLFDWLRQ$GGUHVVHV 0DQXDO6HOHFWLRQ 6WDUW5HYHUW7LPHV ([FOXVLYH3HG3KDVH Column Numbers ----> 
$ %&' (
5RZ Phase Names ----> 5RZ
 3HG:DON       55'HOD\ 3HUPLW   3HG)':   3KDVH 55&OHDU 5HG/RFN 
 0LQ*UHHQ    3KDVH (9$'HOD\ <HOORZ/RFN 
 7\SH'LVFRQQHFW   3KDVH (9$&OHDU 0LQ5HFDOO   $GGHGSHU9HKLFOH   3KDVH (9%'HOD\ 3HG5HFDOO  9HK([WHQVLRQ         3KDVH (9%&OHDU View Set Peds   0D[*DS         3KDVH (9&'HOD\ 5HVW,Q:DON  0LQ*DS         3KDVH (9&&OHDU 5HG5HVW  0D[/LPLW        10 3KDVH (9''HOD\ 'XDO(QWU\ 

0D[/LPLW         (9'&OHDU 0D[5HFDOO

$ $GY'HOD\:DON 0D[,QLWLDO 55'HOD\ 6RIW5HFDOO $ % 3(0LQ3HG)':     $OWHUQDWH:DON 55&OHDU 0D[ % & &RQG6HUY&KHFN         $OWHUQDWH)': View EV Delay  &RQG6HUYLFH & ' 5HGXFH(YHU\   $OWHUQDWH,QLWLDO View EV Clear  0DQ&QWUO&DOOV ' ( <HOORZ&KDQJH         $OWHUQDWH([WHQVLRQ View RR Delay  <HOORZ6WDUW ( ) 5HG&OHDU         View RR Clear  )LUVW3KDVHV ) 3KDVH7LPLQJ%DQN &) ! $OWHUQDWH7LPLQJ &) ! 3UHHPSW7LPLQJ 3KDVH)XQFWLRQV &) ! )ODVK6WDUW5HG5HYHUW
0DQXDO3ODQ $XWRPDWLF
 3ODQ
 )UHH )ODVK0DQXDO2IIVHW $XWRPDWLF 2IIVHW$ 2IIVHW% 2IIVHW& )

2XWSXWVVSHFLILHGLQ$VVLJQDEOH2XWSXWVDW($( )

3KDVH
0DQXDO3ODQ0DQXDO2IIVHW $OO5HG6WDUW
&KDQJH
&KDQJH5HFRUG
3ULQWHGRQ
$0 7LPLQJ6KHHW9HUVLRQ
59 5HYLVLRQ
6WDQG$ORQH
6 7 6 6
10 F.9.c
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr INTERSECTION: Moraga Wy & Ivy Dr Page 1 (of 9)
Group Assignment: N/S Street Name: Ivy Dr Last Database Change:

Field Master Assignment: E/W Street Name: Moraga Wy
System Reference Number:

Notes:

Change By Date By Date
Drop Number <C/0+0+0>Zone Number <C/0+0+1>Area Number <C/0+0+2> 0 <F/1+0+E> Exclusive Walk 0 <F/1+0+0> Area Address <C/0+0+3> 14 <C/0+A+1> 5.0 <F/1+0+F> Exclusive FDW 0 <F/1+0+1> QuicNet Channel (QuicNet) 0 <C/0+B+1> 5.0 <F/1+C+0> All Red Clear 0.0 <F/1+0+2> Communication Addresses Manual Selection Start / Revert Times Exclusive Ped Phase Column Numbers ----> 12345678 9 A BCD E
Row Phase Names ----> EBL WBT NBTL WBL EBT SBTL Row
0 Ped Walk 787 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RR-1 Delay Permit 01 Ped FDW 12 19 12 Phase 1 RR-1 Clear Red Lock 1 2 Min Green 76 8767 Phase 2 10 EV-A Delay Yellow Lock 2 3 Type 3 Disconnect Phase 3 EV-A Clear Min Recall 3
4 Added per Vehicle 2.0 2.0 Phase 4 10 EV-B Delay Ped Recall 4 5 Veh Extension 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Phase 5 EV-B Clear View Set Peds 5 6 Max Gap 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Phase 6 10 EV-C Delay Rest In Walk 6 7 Min Gap 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 Phase 7 EV-C Clear Red Rest 7 8 Max Limit 30 45 30 30 45 15 Phase 8 EV-D Delay Dual Entry 8 9 Max Limit 2 40 55 60 40 55 40 EV-D Clear Max Recall 9 A Adv. / Delay Walk Max Initial RR-2 Delay Soft Recall A B PE Min Ped FDW Alternate Walk RR-2 Clear Max 2 B
C Cond Serv Check Alternate FDW View EV Delay - - - Cond. Service C D Reduce Every 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Alternate Initial View EV Clear - - - Man Cntrl Calls D E Yellow Change 3.0 4.1 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.6 Alternate Extension View RR Delay - - - Yellow Start E F Red Clear 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 View RR Clear - - - First Phases F Phase Timing - Bank 1 <C+0+F=1> Alternate Timing <C+0+F=1> Preempt Timing Phase Functions <C+0+F=1> Change
Change Record
- - - - -
12_4567__2___6__
F
(Outputs specified in Assignable Outputs at E/127+A+E & F) Phase
Manual PlanManual Offset All Red Start
Manual Plan 0 = Automatic1-9 = Plan 1-9 14 = Free 15 = FlashManual Offset 0 = Automatic 1 = Offset A 2 = Offset B 3 = Offset C Flash StartRed Revert
Printed on 8/9/2021 4:04 PM Timing Sheet Version: 233 RV2 Revision: 30826 - Stand Alone F.9.c
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Appendix C – Study #2 Existing Traffic Data
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-080155-001 Day:

City: Orinda Date:

AM 0 873 24 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 0000 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 0 0 38
0 000
000 00 001
000 0 TEV 1956 0 0 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.95
000 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0000 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 0 1016 4 AM
0 NONE
NONE 0
Moraga Way & Orchard Rd North
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Moraga Way Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 5/23/2024

PEAK HOURS
NONE
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 1054 6:30 AM - 09:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
0 0 28
Totals (AM) 0 Total Bikes (AM)
Orchard Rd North

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Orchard Rd North
000

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 874

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

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

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 000
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0 0 000 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
040
020
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
38 0
0 1
0 0
087324
010164
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Intersection) Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_002
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 0:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:00 0010000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1
6:00 0010000000000 1 0001000000000 1 0011000000000 2
7:00 0158000000000 14 2126300000000 14 2 2 7 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 8:00 0 2 19 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0359200000000 19 0 5 24 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 9:00 1377100000000 19 0131000000000 5 1 4 10 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 10:00 1273200000000 15 1140100000000 7 2 3 11 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 11:00 1273000000000 13 2021100000000 6 3294100000000 19 12:00 3345200000000 17 1222000000000 7 4567200000000 24 13:00 1263100000000 13 3132300000000 12 4395400000000 25 14:00 0364100000000 14 1113100000000 7 1477200000000 21 15:00 3 3 15 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 1332400000000 13 4 6 18 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 16:00 0 2 5 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1642100000000 14 1 8 9 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 17:00 2294100000000 18 2246200000000 16 4 4 13 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 18:00 2694000000000 21 2376000000000 18 4 9 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 19:00 0253000000000 10 0052100000000 8 0 2 10 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 20:00 0013000000000 4 0012000000000 3 0025000000000 7
21:00 0220000000000 4 1100100000000 3 1320100000000 7
22:00 0012200000000 5 0010200000000 3 0022400000000 8
23:00 0100000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0100000000000 1
Totals 14 36 110 79 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 262 17 25 47 45 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 31 61 157 124 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 418 % of Totals 5% 14% 42% 30% 9% 100% 11% 16% 30% 29% 14% 100% 7% 15% 38% 30% 11% 100% 00:00 ‐ 12:00 3 10 47 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 5 6 16 18 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 8 16 63 48 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 % 1% 4% 18% 11% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 36% 2% 2% 6% 7% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 3% 6% 24% 18% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 56% Peak Hour 11:15 8:45 7:45 7:45 8:15 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7:45 11:15 7:45 8:00 7:30 7:15 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7:45 11:15 7:45 8:00 7:45 7:45 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7:45 Peak Volume 3 3 19 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 3 4 5 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 6 6 24 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 12:00 ‐ 24:00 11 26 63 49 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 12 19 31 27 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 23 45 94 76 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 % 4% 10% 24% 19% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 64% 5% 7% 12% 10% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 9% 17% 36% 29% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 104% Peak Hour 12:00 17:45 15:30 15:45 15:30 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 15:30 17:30 16:00 18:15 17:45 15:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 17:45 17:30 17:45 15:00 15:45 15:15 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 15:30 Peak Volume 3 6 16 15 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 4 6 9 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 9 18 17 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 07:00 ‐ 09:00 0 3 24 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 2 4 7 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 2 7 31 32 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 % 0% 1% 9% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 1% 2% 3% 6% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 1% 3% 12% 12% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% Peak Hour 7:00 7:15 7:45 7:45 7:45 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:45 7:00 7:45 8:00 7:30 7:15 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:45 7:00 7:45 8:00 7:45 7:45 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:45 Peak Volume 0 2 19 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2 4 5 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2 6 24 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 16:00 ‐ 18:00 2 4 14 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 3 8 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 5 12 22 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 % 1% 2% 5% 7% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 2% 5% 8% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% Peak Hour 16:45 16:00 16:45 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 17:00 16:00 16:45 17:00 16:30 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:30 17:00 16:00 16:45 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 Peak Volume 2 2 9 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 2 6 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 4 8 15 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 NORTHBOUND 19 24 24 29 32 262
156
TOTALS 18 24 23 29 33 418
SOUTHBOUND 16 24 23 30 33

HOURLY BREAKDOWN STATISTICS
Direction Percentiles 15th 50th Average 85th 95th ADT
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Orchard Rd in front of 50 & 53 Orchard Rd
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_002
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Orchard Rd in front of 50 & 53 Orchard Rd
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total
0:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
0:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
0:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
0:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:30 0010000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1
5:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
6:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
6:15 0000000000000 0 0001000000000 1 0001000000000 1
6:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
6:45 0010000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1
7:00 0002000000000 2 0000000000000 0 0002000000000 2
7:15 0022000000000 4 0010000000000 1 0032000000000 5
7:30 0002000000000 2 0001000000000 1 0003000000000 3
7:45 0132000000000 6 2115300000000 12 2247300000000 18
8:00 0142000000000 7 0027200000000 11 0169200000000 18
8:15 0063000000000 9 0111000000000 3 0174000000000 12
8:30 0063100000000 10 0201000000000 3 0264100000000 13
8:45 0131000000000 5 0020000000000 2 0151000000000 7
9:00 0041100000000 6 0000000000000 0 0041100000000 6
9:15 0003000000000 3 0011000000000 2 0014000000000 5
9:30 0220000000000 4 0000000000000 0 0220000000000 4
9:45 1113000000000 6 0120000000000 3 1233000000000 9
10:00 0031000000000 4 0110000000000 2 0141000000000 6
10:15 0011100000000 3 0010000000000 1 0021100000000 4
10:30 0110000000000 2 0010100000000 2 0120100000000 4
10:45 1121100000000 6 1010000000000 2 2131100000000 8
11:00 0151000000000 7 0000000000000 0 0151000000000 7
11:15 0010000000000 1 1020000000000 3 1030000000000 4
11:30 1101000000000 3 0000000000000 0 1101000000000 3
11:45 0011000000000 2 1001100000000 3 1012100000000 5
15‐MINUTE BREAKDOWN
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_002
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Orchard Rd in front of 50 & 53 Orchard Rd
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total
12:00 2102100000000 6 1010000000000 2 3112100000000 8
12:15 0100000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0100000000000 1
12:30 1021100000000 5 0201000000000 3 1222100000000 8
12:45 0122000000000 5 0011000000000 2 0133000000000 7
13:00 0221000000000 5 1100100000000 3 1321100000000 8
13:15 0011000000000 2 1011100000000 4 1022100000000 6
13:30 1020000000000 3 1020000000000 3 2040000000000 6
13:45 0011100000000 3 0001100000000 2 0012200000000 5
14:00 0010000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1
14:15 0111100000000 4 1000000000000 1 1111100000000 5
14:30 0131000000000 5 0101100000000 3 0232100000000 8
14:45 0112000000000 4 0012000000000 3 0124000000000 7
15:00 1110000000000 3 0110000000000 2 1220000000000 5
15:15 0121000000000 4 1010200000000 4 1131200000000 8
15:30 1021000000000 4 0111100000000 4 1132100000000 8
15:45 1 1 10 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0101100000000 3 1 2 10 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 16:00 0016300000000 10 1010000000000 2 1026300000000 12 16:15 0132200000000 8 0101000000000 2 0233200000000 10
16:30 0103000000000 4 0310000000000 4 0413000000000 8
16:45 0014000000000 5 0221100000000 6 0235100000000 11
17:00 0010100000000 2 0002000000000 2 0012100000000 4
17:15 1151000000000 8 0121200000000 6 1272200000000 14
17:30 1123000000000 7 0121000000000 4 1244000000000 11
17:45 0010000000000 1 2002000000000 4 2012000000000 5
18:00 0100000000000 1 0113000000000 5 0213000000000 6
18:15 1330000000000 7 2040000000000 6 3370000000000 13
18:30 0223000000000 7 0213000000000 6 0436000000000 13
18:45 1041000000000 6 0010000000000 1 1051000000000 7
19:00 0000000000000 0 0031100000000 5 0031100000000 5
19:15 0011000000000 2 0010000000000 1 0021000000000 3
19:30 0231000000000 6 0011000000000 2 0242000000000 8
19:45 0011000000000 2 0000000000000 0 0011000000000 2
20:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
20:15 0001000000000 1 0010000000000 1 0011000000000 2
20:30 0000000000000 0 0001000000000 1 0001000000000 1
20:45 0012000000000 3 0001000000000 1 0013000000000 4
21:00 0110000000000 2 0100000000000 1 0210000000000 3
21:15 0100000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0100000000000 1
21:30 0000000000000 0 0000100000000 1 0000100000000 1
21:45 0010000000000 1 1000000000000 1 1010000000000 2
22:00 0000000000000 0 0010100000000 2 0010100000000 2
22:15 0012000000000 3 0000000000000 0 0012000000000 3
22:30 0000200000000 2 0000100000000 1 0000300000000 3
22:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
23:00 0100000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0100000000000 1
23:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
23:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
23:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
Totals 14 36 110 79 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 262 17 25 47 45 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 31 61 157 124 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 418 % of Totals 5% 14% 42% 30% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 11% 16% 30% 29% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 7% 15% 38% 30% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 15‐MINUTE BREAKDOWN
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_003
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 0:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:00 0000000000000 0 1000000000000 1 1000000000000 1
2:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:00 0111100000000 4 0000000000000 0 0111100000000 4
6:00 0052100000000 8 0011000000000 2 0063100000000 10
7:00 0599200000000 25 0 3 12 12 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 8 21 21 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 8:00 0 5 15 22 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 2 2 14 24 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 2 7 29 46 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 9:00 0 2 11 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 2 2 3 13 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 2 4 14 22 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 10:00 1 2 7 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 4 10 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 6 17 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 11:00 3369100000000 22 1 3 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 4 6 16 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 12:00 2 1 8 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 4 8 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 3 5 16 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 13:00 0489100000000 22 1688500000000 28 1 10 16 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 14:00 0 2 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 2 12 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 1 4 24 27 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 15:00 0 3 21 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 4 5 15 19 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 4 8 36 33 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 16:00 0 1 15 19 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 3 5 14 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 3 6 29 34 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 17:00 0 3 10 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 3 5 13 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 3 8 23 33 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 18:00 2 3 24 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 1 4 7 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 3 7 31 36 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 19:00 0198100000000 19 1 2 17 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 3 26 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 20:00 1155100000000 13 2003200000000 7 3158300000000 20 21:00 0024211000000 10 0285300000000 18 0 2 10 9 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 22:00 0133200000000 9 0113100000000 6 0246300000000 15
23:00 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1 0010000000000 1
Totals 9 38 171 169 35 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 426 23 50 154 197 53 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 483 32 88 325 366 88 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 909 % of Totals 2% 9% 40% 40% 8% 1% 0% 100% 5% 10% 32% 41% 11% 1% 100% 4% 10% 36% 40% 10% 1% 0% 100% 00:00 ‐ 12:00 4 18 54 62 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 6 14 50 64 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 10 32 104 126 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 % 1% 4% 13% 15% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 35% 1% 3% 12% 15% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 36% 2% 8% 24% 30% 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 71% Peak Hour 10:15 7:45 7:30 7:45 7:15 7:15 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7:45 7:45 11:45 7:45 7:30 7:45 8:15 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7:45 10:15 7:45 7:45 7:45 7:45 7:15 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 7:45 Peak Volume 4 8 18 23 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 2 5 19 28 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 4 12 37 50 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 12:00 ‐ 24:00 5 20 117 107 24 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 276 17 36 104 133 39 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 331 22 56 221 240 63 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 607 % 1% 5% 27% 25% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 65% 4% 8% 24% 31% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 78% 5% 13% 52% 56% 15% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 142% Peak Hour 12:00 13:00 18:00 15:45 15:30 15:15 21:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 15:30 15:00 12:45 14:15 17:45 16:15 13:15 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 17:45 15:00 12:45 14:15 17:45 15:30 15:15 21:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 15:30 Peak Volume 2 4 24 22 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 4 7 18 27 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 4 10 36 41 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 07:00 ‐ 09:00 0 10 24 31 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 2 5 26 36 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 2 15 50 67 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 % 0% 2% 6% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 1% 6% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 0% 4% 12% 16% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 36% Peak Hour 7:00 7:45 7:30 7:45 7:15 7:15 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:45 7:45 7:15 7:45 7:30 7:45 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:45 7:45 7:45 7:45 7:45 7:45 7:15 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:00 7:45 Peak Volume 0 8 18 23 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 2 4 19 28 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 2 12 37 50 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 16:00 ‐ 18:00 0 4 25 33 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 6 10 27 34 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 6 14 52 67 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 % 0% 1% 6% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16% 1% 2% 6% 8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 1% 3% 12% 16% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 38% Peak Hour 16:00 16:45 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:15 16:15 16:00 16:30 16:15 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:15 16:15 16:45 16:00 16:30 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 Peak Volume 0 4 15 19 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 4 6 14 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 4 10 29 38 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Orchard Rd Bet 68 & 70 Orchard Rd
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total

HOURLY BREAKDOWN STATISTICS
Direction Percentiles 15th 50th Average 85th 95th ADT
483
TOTALS 20 25 25 29 18 909
SOUTHBOUND 20 25 25 30 33
NORTHBOUND 20 25 25 29 33 426
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_003
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Orchard Rd Bet 68 & 70 Orchard Rd
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total
0:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
0:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
0:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
0:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:00 0000000000000 0 1000000000000 1 1000000000000 1
1:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
1:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
2:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
3:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:30 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
4:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
5:15 0111000000000 3 0000000000000 0 0111000000000 3
5:30 0000100000000 1 0000000000000 0 0000100000000 1
5:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
6:00 0000100000000 1 0000000000000 0 0000100000000 1
6:15 0010000000000 1 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1
6:30 0011000000000 2 0000000000000 0 0011000000000 2
6:45 0031000000000 4 0011000000000 2 0042000000000 6
7:00 0000100000000 1 0020000000000 2 0020100000000 3
7:15 0114100000000 7 0102000000000 3 0216100000000 10
7:30 0021000000000 3 0015100000000 7 0036100000000 10
7:45 0464000000000 14 0295210000000 19 0 6 15 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 8:00 0057210000000 15 1 1 3 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 1 8 19 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 8:15 0255100000000 13 0136200000000 12 0 3 8 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 8:30 0227000000000 11 1044200000000 11 1 2 6 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8:45 0133000000000 7 0042010000000 7 0175010000000 14
9:00 0162100000000 10 1112110000000 7 1274210000000 17
9:15 0012000000000 3 0001000000000 1 0013000000000 4
9:30 0142000000000 7 1004100000000 6 1146100000000 13
9:45 0003100000000 4 0126000000000 9 0129100000000 13
10:00 0014000000000 5 0111100000000 4 0125100000000 9
10:15 0012000000000 3 0120000000000 3 0132000000000 6
10:30 0032100000000 6 0053010000000 9 0085110000000 15
10:45 1222000000000 7 0220100000000 5 1442100000000 12
11:00 3001000000000 4 0121000000000 4 3122000000000 8
11:15 0100000000000 1 0035000000000 8 0135000000000 9
11:30 0243000000000 9 0021000000000 3 0264000000000 12
11:45 0025100000000 8 1233000000000 9 1258100000000 17
15‐MINUTE BREAKDOWN
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr Day: Thursday City: Orinda
Date: Project #: CA24_080156_003
5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 99 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
SPEED
Orchard Rd Bet 68 & 70 Orchard Rd
5/23/2024
Time

NORTHBOUND
Total

SOUTHBOUND
Total
TOTALS
Total
12:00 0122000000000 5 0114100000000 7 0236100000000 12
12:15 0010000000000 1 0112000000000 4 0122000000000 5
12:30 2015100000000 9 1123100000000 8 3138200000000 17
12:45 0044000000000 8 0142000000000 7 0186000000000 15
13:00 0122000000000 5 0031200000000 6 0153200000000 11
13:15 0201100000000 4 0313200000000 9 0514300000000 13
13:30 0013000000000 4 1322000000000 8 1335000000000 12
13:45 0153000000000 9 0022100000000 5 0175100000000 14
14:00 0011000000000 2 0003110000000 5 0014110000000 7
14:15 0122000000000 5 0033100000000 7 0155100000000 12
14:30 0052000000000 7 0247000000000 13 0299000000000 20 14:45 0142000000000 7 1057000000000 13 1199000000000 20 15:00 0074000000000 11 1361200000000 13 1 3 13 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 15:15 0130000000000 4 0024110000000 8 0154110000000 12
15:30 0131200000000 7 1158100000000 16 1289300000000 23 15:45 0189600000000 24 2126100000000 12 2 2 10 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 16:00 0059210000000 17 0033100000000 7 0 0 8 12 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16:15 0050100000000 6 0254200000000 13 0 2 10 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 16:30 0014100000000 6 1124200000000 10 1138300000000 16 16:45 0146000000000 11 2244200000000 14 2 3 8 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 17:00 0023100000000 6 1125200000000 11 1148300000000 17 17:15 0146100000000 12 0126100000000 10 0 2 6 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 17:30 0223100000000 8 1221300000000 9 1444400000000 17
17:45 0022000000000 4 1177200000000 18 1199200000000 22 18:00 0044000000000 8 0016100000000 8 0 0 5 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 18:15 1 1 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 2 2 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 3 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 18:30 0156100000000 13 1233100000000 10 1389200000000 23 18:45 1151000000000 8 0013100000000 5 1164100000000 13
19:00 0022000000000 4 1023000000000 6 1045000000000 10
19:15 0122000000000 5 0073000000000 10 0195000000000 15 19:30 0033100000000 7 0240000000000 6 0273100000000 13
19:45 0021000000000 3 0041000000000 5 0062000000000 8
20:00 0002000000000 2 1000100000000 2 1002100000000 4
20:15 0012000000000 3 1001000000000 2 1013000000000 5
20:30 0111000000000 3 0001100000000 2 0112100000000 5
20:45 1030100000000 5 0001000000000 1 1031100000000 6
21:00 0010100000000 2 0030000000000 3 0040100000000 5
21:15 0001000000000 1 0021000000000 3 0022000000000 4
21:30 0011100000000 3 0211100000000 5 0222200000000 8
21:45 0002011000000 4 0023200000000 7 0025211000000 11
22:00 0020000000000 2 0012000000000 3 0032000000000 5
22:15 0112000000000 4 0000000000000 0 0112000000000 4
22:30 0000200000000 2 0100100000000 2 0100300000000 4
22:45 0001000000000 1 0001000000000 1 0002000000000 2
23:00 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
23:15 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
23:30 0000000000000 0 0010000000000 1 0010000000000 1
23:45 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0
Totals 9 38 171 169 35 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 426 23 50 154 197 53 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 483 32 88 325 366 88 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 909 % of Totals 2% 9% 40% 40% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5% 10% 32% 41% 11% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 4% 10% 36% 40% 10% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 15‐MINUTE BREAKDOWN
F.9.c
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Study Moraga Way & Ivy Drive (3662 : Remove “No Left Turn” Sign at Moraga Way and Ivy Dr City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: City Council
AGENDA TITLE: Study Session: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - an Implementing Action of the Housing Element
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive a report on the Economic Feasibility and Market Study for a potential inclusionary housing ordinance. Provide direction on preliminary recommendations.

BACKGROUND:

On January 31, 2023, the City Council approved an updated Housing Element for the City’s General Plan. Since that time, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has deemed the City’s Housing Element to be in substantial compliance with State law and the City’s attention has turned to implementation activities. As discussed during the consideration of the Housing Element, one of the first action items which the City Manager and Staff committed to bring back for consideration is a possible inclusionary housing ordinance.

An Action Item from the adopted Housing Ordinance regarding an inclusionary ordinance provides:

Goal 3: Housing Opportunities
Action 3.G: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The City will research an inclusionary housing ordinance. This ordinance will identify acceptable methods to provide affordable housing such as a) construction of housing on-site, b) construction of housing off-site, c) dedication of land for housing, and d) payment of an in-lieu fee. Development of this ordinance requires an analysis of the following variables:
• Limiting the application of the ordinance to developments exceeding a certain size.
• Percentage of housing units required to be set aside as affordable. • Design and building requirements.
• Timing of affordable unit construction.
• Determination of a fee in lieu of developing affordable units. • Developer incentives, such as fee deferrals and waivers. • Administration of affordability control.

Responsible Agency: Planning Department
Timeframe: Determine the appropriateness of an inclusionary ordinance within two years after adoption of the Housing Element. If determined appropriate, adopt an inclusionary ordinance within one year of making the determination.

H.1
Packet Pg. 144
Funding Source: General Fund
Quantified Objective: 145 lower income units in high opportunity areas to promote access to resources and mobility for target households.

On May 2, 2023, the City Council received a report from Staff on the possibility of the development of an inclusionary housing ordinance and the parameters of such a draft ordinance. At that meeting, the City Council asked Staff to provide more information on the range of existing inclusionary housing programs in Contra Costa County and to return with information. During that time, a Planning Technical Assistance Committee of Contra Costa County Planning staff, operating under the auspices of ABAG called C4, completed a summary of all existing Contra Costa County inclusionary housing programs.

This discussion was continued on May 9, 2023, where many of the details of an inclusionary housing ordinance were discussed with particular emphasis on the size of the development to which the inclusionary housing ordinance would apply. The conclusion of the meeting was that the discussion of the many parameters of an ordinance was helpful, and the City Council asked Staff to continue working on the matter, bringing the topic back later in the summer.

On October 3, 2023, the City Council held a follow up discussion. Staff asked the City Council to consider the following parameters for the development of an ordinance: the size of development, percentage of affordable housing unit inclusion, mix of housing, if an in-lieu fee should be included, and if development incentives should be considered.

Staff was directed to bring forward additional information on the questions raised, and it was noted that this was an important initiative to accomplish soon for policy reasons.

The recommendation was to receive a report regarding inclusionary housing ordinances, discuss key parameters, and direct Staff to prepare an ordinance for review and consideration.

CONSULTANT PROGRESS:

On September 1, 2024, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy identified numerous elective policies in multiple categories related to affordable housing and commercial stabilization including the development and adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The TOC Policy identifies minimum requirements for a jurisdiction’s inclusionary housing ordinance to bring local regulations in alignment with the TOC Policy.

There are two relevant minimum requirements. First, the Policy may exempt properties with fewer than 11 units, student housing, 100% affordable housing, senior housing, or other special housing types. Second, the Policy must require at least 15% of units to be deed restricted affordable housing units but may require less if a financial feasibility analysis determines that the 15% requirement was not feasible. Several other requirements regarding income mix, duration of affordability, and alternative means of compliance (including in-lieu fee) are also included in the minimum standards.

H.1
Packet Pg. 145
On March 4, 2025, the selected consultant, Lisa Wise Consultants (LWC), initiated the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance project with the project team of consultants and City staff. The meeting established the project objectives and finalized project organization.

The project team started the process of responding to the data request and preparing for a series of focus groups.

A total of 27 individuals from Orinda and the neighboring jurisdictions of Lafayette and Moraga were invited. LWC facilitated four focus group meetings, two with housing development professionals and two with community stakeholders. One focus group with developers was held on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, and the other on Thursday, April 17, 2025. Both meetings with local community members were held on Thursday, April 17, 2025. A total of five individuals participated in all sessions, and the discussions provided valuable insight that will inform the efforts moving forward.

A summary of the discussion key topics is included in the focus groups summary memo and generally cover the topics of (1) background and experience (2) cost and site challenges (3) regulatory and political barriers (4) feasibility and opportunity areas (5) inclusionary housing opinions (6) regional comparison and best practices and (7) final thoughts.

With this understanding, LWC developed an Economic Feasibility and Market Study that evaluated inclusionary housing ordinance options, including (but not limited to) the percentage of affordable units required on-site, targeted household income levels, applicability requirements (i.e., project size), and alternative methods of compliance (including offsite construction, land dedication, and an analysis of appropriate in-lieu fees).

The focus of this study session is a review of the Economic Feasibility and Market Study and discussion of the preliminary recommendations (including rationale and issues to consider). The study will serve as the basis for final recommendations and the development and potential adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

The Economic Feasibility and Market Study addresses the variables identified in the adopted Housing Ordinance. This document sets forth preliminary recommendations for all relevant variables. The table below illustrates those recommendations followed by additional discussion by variable.

Table 1: Action 3.G Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Variables No. Variable Preliminary Recommendation
1 Limiting the application of the ordinance to
developments exceeding a certain size.

Only to residential and mixed-use
projects with 11 or more units.
2 Percentage of housing units required to be
set aside as affordable.

Fifteen percent (15%) of units in
applicable residential projects be
designated as affordable.

H.1
Packet Pg. 146
No. Variable Preliminary Recommendation
3 Design and building requirements. Require that affordable units be constructed to be comparable in
exterior appearance, quality, and
durability to market-rate units.
4 Timing of affordable unit construction. Constructed at the same time as market-rate units; alternative
compliance methods should be
completed before the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
5 Determination of a fee in lieu of developing
affordable units.

A maximum of $548,300 per
affordable unit can be charged; a
lower fee could be established if it
supports other policy objectives.
6 Developer incentives, such as fee deferrals
and waivers.

Continue to exempt affordable
units from City impact fees.
7 Administration of affordability control. Engage a qualified third-party partner to administer.

Inclusionary Percentage [of affordable housing units] Requirements:

Preliminary: Require that 15% of units in applicable residential projects be designated as affordable, consistent with the MTC TOC Policy.

Income Levels
Preliminary: Structure affordable housing requirements based on tenure. For rental developments, affordable units should average 80% of AMI or below, with no affordable units rented to households above 120% AMI. For ownership developments, affordable units should average 120% AMI or below, with no affordable units sold to households above 150% AMI, consistent with the MTC TOC Policy.

Project Size Threshold
Preliminary: Apply the IHO only to residential and mixed-use projects with 11 or more units, consistent with the MTC TOC Policy. Exemptions should be considered for specific housing types, such as 100% affordable housing, student housing, senior housing, and other defined special-use residential projects.

Nearby communities set varying thresholds for applying inclusionary housing requirements: Walnut Creek applies them to all projects regardless of size, Lafayette and San Ramon to projects with 2 or more units, Moraga to those with 6 or more units, and Danville only to projects with 8 or more units.

Multi-Family vs. Single Family
Preliminary: Apply the IHO only to multifamily housing projects, and exempt singlefamily residential developments, including both detached homes and single-family subdivisions.

Geographic Extent
H.1
Packet Pg. 147
Preliminary: Apply the IHO citywide.

Period of Affordability
Preliminary: Require affordable rental units to be deed-restricted for at least 55 years, and affordable ownership units to be deed-restricted for at least 45 years. Lafayette, Moraga, and Walnut Creek require 55 years for rental units and 45 years for ownership units. Danville requires 20 years for both rental and ownership units, and San Ramon currently requires 55 years for rental units, but 30 years for ownership units.

Relationship to Other State Incentives
Preliminary: Accept units produce under other State affordable housing incentives (such as Density Bonus projects) to fulfill local IHO requirements.

Ownership vs. Rental
Preliminary: Apply the IHO to both rental and for-sale residential developments.

In-Lieu Fee
Preliminary: Consider establishing an in-lieu fee. The maximum rate demonstrated is $548,300 per required affordable unit, allowing applicants an alternative compliance option under the IHO. A lower fee could be established if it supports other policy objectives.

Additional Alternative Compliance
Preliminary: Allow for additional alternative compliance options in addition to the in-lieu fee, including off-site affordable housing production and land dedication, in accordance with State law.

Design and Building Requirements
Preliminary: The IHO shall require that affordable units be constructed to be comparable in exterior appearance, quality, and durability to market-rate units, such that they are visually and functionally indistinguishable.

Timing of Affordable Unit Construction
Preliminary: (1) Affordable units shall be constructed at the same time as market-rate units. (2) In-Lieu fees or other alternative compliance methods should be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Development Incentives
Preliminary: Continue to exempt affordable units from City impact fees.

Administration of Affordability Control
Preliminary: The City should engage a qualified third-party partner to administer affordability controls.

These recommendations are preliminary in nature and subject to refinement. The project team would like the City Council’s feedback on these topics and suggested H.1
Packet Pg. 148
refinements to the preliminary recommendations to identify the best approaches to the development of an inclusionary housing ordinance.

NEXT STEPS:

A Recommendations Memo that refines these presented preliminary recommendations is planned for the end of August and inclusionary housing ordinance language will be developed in August/September with potential adoption in September of this year.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The consultant has an approved contract provided within the departmental budget.

Other costs are Staff time to manage the contract, the work of the consultant team, preparation of reports, and administration of any program on an ongoing basis.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. IHO Focus Group Summary Memo
B. IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study
Respectfully Submitted by:

Lashun Cross
Planning Director
Prepared By: Christine Thomson, Principal Planner
Approved by:

H.1
Packet Pg. 149
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1 MEMO
To: City of Orinda
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
Date: May 7, 2025
Subject: City of Orinda Inclusionary Housing Ordinance – Focus Groups Summary Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) is conducting an economic feasibility study to evaluate options for an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) for the City of Orinda (City). The goal is to identify strategies to encourage production of affordable housing within market-rate housing projects, ensuring both feasibility for developers and alignment with Housing Opportunity Goal 3, Action 3.G of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission‘s Transit Oriented Communities Policy.

The focus groups were intended to:

1. Identify key community priorities and challenges related to affordable housing and development feasibility in Orinda, including physical, regulatory, and financial constraints.

2. Gather feedback from developers and other stakeholders to assess the feasibility and market impact of inclusionary housing requirements—such as percentage set-asides, unit thresholds, and in-lieu fees.

3. Ensure the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is crafted in a transparent and inclusive manner, using early input to inform practical, locally tailored policy options that balance housing goals with economic realities.

A total of 27 individuals from Orinda and the neighboring jurisdictions of Lafayette and Moraga were invited. LWC facilitated four Focus Group meetings, two with housing development professionals and two with community stakeholders. One focus group with developers was held on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, and the other on Thursday, April 17, 2025. Both meetings with local community members were held on Thursday, April 17, 2025. A total of five individuals participated across all sessions, and the discussions provided valuable insight that will inform the project moving forward.

Meetings were scheduled for 45 minutes, and each session lasted the full allotted time. The Focus Group discussions were free-flowing conversations, guided by City-approved questions developed by LWC and included in Appendix 1. Each Focus Group began with a brief introduction covering the following: 1) an overview of the project, 2) the purpose of the Focus Group meetings, 3) an assurance of confidentiality, and 4) an explanation of the LWC’s role.

Background and Experience
• Participants included developers, property owners, and residents with experience in both Orinda and nearby communities (Walnut Creek, Moraga, Lafayette).
• Experience ranges from detached/attached small-scale single-family projects (0.5 acres) to mid-rise multifamily and mixed-use developments (e.g., 5–14 units up to 40 du/acre, 1-2 acres). • Development professionals had also worked on projects which utilized the State Density Bonus Law which necessitated compliance with affordable housing requirements.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: IHO Focus Group Summary Memo (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2 Cost and Site Challenges:
• Development professionals provided the following construction cost estimates:
o $75–$100/sq ft for single-family detached
o $100–$124/sq ft for duplexes
o $180+/sq ft for mid-rise multifamily (5+ stories)
• Current macroeconomic conditions (i.e., high interest rates) constrain project viability. • Significant site-related constraints for residential in Orinda: slope density formulas, terrain, fire hazard overlays, creeks, flood zones, and high-voltage infrastructure. o Slopes above 3–4% add complexity and cost which often make projects infeasible for residential development.
• Developers stated that they saw few viable development sites, particularly north of the freeway and in Downtown.
• Most promising locations are larger parcels and BART-adjacent areas (specifically the surface parking lots and unimproved land south of Camino Pablo), suitable for higher-density, mixed-income housing.

Regulatory and Political Barriers:
• Strong local resistance to new development; community values prioritize aesthetics, wildfire safety, and low congestion.
o Example: recent memory care project was delayed over seven years due to CEQA and community opposition
Feasibility and Opportunity Areas:
• BART parking lots are viewed as the best development opportunity (“crown jewel”) due to site size and transit access.
• Orinda Grove cited as a potential precedent for feasible, higher-end development. • Developers suggest the City needs to create more certainty (e.g., offering fee waivers and park fee credits). • Consolidation of lots may help, but requires coordination and investment between developers and numerous landowners.
• Respondents reported that in comparable regional locations, rental projects often encounter financial gaps that render them infeasible, sometimes this results in a shift to for-sale housing. • Alignment between city policies and state Density Bonus Law is critical; additional local restrictions can deter participation and reduce project viability.
• Density bonuses can help offset losses from below-market-rate (BMR) units, but only if cities avoid layering on further requirements beyond what the State allows.
• Developers may intentionally under-build to stay below unit thresholds that trigger additional affordability or regulatory requirements.

Inclusionary Housing Opinions:
• Strong skepticism about the feasibility of on-site inclusionary requirements in Orinda due to site, cost, and regulatory barriers.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: IHO Focus Group Summary Memo (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3 • Recommendations include:
o Requiring a base percent of BMR units without specifying exact affordability levels (i.e., extremely low-income, very low-income, etc.)
 Allowing developers flexibility in fitting affordable units in can dramatically improve project viability and facilitate the construction of fewer, larger units more suitable for families. o Use simple, predictable in-lieu fee (e.g., $5,000/unit, as in Danville) o Apply in-lieu funds for affordability via second mortgages/shared equity models o Exempt projects using State Density Bonus Law from an IHO to preserve feasibility (e.g., as done in San Luis Obispo)
o Calls for flexibility in affordability levels (e.g., base 15% BMR requirement) to improve pro forma viability
Regional Comparison and Best Practices:
• Other cities (e.g., Pleasanton, South Bay cities) have robust inclusionary policies, but challenges persist; for example, Pleasanton’s robust IHO has added an estimated $80K/unit in costs, leading to negative land values.
• East Bay seen as more cumbersome than South Bay cities due to procedural and community-related hurdles.
• Example cited: I-580 corridor shows no inclusionary projects, supporting claim that mandatory requirements may suppress development.
• Moraga offers additional bonuses that serve as meaningful incentives. They are one of the few cities with bonus incentives at the local level.

Final Thoughts:
• Emphasis on the need for policy clarity, meaningful incentives, and alignment with State housing programs o “Keep it simple” – many development professionals spend only a few minutes reviewing potential development sites before moving on.
• Warned that without a thoughtful approach, development could stall or shift toward regional/state-level control in the future.

H.1.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: IHO Focus Group Summary Memo (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) City of Orinda
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
July 2025
Economic Feasibility and Market
Study

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) This page left intentionally blank.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Comparative Analysis...................................1 Section 1.1 Inclusionary Housing Ordinances.............................................................1 Section 1.2 Relationship to Other Housing Laws ........................................................1 Section 1.3 Orinda’s Certified 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element ........................4 Section 1.4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Transit-Oriented Community Policy .........................................................................................................5 Section 1.5 Comparative Analysis...............................................................................6 Section 1.6 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................12 Chapter 2: Market Study ........................................................................ 13 Section 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................13 Section 2.2 Residential Market Trends......................................................................13 Section 2.3 Current Comparables .............................................................................18 Section 2.4 Household Demographics ......................................................................21 Section 2.5 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................23 Chapter 3: Feasibility Study ................................................................... 24 Section 3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................24 Section 3.2 Proforma Methodology and Assumptions...............................................24 Section 3.3 For-Rent Developments .........................................................................31 Section 3.4 For-Sale Developments..........................................................................35 Section 3.5 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................40 Chapter 4: Gap Study Analysis .............................................................. 41 Section 4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................41 Section 4.2 Gap Analysis Results .............................................................................41 Section 4.3 In-Lieu Fee Calculation...........................................................................42 Section 4.4 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................42 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Chapter 5: Recommendations ............................................................... 44 Section 5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................44 Section 5.2 Preliminary Recommendations...............................................................44 Tables
Table 1.5.1: Inclusionary Percentage Requirements....................................................................................8 Table 1.5.2: Project Size Thresholds ............................................................................................................8 Table 1.5.3: Alternative Compliance Options................................................................................................9 Table 2.3.1: Single-Family Sale Median Comparable Summary 2023-2025..............................................18 Table 2.3.2: Single-Family Sale Comparable Price Per Square Foot 2023-2025 ......................................18 Table 2.3.3: Multi-Family Units Sale Comparable Averages 2023-2025....................................................19 Table 2.3.4: Multi-Family Rental Comparable Averages 2023-2025..........................................................19 Table 2.3.5: Multi-Family Rental Price per Square Foot 2023-2025...........................................................19 Table 2.3.6: Residual Land Value Orinda Average Comparable Statistics 2025 .......................................20 Table 2.3.7: Residual Land Value Analysis Median Development Cost Estimate 2025 ............................20 Table 2.3.8: Estimated Land Value 2025....................................................................................................20 Table 2.3.9: Commercial Retail Rental Averages 2025..............................................................................21 Table 2.4.1: Contra Costa County Area Income Limits 2025 .....................................................................22 Table 3.2.1: Prototype Summary ................................................................................................................25 Table 3.2.2: Development Cost Assumptions.............................................................................................27 Table 3.2.3: Development Impact Fees ......................................................................................................29 Table 3.2.4: Soft Cost Breakdown ..............................................................................................................30 Table 3.2.5: Gross Monthly Affordable Housing Expenditure by Household Size......................................31 Table 3.3.1: RH-40 Rental Rate Assumptions............................................................................................32 Table 3.3.2: RH-40 For-Rent Proforma Summary ......................................................................................33 Table 3.3.3: DC Rental Rate Averages Assumptions.................................................................................34 Table 3.3.4: DC For-Rent Proforma Summary ...........................................................................................34 Table 3.4.1: Affordable Sales Price Assumptions.......................................................................................35 Table 3.4.2: RH-40 For-Sale Revenue Assumption ...................................................................................36 Table 3.4.3: RH-40 For-Sale Proforma Summary.......................................................................................36 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Table 3.4.4: DC For-Sale Revenue Assumptions.......................................................................................37 Table 3.4.5: DC For-Sale Proforma Summary............................................................................................38 Table 3.4.6: RL-10 For-Sale Revenue Assumption ....................................................................................39 Table 3.4.7: RL-10 For-Sale Proforma Summary .......................................................................................39 Table 4.2.1: For-Rent Gap Analysis............................................................................................................41 Table 4.2.2: For-Sale Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................42 Table 4.3.1: Estimated In-Lieu Fee Cap .....................................................................................................42 Figures
Figure 2.2.1: Single-Family Home Median Sales Price 2012-2025............................................................14 Figure 2.2.2: Single-Family Home Median Sales Price per Square Foot 2012-2025................................. 14 Figure 2.2.3: Condominium Median Sales Price 2012-2025 ......................................................................15 Figure 2.2.4: Median Asking Rental Prices San Francisco U.S. Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 2019 - 2025 ............................................................................................................................................................16 Figure 2.2.5: Average Rent in Orinda, All Beds 2023-2025........................................................................17 Figure 2.2.6: Count of Condominium Sale in Orinda by Year 2012-2025 ..................................................17 Figure 2.4.1: Percentages of Households by Tenure 2023 ........................................................................21 Figure 2.4.2: Household Median Income 2023...........................................................................................22 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Comparative
Analysis
Section 1.1 Inclusionary Housing Ordinances
Inclusionary housing ordinances are a common approach used by cities and counties across California to increase the supply of affordable housing units. Over 170 jurisdictions have enacted inclusionary ordinances in California since the 1970s.1 Inclusionary ordinances are land use regulation that require developers to make a certain share of on-site units affordable to households earning low to moderate incomes. The programs must specify an alternate form of compliance for rental properties which is frequently an in-lieu fee.

Local jurisdictions were previously unable to enforce inclusionary requirements on rental housing as a result of the 2009 Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (Palmer) decision. With the passage of AB 1505 in 2017, cities and counties regained the ability to require on-site affordable rental units. 2 While
AB 1505 allows local jurisdictions to enforce inclusionary requirements on rental developments, it requires the following:

1. Inclusionary requirements must be included in the zoning ordinance.

2. Should more than 15% of rental units be required to be affordable to low-income households, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) may require an economic feasibility study (under certain circumstances) to justify the requirement.

3. An alternative to providing on-site units must be provided, such as an in-lieu fee.

This report presents findings and, following a review period, this information will be used to inform the development of a possible Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) for the City of Orinda (City). This is in accordance with Housing Element Action 3.G.

Section 1.2 Relationship to Other Housing Laws
State housing laws interact with local IHOs in different ways. Some State laws, such as those providing streamlined approval processes, include their own affordability requirements that supersede local inclusionary obligations. However, other State laws explicitly preserve the authority of local jurisdictions to apply inclusionary housing requirements to projects utilizing state incentives or streamlined processes. 1 Department of Housing and Community Development, Rental Inclusionary Housing Chapter 486, Statues of 2017 (Assembly Bill 1505), October 21, 2019. 2 AB 1505 became effective on January 1, 2018.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 2 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Understanding these distinctions is critical for determining when and how a local IHO would apply to different types of development projects.

Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code §65589.5) limits local jurisdictions’ ability to deny or reduce the density of housing development projects that comply with applicable objective zoning and development standards in effect when an application is determined to be complete. While the HAA has been in effect since 1982, multiple amendments have been enacted over the last few years to expand and strengthen its provisions. 3,4
Under the HAA, “housing development projects” include residential-only, mixed-use with at least two-thirds of the square footage for residential, or transitional or supportive housing; the HAA is applicable to both market rate and affordable housing projects. To deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible these types of projects, the City must make findings that a specific, adverse health or safety impact exists. Additional findings are required for denial of, or conditions rendering infeasible, projects with at least 20% lowerincome housing (up to 80% Area Median Income (AMI)), projects with 100% of units for up to 150% of AMI, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing.

The inclusion of a State density bonus or incentives, concessions, or waivers is not a valid basis to find a housing development project inconsistent with an applicable standard or policy.

Housing Crisis Act (SB 330)
The Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill (SB) 330) amended and expanded the HAA. Effective January 2020, the Housing Crisis Act prohibits a jurisdiction from adopting any new subjective standards for housing developments and prohibits a jurisdiction from enacting any new legislation that would have the effect of reducing the number of units that can be entitled. It also adds provisions for streamlining applications. This includes that any preliminary application submitted for housing developments vests the applicable objective standards in place at time of preliminary application submittal; that review must be completed in 30 to 60 days after deemed complete; and that no more than five hearings/meetings may be held before a decision is issued.

Streamlined Ministerial Approval (SB 35)
In addition to the HAA and Housing Crisis Act provisions described above, a streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35) is available for qualifying projects. To qualify for SB 35 streamlining, projects in Orinda must provide at least 50% of units for lower income households. Applicants electing to pursue streamlining under SB 35 must comply with additional requirements, such as paying construction workers prevailing wage, but are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Projects utilizing 3 Objective standards involve no personal or subjective judgment on the part of the City and are uniformly verifiable by reference to criteria available to the applicant. Objective standards should accommodate the maximum density allowed. 4 The City may not apply new design standards that were adopted on or after January 1, 2020 unless those standards are objective.

See Housing Crisis Act (SB 330).

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 3 SB 35 streamlining are exempt from local inclusionary housing requirements, as the state law establishes its own affordability mandates.

State Density Bonus Law
The State Density Bonus Law (Government Code §65915) provides developers with the right to obtain increased residential density and other development incentives in exchange for including affordable housing or other public benefits within their projects. First enacted in 1979 and significantly expanded by SB 1818 in 2004 and later amendments, the law is intended to encourage the production of affordable and mixed-income housing by making projects more financially feasible.

Under the Density Bonus Law, housing development projects that include a certain percentage of affordable units, such as units for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, or qualifying senior or special needs housing are eligible for a density bonus of up to 50% above the otherwise maximum allowed density.

In addition to the bonus units, eligible projects may request concessions, incentives, waivers, or parking reductions to further facilitate project feasibility.

The amount of bonus and number of concessions available increases based on the percentage and level of affordability provided. Cities must grant the density bonus and associated incentives unless they can make limited findings, such as demonstrating that a requested waiver would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. A project’s request for a density bonus, incentives, concessions, waivers, or reduced parking standards cannot, by itself, be used as a basis to find the project inconsistent with applicable zoning or policies.

Other State Housing Laws and Inclusionary Requirements
Several additional State housing laws interact differently with local IHOs:
• California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act (SB 9): Projects developed under SB 9's lot-splitting and duplex provisions remain subject to local IHOs where applicable. • Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021 (SB 684/1123): Projects accessing streamlining benefits under these laws are explicitly subject to local IHOs, providing an additional mechanism for affordable housing production.
• Inclusionary Housing Fee Transparency (AB 2663): Effective January 1, 2026, this law requires local agencies to annually post information about inclusionary housing in-lieu fees collected and how they are spent. Cities implementing new inclusionary ordinances must build robust tracking and reporting systems to comply with these transparency requirements. • Other relevant legislation: AB 2011, SB 6, SB 4, and SB 79 each establish different relationships with local inclusionary requirements, generally preserving local authority while providing State-level incentives.

Two additional bills currently advancing through the 2025 legislative session may further affect local inclusionary housing authority. SB 79 (Wiener), which has passed the Senate Housing Committee, would preempt local inclusionary ordinances within 0.25-0.5 miles of major transit stops, applying state density bonus requirements instead. Given Orinda's central BART station, this legislation could significantly limit the City's ability to apply inclusionary requirements to development near the station if enacted. AB 609 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 4 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 (Wicks), which has passed the Assembly with unanimous support and Governor Newsom's backing, would create broad CEQA exemptions for infill housing projects under 20 acres that meet local zoning standards, potentially accelerating development timelines for projects subject to inclusionary requirements.

Section 1.3 Orinda’s Certified 2023-2031 6th Cycle
Housing Element
The City adopted its 6th Cycle Housing Element in 2023, receiving certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). As part of this Housing Element, the City committed to specific policies and programs to address its housing needs and comply with state housing law requirements.

Goal 3 (Housing Opportunity Sites): Action 3.G: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Housing Element Action 3.G establishes the policy foundation for this Market Study and Feasibility Analysis (Study), directing the City to "research an inclusionary housing ordinance." This action identifies four acceptable methods for developers to provide required affordable housing:
• Construction of housing on-site
• Construction of housing off-site
• Dedication of land for housing
• Payment of an in-lieu fee
The Housing Element specifies that development of an IHO requires analysis of several key variables that directly inform this Study:
• Limiting the application of the ordinance to developments exceeding a certain size • Percentage of housing units required to be set aside as affordable • Design and building requirements
• Timing of affordable unit construction
• Determination of a fee in lieu of developing affordable units • Developer incentives, such as fee deferrals and waivers • Administration of affordability control
Action 3.G establishes a two-phase timeline: the City must determine the appropriateness of an inclusionary ordinance within two years after Housing Element adoption, and if determined appropriate, adopt an inclusionary ordinance within one year of making that determination. The action includes a quantified objective of 145 lower income units in high opportunity areas, providing a measurable target for inclusionary housing production. This Study provides the economic foundation for determining appropriate project size thresholds, affordability percentages, in-lieu fee amounts, design requirements, construction timing, developer incentives, and administrative procedures. This Study’s preliminary recommendations related to Action 3.G’s research requirements will help inform the City's decision on IHO adoption.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 5 Section 1.4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transit-Oriented Community Policy
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has
established a Transit-Oriented Community (TOC) Policy that creates regional standards for local IHOs in communities served by highquality transit. Given Orinda's central BART station, the City's development of an IHO must consider TOC Policy requirements to maintain eligibility for regional transportation funding and ensure alignment with regional housing and transportation goals.

TOC Policy Inclusionary Housing Requirements
The TOC Policy establishes specific parameters for local inclusionary zoning ordinances:
• Minimum Affordability Requirements: Inclusionary ordinances must require at least 15% of units to be deed-restricted affordable units. Jurisdictions may set higher requirements, but if setting requirements below 15%, they must provide either an economic equivalency analysis or a financial feasibility study demonstrating that 15% is not feasible under local market conditions. MTC provides analytical tools to assist jurisdictions in making these determinations. • Income Targeting: The policy differentiates requirements between rental and ownership housing:
o Rental units: Affordable units must average 80% of AMI or less, with no affordable rental units available to households above 120% AMI
o Ownership units: Affordable units must average 120% AMI or less, with no affordable ownership units available to households above 150% AMI
• Project Applicability: The policy applies to newly constructed residential and mixed-use residential projects, but may exempt properties with fewer than 11 units, student housing, 100% affordable housing, senior housing, and other special housing types. • Alternative Compliance: Consistent with state law (AB 1505), the policy requires jurisdictions to allow alternative means of compliance, including in-lieu fees, off-site construction, and land dedication. For in-lieu fees, jurisdictions must demonstrate that fees below $100,000 per required unit will produce equivalent affordable housing outcomes. • Long-term Affordability: The policy requires deed restrictions of at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing to ensure long-term community benefit from inclusionary requirements.

Implications for Orinda
As the City develops its IHO, the TOC Policy provides both a framework and a standard for consideration.

The 15% minimum requirement and income targeting parameters offer regional benchmarks that can inform the City's analysis of appropriate inclusionary percentages and affordability levels. The policy's recognition Orinda BART Station Area TOC
Source: MTC TOC Policy Exploratory Map
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 6 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 of local market feasibility analysis also provides a pathway for Orinda to demonstrate if different requirements are more appropriate for local conditions, provided adequate economic justification is provided.

The comparative analysis that follows examines how jurisdictions with similar characteristics to Orinda have balanced TOC Policy requirements with local development conditions and housing market realities.

Section 1.5 Comparative Analysis
To inform the development of an IHO appropriate for the City, this section examines the inclusionary housing policies of several nearby jurisdictions: Lafayette, Moraga, Walnut Creek, Danville, and San Ramon. These cities were selected based on their geographic proximity, similar suburban development patterns, transit availability, Focus Group feedback5, and relevance to the market and regulatory conditions faced in Orinda.

Transit access plays a particularly important role in inclusionary housing feasibility and effectiveness.

Orinda's central BART station, like those in Lafayette and Walnut Creek, provides direct access to regional employment centers, reducing transportation costs for affordable housing residents and supporting economic mobility. Transit accessibility also enables reduced parking requirements for affordable housing developments, lowering construction costs and improving project feasibility. This transportation infrastructure makes inclusionary housing more viable by connecting affordable units to job opportunities throughout the Bay Area, addressing both housing affordability and access to economic opportunity.

Each of these communities has adopted an IHO in response to growing regional housing pressures and evolving state mandates aimed at increasing housing production and affordability. While their approaches vary in terms of required affordability levels, applicability thresholds, and flexibility options, they collectively provide a useful framework for understanding policy choices that balance housing needs with development feasibility.

This comparative analysis identifies key features of each jurisdiction’s ordinance, highlights common trends and differences, and draws lessons that may guide Orinda’s consideration of its own inclusionary housing requirements.

Jurisdiction Overview
Lafayette is a small, suburban community with a population of about 25,000 residents. Lafayette’s housing stock is predominantly single-family homes, with limited multi-family development mainly concentrated in the Downtown area and south of its centrally-located BART station. The city has a very high median household income and home values are among the highest in Contra Costa County, resulting in significant housing affordability challenges. The community places strong value on open space preservation, quality schools, and maintaining its established suburban feel. 5 LWC conducted a series of stakeholder Focus Group conversations in April 2025 as part of the research process for this report.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 7 Moraga is an even smaller and more rural town compared to Lafayette, with a population around 17,000.

Growth has been extremely limited, with very little new development in recent years. Like Lafayette, Moraga’s housing is overwhelmingly composed of single-family homes. Household incomes are high, and the community has a strong tradition of prioritizing neighborhood character and open space protection.

Walnut Creek is a larger and more urbanized suburban city, with a population nearing 70,000. Unlike Lafayette and Moraga, Walnut Creek functions as a regional center for retail, healthcare, and employment.

The city offers a broader range of housing options, including a substantial amount of multi-family housing around the Downtown core and BART station areas. While median incomes remain high, Walnut Creek has more diversity in household types, including younger professionals and seniors.

Danville is another suburban community, with a population of about 44,000. Danville’s growth model has historically focused on very low-density, single-family residential neighborhoods, and the community has maintained strong controls on new development. Like Lafayette and Moraga, Danville has extremely high median household incomes and limited housing diversity.

San Ramon is a larger, faster-growing city compared to the others analyzed, with a population of over 84,000. San Ramon has transitioned from a traditional suburban community to a more dynamic employment and residential center, anchored by major corporate campuses like Bishop Ranch. The housing stock in San Ramon is more varied, with a growing share of townhomes and multi-family projects. Household incomes remain high, but the city also faces growing needs for workforce housing to support its employment base.

Inclusionary Percentage Requirements
The inclusionary housing requirements across Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville, and San Ramon reflect a range of approaches in both percentage requirements and targeted income levels. Moraga sets a uniform 10% inclusionary requirement for both for-rent and for-sale developments, targeting low-income households for rentals and moderate-income households for ownership. Lafayette differentiates by housing type: for single-family projects, a 15% moderate-income requirement applies for both rental and ownership, while multi-family projects must provide a split of 15%, with 9% for low- or moderate-income and 6% for very low-income households. Walnut Creek offers developers flexibility with tiered options – rental projects must provide either 10% low-income or 6% very low-income units, while for-sale projects can meet the requirement through 10% moderate, 7% low, or 6% very low-income units. Danville’s policy varies by project size, requiring 10% inclusion for developments with 7–20 units and 15% for those with 21 or more units, consistently applied to both rental and for-sale housing. San Ramon has the highest specified percentages, mandating 15% affordable units for both rental and ownership, with a detailed distribution across very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 8 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Table 1.5.1: Inclusionary Percentage Requirements
Jurisdiction Housing Type Geographic Scope For-Rent For-Sale Moraga All Citywide 10% low 10% moderate
Lafayette
Single-Family Downtown 15% moderate 15% moderate
Multi-Family Downtown 15% (9% low and 6% very
low)
15% (9% low or moderate and
6% very low)
Walnut Creek All Citywide 10% low or 6% very low 10% moderate, or, 7% low, or 6% very low
Danville All Citywide
7-20 units 10%
21 or more 15%
7-20 units 10%
21 or more 15%
San Ramon All Citywide 15% (50% very low and
50% low)
15% (20% very low, 30% low, and
50% moderate)
Project Size Thresholds for Applicability
The jurisdictions of Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville, and San Ramon each establish different unit thresholds that determine when inclusionary housing requirements apply, reflecting varying approaches to the scale and intensity of development they seek to regulate. In the comparable communities, the range of project size thresholds for applicability ranges from zero (where the IHO applies to all projects) to eight (where the IHO applies to projects of 8 units or above).

Moraga sets its threshold at six or more units, exempting small projects with five or fewer units from affordability requirements. For projects with six to nine units, developers may either provide one full inclusionary unit or pay a prorated in-lieu fee based on the project's size. Lafayette applies a lower threshold, requiring inclusionary units for projects with two or more units within the Downtown Specific Plan area. San Ramon similarly uses a two-unit threshold, ensuring that even relatively small projects must contribute to affordable housing goals.

In contrast, Walnut Creek’s ordinance stands out for its breadth of application: all residential projects, regardless of size, are subject to inclusionary requirements. This means that even a single new unit whether for-sale or for-rent must comply.

Danville uses a two-tiered threshold: projects with eight or more units are subject to inclusionary requirements, with a stepped percentage depending on project size (10% for 8–20 units and 15% for 21 or more units). Notably, Danville has the highest minimum starting point among the group, with smaller projects under eight units exempt.

Table 1.5.2: Project Size Thresholds
Jurisdiction Unit Threshold
Moraga 6 or more
Lafayette 2 or more
Walnut Creek All residential projects
Danville 8 or more
San Ramon 2 or more
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 9 Alternative Compliance Options
As noted above, Orinda's Housing Element Action 3.G specifically identifies three acceptable, alternative methods for providing affordable housing other than constructions of housing on-site: (1) construction of housing off-site, (2) dedication of land for housing, and (3) payment of an in-lieu fee. State law (AB 1505) requires that jurisdictions provide alternative means of compliance beyond on-site unit production, making these alternative pathways essential components of any IHO.

The comparison jurisdictions' approaches to these three alternative compliance methods provide insights for Orinda's ordinance development. Each jurisdiction has structured these alternatives differently based on local market conditions, administrative capacity, and housing production goals. Understanding how Lafayette, Moraga, Walnut Creek, Danville, and San Ramon have implemented off-site construction, land dedication, and in-lieu fee programs can inform Orinda's decisions about fee amounts, alternative site requirements, and land dedication standards that align with local development patterns and affordable housing needs.

The following table summarizes how the five comparison jurisdictions have implemented the three alternative compliance methods identified in Orinda's Housing Element, providing a framework for understanding different approaches to off-site construction, land dedication, and in-lieu fee programs. The table also summarizes the amount charged for the respective in-lieu fees, where applicable.

Table 1.5.3: Alternative Compliance Options
Jurisdiction Alternative Compliance Options In-Lieu Fee Amounts Moraga In-lieu fee, off-site, land dedication, acquisition/rehab, ADU construction
Between $8.30 and $25 per square foot for rental
projects, depending on the number of units.

Between $13 and $39 per square foot for for-sale
projects, depending on the number of units.

Lafayette In-lieu fee, off-site, for-rent alternative To be established by future council resolution.

Walnut Creek In-lieu fee, off-site, land dedication, provision of moderate-income rental units $26.04 per square foot.

Danville N/A N/A
San Ramon In-lieu fee, off-site, for-rent alternative, land dedication, acquisition/rehab
$15.16 per square foot for projects developing
less than 10 units.
$16.27 per square foot for projects developing 10
or more single-family units.

Moraga allows alternative compliance with inclusionary housing requirements in specified circumstances.

For projects with six to nine units, developers may either provide one full affordable unit or pay a prorated in-lieu fee ranging from $8.30 and $22.20 per square foot for projects providing rental units and between $13.00 and $34.70 per square foot for projects providing for-sale units. For projects with ten or more units, developers must provide the required number of affordable units based on the percentage obligation but may pay an in-lieu fee for any fractional unit resulting from the calculation at a rate of $25.00 per square foot for rental units and $39.00 per square foot for for-sale units. In lower-density residential zoning districts (R-6 or lower), developers of for-sale projects may satisfy the requirement by constructing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) equal to 25% of the total units; no income restrictions apply to these ADUs. Additional alternative compliance options include acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing to create long-term H.1.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 10 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 affordable units and entering into agreements with nonprofit developers to either fund or facilitate affordable housing projects off-site within Moraga, subject to Town approval and meeting specific conditions.

Lafayette provides alternative compliance options for inclusionary housing requirements, primarily through payment of in-lieu fees, subject to City approval. In-lieu fees are typically permitted when the inclusionary obligation results in a fractional unit or when the City determines that on-site provision is infeasible.

Lafayette also allows developers to propose alternatives such as land dedication or off-site construction of affordable units, both requiring City Council approval. For-sale projects may seek approval to meet their obligation by providing rental units off-site as an alternative form of compliance.

Walnut Creek permits payment of in-lieu fees in place of on-site affordable unit production, particularly for small projects or when the requirement results in fractional units. In-lieu fees are charged at a rate of $26.04 per square foot. Alternative compliance methods may also be approved, including the provision of affordable units off-site, land dedication for affordable housing, or, in some cases, allowing the provision of moderate-income rental units instead of lower-income units, subject to City discretion and alignment with housing goals.

Danville allows for payment of in-lieu fees, primarily to address fractional unit obligations. Full units are generally expected for larger projects (especially projects with 21 or more units). Developers may propose alternative compliance options such as off-site affordable housing construction or land dedication, but such alternatives must receive Town approval to ensure they meet the equivalent value and intent of on-site unit provision.

San Ramon offers multiple alternative compliance pathways for inclusionary housing obligations.

Developers may elect to pay an in-lieu fee, construct affordable units off-site, dedicate land for affordable housing development, or acquire and rehabilitate existing units to create new affordable units.

Developments with two to nine units may pay an in-lieu fee charged at a rate of $15.16 per square foot.

Developments with 10 or more single-family units may pay an in-lieu fee charged at a rate of $16.27 per square foot. Additionally, for-sale residential developments may propose to meet their inclusionary obligation by delivering affordable rental units, subject to City review and approval for equivalency.

Applicability to Single-Family vs Multi-Family Projects The inclusionary housing requirements in Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville, and San Ramon apply to both single-family and multi-family residential projects, subject to each jurisdiction’s specific unit thresholds. In Moraga, projects with six or more units, regardless of whether they are single-family subdivisions or multi-family developments must comply. Lafayette’s requirements similarly apply to both housing types but are limited to projects located within the Downtown Specific Plan area and require two or more units. Walnut Creek applies its inclusionary requirements to all residential projects citywide, with no minimum unit threshold, making it the most comprehensive in coverage. Danville’s requirements apply to both single-family and multi-family projects but only when eight or more units are proposed. San Ramon applies its inclusionary standards broadly to all qualifying residential development, beginning at two units, with no distinction between single-family and multi-family projects.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 11 Notable Policy Features and Innovations
While Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville, and San Ramon each impose inclusionary housing requirements, their ordinances show important differences in how they structure affordability obligations, flexibility for compliance, and alignment with state housing mandates. Several notable features emerge:

A. Danville's Flat Percentage Requirement Without Income Breakdown:

Unlike other jurisdictions that specify the percentage of affordable units by income category (e.g., lowincome, very-low-income, or moderate-income households), Danville simply requires 10% BMR units for projects with 7–20 units and 15% for projects with 21 or more units, without further breakdown by income level. Developers have broad discretion to satisfy the requirement at any eligible affordability level unless otherwise negotiated. This approach makes Danville's ordinance simpler but arguably less targeted in terms of meeting diverse affordable housing needs compared to cities like San Ramon and Lafayette, which prescribe specific income splits.

B. Danville's Coordination with State Density Bonus Law:

Danville explicitly exempts projects from its inclusionary housing requirement if they are complying with the State Density Bonus Law affordability mandates. This avoids layering conflicting requirements on top of the state program and supports development feasibility for projects utilizing state incentives.

C. Lafayette’s Downtown-Specific Inclusionary Program:

Lafayette’s inclusionary requirements apply only within the Downtown Specific Plan area, encouraging affordable housing production near transit, services, and walkable amenities. This geographic targeting supports infill development and focuses affordability efforts where infrastructure can support increased residential density.

D. Use of Local Incentives and Bonuses (Moraga and Lafayette):

Both Moraga and Lafayette offer local density bonuses or development incentives to projects that exceed minimum inclusionary requirements, rather than merely relying on the State Density Bonus Law. This local incentive structure provides additional flexibility and rewards developers for voluntarily providing more affordable units than required.

E. Alternative Compliance Through Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Preservation (San Ramon and Moraga):

As an alternative to constructing new inclusionary units on-site, both San Ramon and Moraga allow developers to fulfill their affordable housing obligations by acquiring, rehabilitating, and preserving existing multi-family housing units. Developers may preserve existing affordable units that are officially designated as "at risk of loss," provided that the units are affordable to very low- or low-income households, the affordability term is extended to units that are expected to lose affordability protections within five years without intervention. All preserved or rehabilitated units must be brought into safe and sanitary condition.

For projects involving rehabilitation of occupied units, a Tenant Displacement Reduction Plan must also be prepared, offering relocation assistance and a first right of return for displaced tenants. This approach offers developers flexibility while helping to preserve the community’s existing affordable housing stock, a strategy particularly important in high-cost, low-vacancy markets.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 12 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Section 1.6 Summary and Conclusions
This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of IHOs in California, with a focus on how nearby jurisdictions such as Lafayette, Moraga, Walnut Creek, Danville, and San Ramon have structured their policies. While each jurisdiction takes a slightly different approach in terms of inclusionary percentages, affordability targets, and compliance options, all are fundamentally grounded in the framework established by AB 1505. This state legislation restored the authority of cities and counties to require affordable rental housing in new developments, provided that such requirements are part of the zoning code.

The reviewed jurisdictions illustrate a range of strategies in how they structure affordability obligations, offer flexibility for compliance, and align with state mandates. For example, Danville’s ordinance applies a flat inclusionary percentage without specifying income levels, offering developers broad discretion but less precision in targeting affordability needs. Lafayette's ordinance focuses on its Downtown Specific Plan area to encourage infill development near transit and services. Both Moraga and Lafayette provide local incentives to projects that exceed baseline requirements. San Ramon and Moraga also allow developers to meet their obligations by acquiring and preserving existing affordable units, which serves as a practical tool for maintaining housing stock in high-cost markets.

As the City considers adopting its own IHO, the variations seen across the region offer valuable insight into policy design that balances affordability objectives with development viability. The next step in this process will be a market study. This study will evaluate local economic conditions and development economics and will serve as a foundation for determining appropriate inclusionary requirements. Its findings will directly inform the feasibility study.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 13 Chapter 2: Market Study
Section 2.1 Introduction
This Study provides an overview of real estate market conditions as of May 2025 in the City to inform the financial feasibility analysis of a potential IHO. It focuses on recent trends in residential development, including construction costs, land values, and recent sales and rental comparables. By analyzing these market fundamentals, the study establishes a baseline for understanding the economic environment in which new housing projects are being proposed and built. This information serves as a foundation for the pro forma modeling that will assess how various inclusionary housing requirements may affect project viability.

The residential market data analyzed in this study spans a period that includes the extraordinary impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from 2019 through May 2023 reflects significant market disruptions and shifts in housing demand patterns that began in early 2020. The pandemic continues to influence local market attitudes and behaviors, including:
• Work patterns and housing preferences: Remote and hybrid work arrangements have altered where people choose to live and the types of housing features they prioritize • Transit ridership and accessibility: Reduced BART ridership and changing commute patterns affect the value proposition of transit-oriented locations like Orinda • Market volatility: Housing prices and rental rates experienced unprecedented fluctuations during and after the pandemic
• Development timing: Construction delays, supply chain disruptions, and financing challenges affected project timelines and costs
These pandemic-related factors should be considered when interpreting market trends and applying the findings to future inclusionary housing policy decisions. While some impacts may prove temporary as markets normalize, others may represent more lasting shifts in housing market dynamics.

Section 2.2 Residential Market Trends
Single-family home prices in Orinda are higher than those in Contra Costa County overall. In 2022, the median home price in Orinda peaked at approximately $2.1 million before declining slightly in the following years. In contrast, Contra Costa County’s median home price remained much lower, reaching a high of around $880,000 in 2021-2022 before experiencing a modest decline. The price disparity between Orinda and the broader county has widened over time, reflecting stronger growth in Orinda’s housing market.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 14 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Figure 2.2.1: Single-Family Home Median Sales Price 2012-2025 Source: Redfin
The price per square foot for single-family homes in Orinda is higher than in Contra Costa County overall.

In 2022, Orinda’s median price per square foot peaked at around $850 before declining slightly in the following years (Figure 2.2.2). By comparison, Contra Costa County’s median price per square foot remained lower, reaching a high of approximately $500 in 2021-2022 before experiencing a modest decline.

The gap between Orinda and the broader county has widened over time, reflecting stronger price appreciation.

Figure 2.2.2: Single-Family Home Median Sales Price per Square Foot 2012-2025 Source: Redfin
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
$2,200,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Orinda Contra Costa County
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Orinda Contra Costa County
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 15 Due to limited sales volume and inventory, Orinda’s condominium price trends appear highly volatile.

Orinda’s median condo sales price peaked at approximately $1.5 million in 2019, followed by significant fluctuations in subsequent years (Figure 2.2.3). In contrast, Contra Costa County’s median condo sales price peaked at approximately $500,000 in 2023 and demonstrates steadier growth, reflecting a larger and more consistent market.

Figure 2.2.3: Condominium Median Sales Price 2012-2025
Source: Redfin
Figure 2.2.4 shows median asking rental prices for all bedroom types within the San Francisco core-based statistical area (CBSA), which is a geographic region defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget that includes San Francisco and surrounding counties, including Contra Costa County. Median rents peaked at approximately $3,200 in 2022 before declining to around $2,700 by 2025. $100,000
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
$1,500,000
$1,700,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Orinda Contra Costa County
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 16 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Figure 2.2.4: Median Asking Rental Prices San Francisco U.S. Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 2019 - 2025 Source: Redfin
Figure 2.2.5 illustrates the rent price trends in Orinda, CA, between 2023 and 2025, showcasing significant fluctuations in rental costs. The graph indicates that rent prices were relatively low in early 2023, around $1,800, before experiencing a sharp increase, peaking at approximately $6,800 by mid-2023. This peak remained stable until late 2023, after which a notable decline followed, reaching its lowest point around May 2024, where rent prices dropped close to $2,000. A recovery trend emerged afterward, with prices steadily increasing back to around $5,800 by October 2024.

While these shifts may initially appear as signs of extreme volatility, they are more accurately attributed to the constrained rental supply in Orinda. With so few units on the market, even minor changes in inventory, such as the introduction or removal of a small number of high-priced units can have an outsized impact on average rent prices. For example, the significant spike in 2023 likely reflects the addition of free-standing accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which tend to command premium rents due to their privacy and detached nature.

Supporting this limited-supply context, data from the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) shows that only one multi-family unit was completed in 2022. In 2023, that number increased modestly to 14 units. Overall, while the rent price pattern suggests high volatility, it is more accurately a reflection of an extremely thin and unbalanced rental market, where small-scale developments like premium ADUs can significantly distort pricing trends. Notably, despite the mid-2024 rebound, the market saw a 47% year-over-year decrease and a 3% decline in the most recent month, suggesting a potential cooling phase amid broader affordability and demand pressures.

$2,000
$2,200
$2,400
$2,600
$2,800
$3,000
$3,200
$3,400
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
San Francisco U.S. core-based statistical area (CBSA)
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 17 Figure 2.2.5: Average Rent in Orinda, All Beds 2023-2025 Source: Zumper
Figure 2.2.6 shows the number of condominium sales in Orinda from 2012 to 2025. The data reveals fluctuating sales over the years, with a noticeable peak in 2021 (7 sales), followed by a decline. Sales were relatively low in 2013, 2016, 2018, 2019, and 2020 (each with only 1 sales), pointing to a limited inventory available to potential buyers. A lack of supply in the condominium market can restrict buyer options, leading to fewer sales regardless of demand. This limited inventory can also drive up prices and reduce market competitiveness, ultimately making housing less accessible.

Figure 2.2.6: Count of Condominium Sale in Orinda by Year 2012-2025 Source: Redfin
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
2023 2024
Rental Rate
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 H.1.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 18 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Section 2.3 Current Comparables
LWC gathered data from public and private sources to inform assumptions regarding costs, revenues, and other aspects of the feasibility analysis. For revenue estimates, LWC relied on publicly available postings of home sale prices and rents on sites such as Zillow and Redfin. Sales and rental comparables for Orinda include transactions occurring up to three years prior to May 2025.

Single-Family Comparables
Table 2.3.1 summarizes median sales data for single-family homes in Orinda, grouped by the number of bedrooms. On average, smaller homes command a higher price per square foot.

Table 2.3.1: Single-Family Sale Median Comparable Summary 2023-2025 Bedrooms Year Built Square Feet Sale Price Price Per Square Foot 2-Bedroom 1951 1,644 $1,430,000 $835
3-Bedroom 1955 1,908 $1,662,000 $882
4-Bedroom 1959 2,725 $2,249,500 $813
5-Bedroom 1965 3,608 $2,850,000 $783
Source: Redfin, LWC
Table 2.3.2 is the median, minimum, and maximum dollars per square foot that were observed in recent sales within Orinda from 2023-2025. In Orinda, 2-bedroom homes have a median price of $835 per square foot, with a range from $440 to $2,086. 3-bedroom homes show a slightly higher median at $882, with prices varying between $260 and $1,351. Interestingly, 4-bedroom homes have a lower median of $813, despite a higher minimum of $379, and a maximum of $1,328. Similarly, 5-bedroom homes have a median of $783, ranging from $365 to $1,289
Table 2.3.2: Single-Family Sale Comparable Price Per Square Foot 2023-2025 Bedrooms Minimum Median Maximum
2-Bedroom $440 $835 $2,086
3-Bedroom $260 $882 $1,351
4-Bedroom $379 $813 $1,328
5-Bedroom $365 $783 $1,289
Source: Redfin, LWC
Multi-Family Comparables
Table 2.3.3 summarizes average sales data for multi-family units in Orinda, broken down by number of bedrooms. One-bedroom units, built around 1962 and averaging 673 square feet, had a median price of $493,333, or approximately $733 per square foot. Two-bedroom units, with an average construction year of 1965 and 1,049 square feet, had a median sale price of $636,607, translating to about $602 per square foot.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 19 Table 2.3.3: Multi-Family Units Sale Comparable Averages 2023-2025 Bedrooms Year Built Square Feet Sale Price Price Per Square Foot 1-Bedroom 1962 673 $493,333 $733
2-Bedroom 1965 1,049 $636,607 $602
Source: Redfin, LWC
Table 2.3.4 provides average asking rental data for multi-family units in the “Lamorinda” region, which includes Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda, categorized by bedroom count and current as of May 2025. Asking monthly rents increase with unit size, ranging from approximately $2,293 for 1-bedroom units averaging 627 square feet, to about $4,028 for 3-bedroom units averaging 1,436 square feet. Conversely, rent per square foot decreases with unit size, from an average of $3.68 per square foot for 1-bedroom units down to $2.85 per square foot for 3-bedroom units.

Table 2.3.4: Multi-Family Rental Comparable Averages 2023-2025 Bedrooms Square Feet Asking Month Rental Rate Rent per Square Foot 1-Bedroom 627 $2,293 $3.68
2-Bedroom 985 $2,890 $2.99
3-Bedroom 1,436 $4,028 $2.85
Source: Zillow, LWC
Table 2.3.5 summarizes the range of rental prices per square foot for multi-family units, based on unit size.

For 1-bedroom units, rents range from $2.86 to $4.69 per square foot, with a median of $3.53. Two-bedroom units show a slightly lower price range, from $2.29 to $4.24 per square foot, and a median of $2.90.

Table 2.3.5: Multi-Family Rental Price per Square Foot 2023-2025 Bedrooms Minimum Median Maximum
1-Bedroom $2.86 $3.53 $4.69
2-Bedroom $2.29 $2.90 $4.24
Source: Zillow, LWC
Orinda Grove
The Orinda Grove project, completed in 2015, was cited during the Focus Groups as a local example of a successful affordable housing project. Located on publicly owned land, Orinda Grove was a large, masterplanned community supported by a development agreement, adopted design guidelines, and the use of the State Density Bonus Law. Notably, the project produced affordable units despite the absence of a formal IHO in the City at the time. The development includes a total of 73 units, eight of which are Below Market Rate (BMR) homes sold to moderate-income households. It is important to note that this outcome was the result of a negotiated development agreement with the City and reflected a special set of circumstances, including public land ownership and unique project timing, which may not be readily replicable for future developments.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 20 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Land Value
To determine land value, a Residual Land Value (RLV) analysis was performed. RLV is a way to estimate how much land is worth based on what can be built on it. It starts by estimating the value of an existing improvement along with the capitalized value of any income streams, then subtracting all development costs such as construction, fees, financing, and developer profit, This approach isolates the land value as a component of the overall capital value of a project. Therefore, the calculated residual, or amount left over, represents the estimated value of the land. Recent property sales data from Orinda were also used to inform the estimated development cost and reflect current market conditions. An interest rate of 6.7% and a return on cost of 12.5% were used in the analysis. Because the residual land value analysis is highly sensitive to capitalization rates, which are related to interest rates, land values are not stable and can change over time.

It is typical to re-evaluate land values approximately every two years, as changes in interest rates will directly impact land values.

Table 2.3.6 is the average statistics recently sold multi-family properties that were used in the RLV analysis.

All the properties that were used as a part of the analysis were sold in the “Lamorinda” area. The median sales price was $2,120,000, and sale prices range from $1.6 million to $7.2 million.

Table 2.3.6: Residual Land Value Orinda Average Comparable Statistics 2025 Sale Price Lot Size (SF) Total Units Net Leasable SF Net Leasable SF per Unit GSF $3,244,000 18,969 7 7,566 1,204 8,901
Source: LWC
The estimated median development costs that were used in the RLV are displayed below in Table 2.3.7 .

Table 2.3.7: Residual Land Value Analysis Median Development Cost Estimate 2025 Total Development Cost Total Development Cost per Unit
$1,758,359 $548,696
Source: LWC
Table 2.3.8 displays the estimated land values calculated either per unit, per square foot, or per acre. The average estimated land cost was $26 per square foot.

Table 2.3.8: Estimated Land Value 2025
Per Unit Per Square Foot Per Acre
$84,175 $26 $1,141,042
Source: LWC
Commercial Property
Table 2.3.9 provides average rental data for commercial retail spaces in the “Lamorinda” region. On average, retail units are approximately 6,134 square feet, with an annual rent of $102,625.67. This results in an average annual rent of $43.67 per square foot, offering a snapshot of typical leasing costs for retail properties in the area. Office inventory in the “Lamorinda” region is very limited, and most available spaces are co-developed with retail. An examination of available rents indicates that costs are comparable.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 21 Table 2.3.9: Commercial Retail Rental Averages 2025
Type Square Feet Annual Rent Annual Rent per
Square Foot
Retail 6,134 $102,625.67 $43.67
Office 3,189 $135,106.25 $43.43
Source: Loopnet, LWC
Section 2.4 Household Demographics
According to the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates, there were 7,386 occupied housing units in the City, of which 579 were renter-occupied. Figure 2.4.1 illustrates household tenure, comparing owner versus renter occupancy in Orinda and Contra Costa County based on the 2023 ACS estimates. Orinda shows a high rate of homeownership, with approximately 92% owner-occupied housing units and only 8% renter-occupied housing units. In contrast, Contra Costa County has a lower homeownership rate, with 68% owner-occupied housing units and 32% renter-occupied housing units.

Figure 2.4.1: Percentages of Households by Tenure 2023
Source: 2023 ACS 5-year Estimates
Household income levels in Orinda are significantly higher than in Contra Costa County overall. According to the 2023 ACS 5-year Estimates, Orinda’s median household income is estimated to be over $250,000, whereas Contra Costa County’s median household income is approximately $125,727 (Figure 2.4.2). 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Orinda Contra Costa County
Renter Owner
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 22 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Figure 2.4.2: Household Median Income 2023
Source: 2023 ACS 5-year Estimates
Table 2.4.1 presents the 2025 AMI limits for Contra Costa County, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). These income limits are used to determine eligibility for various housing assistance programs and are categorized by household size and income level, ranging from Acutely Low Income (15% AMI) to Moderate Income (120% AMI). The figures reflect the maximum annual income thresholds for households of different sizes.

Table 2.4.1: Contra Costa County Area Income Limits 2025 Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acutely Low
Income (15%
AMI)
$16,750 $19,150 $21,550 $23,950 $25,850 $27,800 $29,700 $31,600 Extremely Low
Income (30%
AMI)
$33,600 $38,400 $43,200 $47,950 $51,800 $55,650 $59,500 $63,300 Very Low Income
(50% AMI) $55,950 $63,950 $71,950 $79,900 $86,300 $92,700 $99,100 $105,500 Low Income
(80% AMI) $87,550 $100,050 $112,550 $125,050 $135,100 $145,100 $155,100 $165,100 Median Income $111,850 $127,850 $143,800 $159,800 $172,600 $185,350 $198,150 $210,950 Moderate
Income (120%
AMI)
$134,250 $153,400 $172,600 $191,750 $207,100 $222,450 $237,750 $253,100 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) $250,000
$125,727
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
Orinda Contra Costa County
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 23 Section 2.5 Summary and Conclusions
The housing market in Orinda can be characterized as higher-cost than the broader Contra Costa County market, marked by limited inventory and minimal new housing production. Proximity to rapid transit by way of the Orinda BART station at the center of the community adds to the desirability of the city and the elevated housing costs, compared to other communities within Contra Costa County. Single-family homes dominate the landscape, with sale prices consistently exceeding countywide averages. The rental market exhibits significant volatility, and multi-family development has been infrequent in recent years.

These findings establish the foundation for the financial feasibility study, which will analyze how various inclusionary housing requirements could impact the financial viability of residential development. By using current market conditions as a baseline, the feasibility analysis will help identify what is both economically realistic and responsive to Orinda’s unique housing dynamics. This step is critical to shaping an IHO that balances affordability goals with development feasibility.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 24 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Chapter 3: Feasibility Study
Section 3.1 Introduction
LWC used a static proforma to calculate the financial feasibility of three prototypical developments that conform to the City’s existing and anticipated zoning code. A proforma model sums up the development costs and revenues of a project and solves the estimated profit, or rate of return, for a developer. The closer a project’s estimated profit comes to reaching or exceeding the developer’s minimal expected return, the more likely a project will be developed. Projects at or above the threshold of expected returns are likely to be developed and are considered feasible, while projects below the threshold of expected returns are less likely to be developed and considered infeasible.6
LWC measured developer profit using the following metric:
• Yield on cost (YOC): YOC was used to calculate the returns for the Rental Prototypes. YOC is calculated by dividing the project’s annual net operating income by the total development costs.

Typically, a rental development is considered feasible if the yield on cost is over 8%. • Return on cost (ROC): ROC was used to calculate the returns for the Sale Prototypes. ROC is calculated by taking a project’s total revenues and subtracting the total development costs, then dividing the output by the total development costs. A project is typically considered feasible with an ROC above 12.5%.

Development costs were based on RSMeans construction cost estimates, which are derived from actual projects completed in the region and therefore reflect current, realistic development expenses. Other development cost factors, including interest rates and associated financing costs, are based on market data current as of April 2025. These costs reflect actual figures currently being realized in the market. Land costs were determined using a residual land value model informed by an analysis of existing projects in the region.

Taken together, these costs represent a realistic base case for residential development in Orinda.

Section 3.2 Proforma Methodology and Assumptions
This section summarizes the methodology and key development cost assumptions used in the financial feasibility analysis. LWC developed core components of the methodology and assumptions underlying the proforma model. The analysis process involved the following steps:
6 The results from the proforma built for this analysis are static, meaning that they reflect the market conditions for a specific point in time. The proforma does not factor for potential changes in the future such as changes in home prices and rents, and therefore, future proposed projects in Orinda may be more or less feasible than the prototypes used in this analysis. Furthermore, current proposed projects in Orinda may also be more or less feasible depending on the specific conditions of a development and on the local and national economy. For example, should a developer acquire a site for less than market value, the profitability of the project is likely to improve, and should home borrowing costs increase, the profitability of a project is likely to decline.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 25 • Designing the prototypes. An early step in the analysis was designing the prototypes that were assessed using the feasibility model. LWC closely reviewed the City’s zoning and housing opportunity sites to determine where housing would be most likely to be pursued by developers in the future and the development standards in those areas. LWC and the City agreed that residential sites within the RH-40, Downtown Core (DC) and RL-10 best represented potential future residential development in the city, and a series of prototypes were designed to fit the design standards in the three zones.
• Developing Assumptions and Key Inputs. LWC collected data from both public and private sources to inform assumptions related to costs, revenues, and other financial variables. Revenue estimates were based on publicly available listings of multi-family and single-family home sale and rental rates from platforms such as Zillow and Redfin. For construction cost assumptions, LWC consulted RSMeans data. City fees were derived from publicly accessible documents on the City’s website. Land costs were estimated using a residual land value analysis. • Building the Proforma and Evaluating Financial Feasibility. With the assumptions in place, LWC developed a proforma model to evaluate the financial feasibility of prototypes development.

Prototypes
This section summarizes the Prototypes used in the analysis. The prototypes are designed to meet the development standards for their respective zoning district as described in the Orinda Municipal Code. The key characteristics of the prototypes are described below and in Table 3.2.1.

Table 3.2.1: Prototype Summary
Development Standard RH-40 DC RL-10
FAR 1.17 1.87 0.12
DU/Acre 35.69 47.10 2
Height 50 45 27
Number of Stories 4 4 1
Land Area Acres 5 1.87 12
Gross Building SF 266,958 235,577 60,216
Net Building Area SF 209,885 137,547 60,216
Retail Gross SF 0 33,102 0
Total Units 179 88 24
Average Unit Size 1,173 1,187 2,509
Total Parking Spaces 1791 2211 96
1Assumes parking ratios lower than code requirements due to AB2097 Both the RH-40 and DC prototypes assume parking ratios below Code requirements. Parking construction is a major cost driver in a development proforma, and lower parking requirements can meaningfully affect feasibility. These assumptions are based on State laws such as AB 2097 and SB 35, which limit or remove parking mandates for projects near transit or that meet certain affordability criteria.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 26 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 While these provisions allow for reduced parking in many cases, their applicability depends on specific site conditions, such as transit access. As a result, assuming lower-than-Code parking may not reflect all realworld scenarios. • RH-40- Residential High Density District Prototypes: The RH-40 Rental prototype is assumed to be built on a 5-acre site. The prototype includes only residential uses and is designed to meet the RH-40 District’s required minimum density of 20 units per acre, with a maximum of 40 units per acre and a maximum height of five stories or 50 feet. All parking is provided as surface parking. It is assumed that the total number of parking spaces required will be reduced due to the inclusion of affordable housing within the development. It is parked at a 1:1 ratio. • DC District Prototypes: The DC Rental prototype is assumed to be built on a 1.87-acre site. It is a mixed-use development featuring at least 40% of the design site area to commercial ground floor space, as required. The residential portion is planned to comply with the DC maximum allowable density of 55 units per acre and a maximum building height of 45 feet. Parking requirements are based on the City’s municipal code for multi-family residential and commercial uses. However, it is assumed that the actual number of parking spaces provided will be lower due to the project's location in a high-quality transit area. Parking is expected to be structured in a podium configuration. It is parked at a 1:1 ratio for residential units and 4 spaces to every 1,000 square feet of commercial space.
• RL-10-Residential Low Density District Prototypes: The RL-10 Sale prototype is assumed to comply with the RL-10 zoning district, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

However, to accommodate the maximum allowable floor area under Orinda’s municipal code, the prototype assumes a minimum lot size of 11,200 square feet to achieve a 2,509 square foot home.

The prototype is parked to Code.

Development Cost
The primary cost categories included in the analysis are land costs, hard costs, soft costs, and financing costs. Detailed assumptions for each of these categories are described below. • Land Costs. Land costs are the price to purchase the site on which the development is built. For this analysis, LWC calculated the cost per square foot of land using a residual land value analysis. • Hard Costs. Hard costs generally include the costs to physically construct a project. Construction costs assumed in this analysis were based on estimates provided by RSMeans and Orinda’s Housing Element.
• Soft Costs. Soft costs generally include indirect construction costs such as design fees, legal fees, City fees, and taxes. Other soft costs used in this analysis were based on standard industry assumptions.
• Financing Costs. Financing costs include the costs for borrowing money to build a project. The financing costs used in this analysis were based on standard industry assumptions.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 27 Table 3.2.2: Development Cost Assumptions
Cost Type Assumption
Land
Land Cost $26 per Parcel SF
Hard Cost
Multi-family Residential
Construction Costs1 $237 per Gross SF
Single-Family Residential
Construction Cost2 $176 per Gross SF
Retail Construction Cost3 $180 per Gross SF
Driveway $10 per SF
Surface $2,500 per Space
Garage Parking Below Grade $45,000 per Space
Garage Parking Above Grade $8,500 per Space
Earthwork: cut $10 per cu. Yd.

Earthwork: fill $15 per cu. Yd.

Earthwork: import $20 per cu. Yd.

Earthwork: export $40 per cu. Yd.

Soft Cost
A&E/Other Professionals 6% x Hard Costs
Marketing/Leasing Commissions 2% x Hard Costs
Legal & Accounting 2% x Hard Costs
Taxes & Insurance 2% x Hard Costs
Pre-Opening Expenses 2% x Hard Costs
Developer Fee 6% x Hard Costs
Contingency 3% x Soft Costs subtotal
Permits Adjusted based on unit type. x Hard Costs
Financing Costs 8% X Subtotal: Land + Hard
Costs + Soft Costs
1 RSMeans, Contra Costa County/ Vallejo market area, 2025 2 Orinda House Element
3 LWC
Construction Costs
LWC gathered data from both public and private sources to inform assumptions related to costs, revenues, and other key components of the feasibility analysis. For certain project cost estimates, LWC referenced RS Means, a widely recognized source of construction cost data. Based on podium construction using reinforced concrete and a stucco exterior, the estimated construction cost for California ZIP codes beginning with 945 is approximately $237 per gross square foot. Orinda, with the ZIP code 94563, falls within this range. For single-family construction costs were taken from the Housing Element. Construction H.1.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 28 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 costs will be assumed to be the same for inclusionary units and market-rate units within each development prototype.

Land Value
LWC used the residual land value analysis from Section 2.3 to determine the cost of land. By calculating the difference between the projected value of the completed development and the total costs of construction and associated expenses, the analysis provided an estimate of land cost.

Soft Costs
Development Impact Fees
Development Impact Fees are charges imposed by local governments on new construction projects to help fund the public infrastructure and services needed to support growth, such as roads, parks, schools, and emergency services. These fees ensure that the cost of expanding community resources is shared by developers rather than solely by existing residents. According to the City, development fees are not applied to the portion of a project that includes affordable housing units. Table 3.2.3 outlines the specific fees applied to a development project in Orinda. The table clearly breaks down which fees are applied exclusively to market-rate units, and which are applied to both market-rate and affordable housing units.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 29 Table 3.2.3: Development Impact Fees
Service Basis Rate
Special District Fees
East Bay Municipal District Region 3 Per dwelling unit over 500 SF $9,565 per Unit Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Residential Unit Equivalence (RUE) $8,539
Single-Family 1 RUE
Multi-Family .847 RUE per Unit
Common Areas .20 RUE per 1,000 SF
Orinda Union / Acalanes Union High School District $5.17 per SF Market Rate Fees
Park Dedication Fees
Single-family detached $22,418 per Unit
Single-family attached or townhouse $15,232 per Unit
Multiple-family duplex, condominium $15,644 per Unit
Transportation Impact Fee
Single-Family
Regional Fee $5,045.11 per Unit
Local Fee $5,045.11 per Unit
Multi-Family or Second Unit
Regional Fee $3,531.37 per Unit
Local Fee $3,531.37 per Unit
Multi-Family – Transit-Oriented
Development
Regional Fee $1,871.87 per Unit
Local Fee $1,871.87 per Unit
Non-Residential
Regional Fee $5.39 per SF
Local Fee $5.39 per SF
Other Uses
Regional Fee $555.25 per Daily Trip
Local Fee $555.25 per Daily Trip
Drainage Impact Fee
Impervious surface added by new development $1.65 per SF Table 3.2.4 outlines the key development cost assumptions used in the project proforma. Each item is expressed as a percentage applied to a specific cost basis, typically hard costs, soft costs, or the subtotal.

These assumptions provide a consistent framework for estimating total development costs across similar projects.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 30 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Table 3.2.4: Soft Cost Breakdown
Item Rate Basis
A&E/Other Professionals 6% x Hard Costs
Marketing/Leasing Commissions 2% x Hard Costs
Legal & Accounting 2% x Hard Costs
Taxes & Insurance 2% x Hard Costs
Pre-Opening Expenses 2% x Hard Costs
Developer Fee 6% x Hard Costs
Contingency 3% x Soft Costs subtotal
Permits Adjusted based on unit type x Hard Costs
Financing Costs 8% X Subtotal: Land +
Hard Costs + Soft Costs
Revenues
For this analysis, the prototype’s estimated revenues were calculated to be generated from market-rate and income-restricted affordable residential units.
• Market-Rate Units. Market-rate assumptions were informed by postings of multi-family units and single-family units sold from three years prior to May 2025 and recently advertised rents on websites such as Zillow and Apartments.com.
• Affordable Rents and Sales Price. Affordable unit sales prices and rents were calculated using the 2025 Contra Costa County Income Limits published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), along with utility allowances provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Contra Costa County (see Table 3.2.5). These calculations assume that total monthly housing costs, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities, do not exceed 30% of household income, based on the applicable income limits and household size. In general, “affordable” means that housing cost should not exceed 30% of 80% of the AMI, adjusted for the household size appropriate to the AMI is a measure used by the federal government to determine income levels relative to a specific region. It helps set eligibility for affordable housing and other income-based programs. In California, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certifies and publishes the AMI figures each year, based on data from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These figures are used to define income categories like low, very low, and moderate income for households across the state.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 31 Table 3.2.5: Gross Monthly Affordable Housing Expenditure by Household Size Income Category
Household Size
1 2 3 4
Extremely Low $602 $670 $739 $803
Very Low Income $1,161 $1,309 $1,458 $1,602
Low Income $1,951 $2,211 $2,473 $2,730
Median Income $2,558 $2,906 $3,254 $3,599
Moderate Income $3,118 $3,545 $3,974 $4,398
Section 3.3 For-Rent Developments
The analysis examines two scenarios within the for-rent model to explore varying development contexts.

The first scenario considers a large site utilizing RH-40 zoning, which allows for high-density residential development, making it suitable for significant new housing projects. The second scenario focuses on an infill site within a more constrained urban environment, governed by DC zoning. This zoning supports mixed-use, high-density development while emphasizing compatibility with the existing downtown fabric. In both scenarios, affordable units are assumed to be equivalent in size and quality to market-rate units.

Comparing these two scenarios provides insight into how zoning and site characteristics influence feasibility outcomes in rental housing development.

Yield on cost (YOC) was used to calculate the returns for the Rental Prototypes. YOC is calculated by dividing the project’s annual net operating income by the total development costs. Typically, rental developments are considered feasible if the yield on cost is over 8%.

A target of 15% affordable units was set, as this represents the minimum requirement under MTC TOC Policy. Additionally, under state law, any inclusionary housing requirement exceeding 15% must be supported by a feasibility study to ensure the proposed mandate does not render the project economically unviable. Unit sizes are based on typical projects currently being developed in the region.

RH-40 For-Rent
The RH-40 scenario represents a proposed high-density residential zoning designation intended to support substantial new multi-family housing development. This zoning allows for larger building forms and higher unit counts, making it well-suited for significant redevelopment opportunities. Table 3.3.1 outlines the rental revenue assumptions used in the for-rent model for this scenario. These assumptions include market and below-market rent levels for various unit types, forming the basis for financial feasibility analysis under the RH-40 zoning framework.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 32 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Table 3.3.1: RH-40 Rental Rate Assumptions
Unit Size (SF) Price per SF Price per Unit
Monthly Rent per Unit
1-Bedroom 1,042 $4.69 $4,887
2-Bedroom 1,238 $4.24 $5,249
2-Bedroom Low Income (80% AMI) 1,238 $2.21 $2,730
The RH-40 pro forma analysis models two development scenarios: one delivering 100% market-rate units and another incorporating 15% affordable housing at 80% of AMI. Both scenarios assume identical site characteristics. As shown in Table 3.3.2, the inclusion of affordable housing slightly reduces both the net operating income and capitalized value, resulting in a lower overall developer profit and yield on cost.

However, both scenarios remain financially feasible under current assumptions.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 33 Table 3.3.2: RH-40 For-Rent Proforma Summary
100% Market Rate 15% Affordable
FAR 1.17 1.17
DU/Acre 35.69 35.69
Height 50 50
Number of Stories 4 4
Land Area Acres 5 5
Gross Building SF 266,958 266,958
Net Building Area SF 209,885 209,885
Total Units 179 179
Affordable Units 0 27
Average Unit Size 1,173 1,173
Total Parking Spaces 179 179
Development Costs
Land Cost $5,679,674 $5,679,674
Hard Costs $64,724,271 $64,724,271
Soft Costs (including Financing) $29,115,991 $28,435,537 Total Development. Costs $99,519,936 $98,839,482
Rent Revenues
Net Operating Income $9,112,792 $8,483,393
Capitalized Value 6% $151,879,867 $141,389,883
Total Revenues $151,879,867 $141,389,883
Developer Profit
Total Revenues Less Total
Development Costs $52,359,931 $42,550,401
Yield on Cost % 9.16% 8.58%
Feasibility
Feasibility Yes Yes
DC For-Rent
The DC scenario represents a typical infill development opportunity within an established urban context.

Governed by DC zoning, this scenario supports compact, high-density, mixed-use development that aligns with the character and constraints of a downtown environment. Table 3.3.3 outlines the rental rate assumptions used in the model for this scenario, including both market-rate and affordable units. As with the RH-40 scenario, affordable units are assumed to be equal in size and quality to market-rate units to maintain a consistent standard of housing.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 34 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Table 3.3.3: DC Rental Rate Averages Assumptions
Unit Size (SF) Price per SF Price per Unit
Monthly Rent per Unit
1-Bedroom 875 $4.69 $4,103
2-Bedroom 1,343 $4.24 $5,694
2-Bedroom Low Income (80% AMI) 1,343 $2.03 $2,730
The DC pro forma models two development options on a 1.87-acre infill site: one delivering 100% marketrate units and another including 15% affordable housing at 80% of AMI. Both scenarios assume identical building form and density. As shown in Table 3.3.4, introducing affordable units slightly reduces both net operating income and total project revenues, resulting in a lower profit margin and yield on cost.

Nonetheless, both versions remain financially feasible under the modeled assumptions.

Table 3.3.4: DC For-Rent Proforma Summary
100% Market Rate 15% Affordable
FAR 1.87 1.87
DU/Acre 47.1 47.1
Height 45 45
Number of Stories 4 4
Land Area Acres 1.87 1.87
Gross Building SF 235,577 235,577
Net Building Area SF 137,547 137,547
Retail Gross SF 33,102 33,102
Total Units 88 88
Affordable Units 0 13
Average Unit Size 1187 1187
Total Parking Spaces 221 221
Retail 133 133
Residential 88 88
Development Costs
Land Cost $2,116,114 $2,116,114
Hard Costs Residential $35,931,567 $35,931,567
Hard Costs Retail $11,943,360 $11,943,360
Soft Costs (including Financing) $20,377,117 $20,096,747 Total Development. Costs $70,368,158 $70,087,788
Rent Revenues
Net Operating Income Residential $4,803,472 $4,476,566
Capitalized rate 6%
Capitalized Value Residential $80,057,867 $74,609,441
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 35 100% Market Rate 15% Affordable
Net Operating Income Retail $1,142,258 $1,142,258
Capitalized rate 9%
Capitalized Value Retail $12,691,756 $12,691,755.56
Total Revenues $92,749,622 $87,301,197
Developer Profit
Total Revenues Less Total
Development Costs $22,381,464 $17,213,409
Yield on Cost % 8.45% 8.02%
Feasibility
Feasibility Yes Yes
Section 3.4 For-Sale Developments
This section analyzes the feasibility of developing inclusionary ownership housing across three distinct zoning contexts: RL-10 (low-density single-family), RH-40 (medium- to high-density residential), and DC (high-density mixed-use). Each scenario reflects a different development pattern and regulatory environment, providing insight into how zoning influences the ability to deliver BMR for-sale units.

Assumptions regarding BMR pricing are outlined in Table 3.4.1 and form the basis of this analysis. Return on cost (ROC) was used to calculate the returns for the Sale Prototypes. ROC is calculated by taking a project’s total revenues and subtracting the total development costs, then dividing the output by the total development costs. A project is typically considered feasible with a ROC above 12.5%.

Table 3.4.1: Affordable Sales Price Assumptions
Rate
Term (Years) 30
Interest Rate 6.7%
Taxes, Insurance & Other Fees1 5.4%
Down payment2 20.0%
1 Calculated as a percentage of mortgage value
2 Calculated as a percentage of sales price value
RH-40 For-Sale
The RH-40 for-sale scenario reflects a proposed high-density residential zoning designation aimed at supporting substantial new multi-family housing development. This zoning permits larger building forms and higher unit counts, making it well-suited for significant redevelopment opportunities. Table 3.4.2 outlines the sale revenue assumptions used in the for-sale model for this scenario. These assumptions include both market-rate and below-market-rate sale prices across a range of unit types and serve as the foundation for assessing financial feasibility under the RH-40 framework.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 36 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 To reflect the expectations for for-sale product quality, an additional 10% was added to hard construction costs to account for higher-end finishes. Despite this cost premium, the market-rate return on cost appears notably high, partly because the model applies the same reduced parking assumptions used in belowmarket-rate (BMR) scenarios. This may overstate feasibility for market-rate development, as those projects would typically require higher parking ratios in practice.

Table 3.4.2: RH-40 For-Sale Revenue Assumption
Unit Size (SF) Price per SF Price per Unit
Average sales price per Unit
Market Rate 1,173 $660 $774,180
2-Bedroom Low
Income (80% AMI) 1,238 $252 $312,045
The RH-40 pro-forma evaluates two development options on a 5-acre site: one delivering 100% marketrate ownership units and another including 15% affordable ownership units priced at 80% of AMI. Both scenarios assume identical building form and density. As shown in Table 3.4.3, the inclusion of affordable units modestly reduces total sales revenue and net profit, resulting in a lower return on cost. Nonetheless, both versions remain financially feasible under the modeled assumptions.

Table 3.4.3: RH-40 For-Sale Proforma Summary
100% Market Rate 15% Affordable
FAR 1.17 1.17
DU/Acre 36 36
Height 50 50
Number of Stories 4 4
Land Area Acres 5 5
Gross Building SF 266,958 266,958
Net Building Area SF 209,885 209,885
Total Units 179 179
Affordable Units 0 27
Average Unit Size 1,173 1,173
Total Parking Spaces 179 179
Development Costs
Land Cost $5,679,674 $5,679,674
Hard Costs $71,196,698 $71,196,698
Soft Costs (including Financing) $31,073,771 $30,393,317 Total Development. Costs $107,950,143 $107,269,689
Sale Revenues
Market Rate Revenue $138,578,220 $117,675,360
Affordable Units Revenue $0 $8,425,222
Total Revenues $138,578,220 $126,100,582
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 37 100% Market Rate 15% Affordable
Developer Profit
Total Revenues Less Total
Development Costs $30,628,077 $18,830,893
Return On Cost 28.37% 17.55%
Feasibility
Feasibility Yes Yes
DC For-Sale
The DC scenario represents a typical infill development opportunity within an established urban context.

Governed by DC zoning, this scenario supports compact, high-density, mixed-use development that aligns with the character and constraints of a downtown environment. Table 3.4.4 outlines the sale price assumptions used in the model for this scenario, including both market-rate and affordable ownership units.

Affordable units are assumed to be equal in size and quality to market-rate units to ensure a consistent housing standard.

To reflect the premium expectations for ownership housing in a central urban location, residential hard construction costs in this scenario were assumed to be 10% higher than the for-rent model. This adjustment accounts for upgraded finishes and potential cost premiums associated with delivering high-quality for-sale units in a dense, downtown environment.

Table 3.4.4: DC For-Sale Revenue Assumptions
Unit Size (SF) Price per SF Price per Unit
Average sales price per Unit
Market Rate 1,187 $660 $783,420
2-Bedroom Low
Income (80% AMI) 1,343 $232 $312,045
The DC pro-forma evaluates two development options on a 1.87-acre infill site: one delivering 100% marketrate ownership units and another including 15% affordable ownership units priced at 80% of AMI. Both scenarios assume identical building form and density. As shown in Table 3.4.5, the inclusion of affordable units modestly reduces total sales revenue and net profit, resulting in a lower return on cost.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 38 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Table 3.4.5: DC For-Sale Proforma Summary
100% Market Rate 15% Affordable
FAR 1.87 1.87
DU/Acre 47.10 47.10
Height 45 45
Number of Stories 4 4
Land Area Acres 1.87 1.87
Gross Building SF 235,577 235,577
Net Building Area SF 137,547 137,547
Retail Gross SF 33,102 33,102
Total Units 88 88
Affordable Units 0 13
Average Unit Size 1,187 1,187
Total Parking Spaces 221 221
Retail 133 133
Residential 88 88
Development Costs
Land Cost $2,116,114 $2,116,114
Hard Costs Residential $39,524,724 $39,524,724
Hard Costs Commercial $11,943,360 $11,943,360
Soft Costs (including Financing) $21,463,975 $21,183,605 Total Development. Costs $75,048,173 $74,767,803
Sale Revenues
Gross Sales Revenue Market Rate $68,940,960 $58,756,500 Gross Sales Revenue Below-Market Rate $0 $4,056,588
Total Residential $68,940,960 $62,813,088
Commercial Net Operating Income ($44) $1,445,895 $1,445,895 Capitalized Value Retail (9%) $16,065,504 $16,065,504
Total Revenues $85,006,464 $78,878,592
Developer Profit
Total Revenues Less Total
Development Costs $9,958,291 $4,110,789
Return on Cost 13.27% 5.50%
Feasibility
Feasibility Yes No
RL-10 For-Sale
The RL-10 scenario represents a proposed low-density residential zoning designation intended to support new single-family for-sale housing development. This zoning allows for larger lot sizes and detached homes, H.1.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 39 making it suitable for neighborhoods focused on lower-density, family-oriented living. Table 3.4.6 outlines the sale revenue assumptions used in the for-sale model for this scenario. These assumptions include pricing for both market-rate and low-income single-family homes, forming the basis for financial feasibility analysis under the RL-10 zoning framework.

Table 3.4.6: RL-10 For-Sale Revenue Assumption
Unit Size (SF) Price per SF Price per Unit
Sale Price Unit
3-Bedroom 2,509 $883 $2,215,447
3-Bedroom Low Income (80% AMI) 2,509 $124 $312,045
The RL-10 proforma summary presents a financial comparison between two single-family for-sale development scenarios within the RL-10 zoning framework: one with 100% market-rate units and one incorporating a 4% affordable housing component. As shown in Table 3.4.7 both scenarios assume the same development characteristics. Despite identical building sizes and costs, the inclusion of one affordable unit in the 4% affordable scenario slightly reduces overall revenue and profit. The 4% affordable scenario also represents the smallest percentage assessed in which a full (whole) affordable unit was included. The 100% market-rate scenario achieves a return on cost of 15.01% and is deemed financially feasible, while the 4% affordable version yields a lower return of 10.9% and is not considered feasible under current assumptions. The feasibility of single-family home developments is significantly constrained by the low-income price cap. This cap creates a financial gap that is difficult to bridge, as it typically does not cover the full development cost of each affordable unit.

Table 3.4.7: RL-10 For-Sale Proforma Summary
100% Market Rate 4% Affordable
FAR 0.12 0.12
DU/Acre 2 2
Height 27 27
Number of Stories 1 1
Land Area Acres 12 12
Gross Building SF 60,216 60,216
Net Building Area SF 60,216 60,216
Total Units 24 24
Affordable Units 0 1
Average Unit Size 2,509 2,509
Total Parking Spaces 96 96
Development Costs
Land Cost $13,594,100 $13,594,100
Hard Costs $22,835,576 $22,835,576
Soft Costs (including Financing) $9,802,891 $9,762,123
Total Development. Costs $46,232,567 $46,191,799
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 40 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 100% Market Rate 4% Affordable
Sale Revenues
Gross Sale $53,170,728 $51,267,326
Developer Profit
Total Revenues Less Total
Development Costs $6,938,161 $5,075,527
Return on Cost 15.01% 10.99%
Feasibility
Feasibility Yes No
Section 3.5 Summary and Conclusions
This section presents the financial feasibility analysis of three prototypical development scenarios in Orinda, representing a range of proposed zoning contexts: RH-40 (high-density), DC (mixed-use), and RL-10 (lowdensity single-family). Using a static pro forma approach, the analysis evaluated how inclusionary housing requirements impact development outcomes under varying conditions. Developer profitability was measured using yield on cost for rental prototypes and return on cost for for-sale prototypes.

The analysis finds that both RH-40 and DC rental developments remain financially feasible under a 15% inclusionary requirement, although profit margins decline when affordable units are included. For for-sale prototypes, RH-40 remains feasible under a 15% requirement, while DC for-sale scenarios fall below the feasibility threshold with affordability included. The RL-10 for-sale scenario demonstrates that a modest inclusionary requirement of 4% already results in an infeasible project under current assumptions.

This analysis indicates that inclusionary housing policies do not unduly burden or discourage development when supported by appropriate conditions. Allowing increased building height and greater unit density can help offset the cost of including affordable units by enhancing the overall financial feasibility of a project.

Reducing parking requirements, particularly by permitting lower-cost options such as surface parking instead of underground facilities or reducing parking minimums, further decreases development expenses and makes the inclusion of affordable housing more viable. Additionally, when the price gap between market-rate and affordable units is relatively narrow, developers can more easily absorb the cost of providing lower-priced homes. However, where there is a substantial disparity between the sale price of market-rate single-family homes and the allowable price for comparable low-income units, the financial burden of compliance can be significant and may pose challenges to development. The next section will build on these results to quantify the financial gap between market-rate and below market-rate (BMR) units.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 41 Chapter 4: Gap Study Analysis
Section 4.1 Introduction
With the passage of AB 1505 in 2017, local jurisdictions regained the ability to enforce inclusionary housing requirements, but the law also stipulates that the city or county must provide an alternative means of complying with the inclusionary requirement other than providing onsite affordable units. One potential alternative that cities or counties can offer is the option to pay a one-time fee. This section reviews the methodology and results of an analysis to determine the gap between market-rate and affordable units which will be used later for an in-lieu fee analysis for an alternative means of satisfying the inclusionary requirement in Orinda.

The gap analysis described in this report uses an “affordability gap” approach. This method bases the gap on the difference between the market-rate price of a unit and an affordable unit.

Section 4.2 Gap Analysis Results
This section presents a gap analysis to quantify the difference between market-rate rents and what is considered affordable for households earning up to 80% of the AMI. By comparing current market rents with affordability benchmarks in different zoning contexts, such as RH-40, RL-10, and the DC, the analysis calculates both the sales and rent gaps. These figures form the basis for estimating potential in-lieu fees that developers might pay as an alternative to providing on-site affordable units.

Additionally, alternative methods for providing the required affordable units are allowed. Communities are free to include a range of alternate compliance methods including fee-in-lieu programs, the dedication of offsite units or land for housing, or other negotiated settlements via a development agreement. These alternative methods are generally specified within the IHO.

For-Rent
Table 4.2.1 presents the for-rent gap analysis for a two-bedroom unit in the RH-40 and DC zones. The table compares market-rate rents with affordable rent levels for households earning 80% of the AMI.

Table 4.2.1: For-Rent Gap Analysis
RH-40 DC
Two-Bedroom Unit
Market Rate $5,249 $5,694
Affordable (Low 80% AMI) $2,730 $2,730
Affordability Gap per Unit
Two-Bedroom Unit $2,519 $2,964
Average
Average Gap $2,742
Average Annual Rent Gap Per Unit $32,898
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 42 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 For-Sale
Table 4.2.2 provides a for-sale gap analysis across three zoning designations: RL-10, RH-40, and the DC.

The table compares market-rate home prices with what would be affordable to low-income households, using a target affordable price of $312,045 (4-person household) across all zones.

Table 4.2.2: For-Sale Gap Analysis
RL-10 RH-40 DC
MarketRateLowIncomeMarketRateLowIncomeMarketRateLowIncome Sales Price $2,215,447 $312,045 $744,180 $312,045 $783,420 $312,045 Affordability Gap per Unit $1,903,402 $432,135 $471,375 Section 4.3 In-Lieu Fee Calculation
An in-lieu fee is paid by applicants as an alternative to including affordable units within a project. The fee is intended to fill the gap between the revenue generated by a market-rate unit and that of a BMR unit. It is calculated by looking at the capitalized value of the rent difference, which reflects the value of the subsidy required for an affordable unit. This calculation is highly sensitive to both rental rates and interest rates.

Because of this sensitivity, it should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

Based on the Gap Analysis, the maximum in-lieu fee is $548,300 per unit. Per the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy, the minimum in-lieu fee is $100,000 per unit. This establishes a range within which the final in-lieu fee must be determined.

Table 4.3.1: Estimated In-Lieu Fee Cap
Metric Value
Average Gap $2,742
Average Annual Rent Gap Per Unit $32,898
Cap Rate 6%
In-lieu Fee Cap $548,300
Section 4.4 Summary and Conclusions
With the passage of AB 1505, local jurisdictions regained the authority to enforce inclusionary housing requirements, but the law also mandates that jurisdictions provide developers with alternative compliance options. One such option is the payment of a one-time in-lieu fee in place of constructing affordable units on-site. This section presents a gap analysis to inform future in-lieu fee policy by quantifying the financial difference between market-rate and affordable units in Orinda.

Using an affordability gap approach, the analysis calculates the monthly and annual rent gaps for twobedroom units in the RH-40 and DC zones. On average, affordable rents fall short of market rents by approximately $2,742 per month, resulting in an annual affordability gap of nearly $32,900 per unit. For forH.1.b Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 43 sale housing, the affordability gap reflects the higher overall cost of ownership units. In RL-10 zoning, the gap between the market-rate price of a home and the affordable price is over $1.9 million. In the RH-40 and the DC, the gap exceeds $430,000 per unit. These gaps measure the difference between market-rate rents or sale prices and what is affordable to target-income households. While the in-lieu fee is not equal to this full affordability gap, it is informed by it. The fee reflects a portion of the gap and represents a reasonable contribution toward the cost of producing an affordable unit, while remaining financially feasible for developers. Per the analysis, a maximum of $548,300 per affordable unit can be reasonably set as the inlieu fee.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 44 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Chapter 5: Recommendations
Section 5.1 Introduction
The following recommendations are informed by the market and feasibility study and are intended to guide the development of the IHO. These are preliminary in nature and subject to refinement as additional stakeholder input is considered. This section presents preliminary recommendations based on the market and feasibility study. These recommendations are initial and primarily focused on key findings.

Section 5.2 Preliminary Recommendations
This section provides preliminary recommendations, along with the rationale and key issues to consider.

Inclusionary Percentage Requirements
• Recommendation:
o Require that 15% of units in applicable residential projects be designated as affordable, consistent with the MTC TOC Policy.
• Rationale:
o This approach aligns with the MTC TOC Policy, which establishes a minimum requirement of 15% affordable units in residential developments.
o Per the feasibility study 15% requirement would not represent a constraint on housing production.
• Issues to Consider:
o A 15% affordability requirement may make some individual projects financially infeasible without supportive measures (e.g., reduced fees, or parking requirement reductions). This will be heavily influenced by project specific factors including financing and land cost to the developer.
o Applicants may delay or avoid projects altogether if the inclusionary requirement significantly impacts project feasibility and is not offset by incentives or alternative compliance options.

Income Levels
• Recommendation:
o Structure affordable housing requirements based on tenure. For rental developments, affordable units should average 80% of AMI or below, with no affordable units rented to households above 120% AMI. For ownership developments, affordable units should H.1.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 45 average 120% AMI or below, with no affordable units sold to households above 150% AMI, consistent with the MTC TOC Policy.
• Rationale:
o This approach aligns with the MTC TOC Policy, which establishes a requirement for income levels.
o The feasibility study found that inclusionary housing is financially viable when affordable units are restricted to households earning 80% of AMI.
• Issues to Consider:
o Tracking and verifying income levels to ensure compliance with both average and maximum AMI thresholds may place added demands on city staff, requiring increased administrative capacity and clear monitoring protocols. Frequently cities contract with nonprofit housing organizations to administer these programs. o Applicants may find the varying levels of affordability structure complex to implement. o Limits flexibility for applicants to adjust unit mix based on demand or financing constraints.

Project Size Threshold
• Recommendation:
o Apply the IHO only to residential and mixed-use projects with 11 or more units, consistent with the MTC TOC Policy. Exemptions should be considered for specific housing types, such as 100% affordable housing, student housing, senior housing, and other defined special-use residential projects. Nearby communities set varying thresholds for applying inclusionary housing requirements: Walnut Creek applies them to all projects regardless of size, Lafayette and San Ramon to projects with 2 or more units, Moraga to those with 6 or more units, and Danville only to projects with 8 or more units. • Rationale:
o Limiting the IHO to projects with 11 or more units is in line with MTC TOC Policy and recognizes the economic challenges faced by small-scale developments. Smaller infill projects often lack the economies of scale necessary to absorb the cost of inclusionary requirements, and exempting them may encourage naturally occurring, market-rate affordability.
o State policy SB 1123 unit recognizes infill projects of 10 units or fewer as sources of “naturally occurring” affordable housing.
o While comparable communities use lower thresholds, the financial analysis in this study suggests this would be a constraint on housing production.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 46 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 • Issues to Consider:
o Applicants may intentionally propose 10-unit projects to avoid inclusionary requirements, which could reduce the overall supply of affordable units. o Exempting smaller projects may limit the distribution of affordable housing in lower-density or higher-opportunity areas where smaller developments are more feasible.

Multi-Family vs. Single-Family
• Recommendation:
o Apply the IHO only to multi-family housing projects, and exempt single-family residential developments, including both detached homes and single-family subdivisions. • Rationale:
o The feasibility study found that requiring inclusionary units within single-family developments made the projects financially infeasible. The cost of development is high, and the revenue gap between market-rate and affordable units is too large to be absorbed within typical single-family developments. Imposing inclusionary requirements in these cases could discourage production altogether, especially for small or moderate-scale builders. Limiting the IHO to multi-family developments targets project types that are better able to accommodate affordability requirements through economies of scale. • Issues to Consider:
o Exempting single-family projects may reduce opportunities for affordable housing in lowdensity, high-opportunity areas predominantly zoned for single-family use. o MTC TOC Policy applies to newly constructed residential or mixed-use residential projects but is ambiguous in its guidance with regards to single-family and multi-family housing types.
o The majority of parcels zoned for multi-family housing or multi-family mixed-use are located within the general downtown area. This requirement would limit the production of affordable units to these areas if single-family projects are excluded from the IHO.

Geographic Extent
• Recommendation:
o Apply the IHO Citywide.
• Rationale:
o Areas zoned for multi-family and mixed-use development are located outside of the TOC zone.
o There are housing development opportunity sites located outside of the TOC area that are identified in the City’s Housing Element.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 47 • Issues to Consider:
o Citywide application is not required by MTC TOC Policy. o Limiting the IHO to the MTC TOC zone may direct development to parcels and areas of the City that are not covered by the IHO due to a lower relative cost for development. It is important to note that there are some Housing Elements sites outside of the MTC TOC zone.

Period of Affordability
• Recommendation:
o Require affordable rental units to be deed-restricted for at least 55 years, and affordable ownership units to be deed-restricted for at least 45 years. Lafayette, Moraga, and Walnut Creek require 55 years for rental units and 45 years for ownership units. Danville requires 20 years for both rental and ownership units, and San Ramon currently requires 55 years for rental units, but 30 years for ownership units. • Rationale:
o This approach aligns with the MTC TOC Policy, which establishes a requirement for period of affordability.
• Issues to Consider:
o The deed restrictions on the units prevent redevelopment of the site during the restricted period.

Relationship to Other State Incentives
• Recommendation:
o Accept units produced under other State affordable housing incentives (such as Density Bonus projects) to fulfill local IHO requirements.
• Rationale:
o Projects utilizing these policies will have the effect of producing BMR units. o Streamlines development application and review process. • Issues to Consider:
o Limits Orinda’s ability to impose affordable housing production requirements through its local IHO that exceed those mandated by State law or satisfied through other State programs (e.g., Density Bonus).

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 48 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Ownership vs. Rental
• Recommendation:
o Apply the IHO to both rental and for-sale residential developments. • Rationale:
o This approach aligns with the MTC TOC Policy, which encourages the inclusion of affordable housing across all residential tenures. Including both rental and for-sale housing ensures a broader and more equitable application of the IHO, supports housing diversity, and helps create mixed-income communities. It also prevents developers from shifting project types solely to avoid affordability requirements. • Issues to Consider:
o Applicants may favor one tenure type over another based on how inclusionary requirements interact with market conditions, financing, and risk profiles. o Requiring inclusionary units in both rental and for-sale developments may render some projects infeasible unless accompanied by changes to development standards (e.g., reduced parking requirements, increased height limits, or modified setbacks).

In-Lieu Fee
• Recommendation:
o Consider establishing an in-lieu fee at the maximum demonstrated rate of $548,300 per required affordable unit, allowing applicants an alternative compliance option under the IHO. This amount is the maximum that could be justified, and a lower fee could be established if it supports other policy objectives.
• Rationale:
o Consistent with State law (AB 1505), the policy requires jurisdictions to offer alternative means of compliance with inclusionary housing requirements. o This approach aligns with the MTC TOC Policy, which states that jurisdictions must demonstrate that in-lieu fees set below $100,000 per required unit will result in affordable housing outcomes equivalent to on-site inclusion.
o The feasibility and gap study found that this in-lieu fee is equal to the difference in value between an affordable rate and market rate unit.
• Issues to Consider:
o An in-lieu fee at the maximum of $548,300 is substantially higher than in-lieu fees proposed in neighboring jurisdictions. A fee this high would likely deflect investment away from in Orinda and would therefore result in less housing production overall.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 49 o Comparable jurisdictions set in-lieu fees as a price per square foot of a development.

Walnut Creek charges $26.04 per square foot, applicable to all developments. Moraga charges between $8.30 and $39.00 per square foot depending on the number of units and whether a development contains for-sale or rental units. San Ramon charges between $15.16 and $16.27 per square foot for development projects with less than ten units, and projects with ten or more single-family units, respectively. o If the fee is set too low, it may discourage on-site inclusion and reduce the overall production of affordable units. If set too high, it could undermine project feasibility or discourage housing development.
o State law prohibits fees that are greater than cost recovery. There is no prohibition on charging fees below cost.
o Collected fees must be efficiently managed and strategically allocated to ensure timely development of affordable units.
o Some applicants may view the in-lieu option as a default rather than a last resort.

Additional Alternative Compliance
• Recommendation:
o Allow for additional alternative compliance options in addition to the in-lieu fee, including off-site affordable housing production and land dedication, in accordance with State law. • Rationale:
o Consistent with State law (AB 1505), the policy requires jurisdictions to offer alternative means of compliance with inclusionary housing requirements. o This approach aligns with the MTC TOC Policy.
• Issues to Consider:
o Off-site production or land dedication may lead to affordable housing being concentrated in lower-cost or already lower-income areas, rather than integrated into higher-opportunity neighborhoods where on-site inclusion would occur.
o Determining the fair market value and suitability of dedicated land parcels can be complex.

The land offered may not be zoned appropriately, may require costly infrastructure, or may not support timely development.
o AB 1505 and the MTC TOC Policy require that alternative compliance options result in an 'equivalent' affordable housing outcome. Without clear standards for evaluating equivalency, there is a risk that approved alternatives may produce fewer or lower-quality affordable units.
o Reviewing, negotiating, and enforcing alternative compliance proposals can require significantly more staff time and expertise compared to monitoring on-site units.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) 50 | City of Orinda Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 Design and Building Requirements
• Recommendation:
o The IHO shall require that affordable units be constructed to be comparable in exterior appearance, quality, and durability to market-rate units, such that they are visually and functionally indistinguishable.
• Rationale:
o This requirement is based on fair housing laws and the City’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).
• Issues to Consider:
o This is a mandated approach for affordable units.

Timing of Affordable Unit Construction
• Recommendation:
o Affordable units shall be constructed at the same time as market-rate units. o In-Lieu fees or other alternative compliance methods should be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• Rationale:
o Production of affordable units should occur concurrently with the rest of the development. o In-Lieu fees or alternative compliance methods should be a condition of project completion. • Issues to Consider:
o Allowing asynchronous production of units may result in the delay of affordable unit construction.
o Requiring alternative compliance as a condition of project completion may delay the project if complications arise in meeting those alternative requirements.

Development Incentives
• Recommendation:
o Continue to exempt affordable units from City impact fees. • Rationale:
o This reflects a continuation of existing City policy. o Financial modeling shows that this has a positive impact on feasibility. o Feedback from the Focus Groups identified this as a significant incentive for development.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) Economic Feasibility and Market Study | Public Review Draft, July 2025 City of Orinda | 51 • Issues to Consider:
o The City can consider additional incentives and modifications to existing development standards, particularly parking requirements, which significantly impact project feasibility.

Administration of Affordability Control
• Recommendation:
o The City should engage a qualified third-party partner to administer affordability controls. • Rationale:
o There are numerous community-based housing non-profits in the Bay Area that administer affordability programs, such as Hello Housing or Rise Housing Solutions. o This is a typical method that cities use within their inclusionary programs. • Issues to Consider:
o Ongoing monitoring of the contract with the third-party vendor is required. o There are annual costs associated with engaging a third-party vendor.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) This page left intentionally blank.

H.1.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) H.1.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: IHO Economic Feasibility and Market Study (3669 : Inclusionary Housing Study Session) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Correspondence from Nicholas Waranoff Regarding Brown Act and Settlement of Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE) v. City of Orinda Litigation
RECOMMENDATION:

Review, discuss, and provide direction to staff as appropriate regarding correspondence from Nicholas Waranoff.

BACKGROUND:

On July 7, 2025, the City received a Brown Act “Cure And Correct” letter from Nicholas Waranoff (Attachment A) regarding settlement terms authorized by the City Council at its June 17, 2025, 5:30 pm closed session to resolve litigation filed by Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE).

Mr. Waranoff also engaged in an email exchange with the City Attorney on related issues (Attachment B). The City Attorney offered to schedule a call or meeting with Mr.

Waranoff to discuss his concerns, but Mr. Waranoff declined.

The correspondence from Mr. Waranoff raises various Brown Act concerns. The City Attorney has reviewed those concerns carefully, found them to be addressed by open session items on tonight’s City Council agenda and/or to be without legal/factual basis.

The City of Orinda takes very seriously its obligations to comply fully with the Brown Act (Attachment C) for all open and closed session matters. This item has been placed on the agenda to inform the Council and the public of the correspondence from Mr.

Waranoff, to provide related legal and factual background, to receive any public comment, and to allow the Council to ask any questions they might have and/or provide direction.

DISCUSSION:

As the Closed Session Report (Attachment E) states, during the June 17, 2025, closed session, the Council unanimously (5-0) gave approval to its legal counsel to settle the OSEE litigation if certain final terms could be reached with OSEE. On June 18, 2025, attorneys for the City were able to negotiate such final terms with the attorney for OSEE, and the settlement was fully executed by approximately 3 pm. The City informed Mr. Waranoff of this settlement at approximately 4 pm. He requested a copy of the settlement and inquired about the City’s closed session report at approximately 5:30 pm. In response, the City provided a copy of the Settlement (Attachment D) and the Closed Session Report (Attachment E) shortly before 10 am the following morning (June 19, 2025). All relevant documents were also posted to the City’s website. This H.2
Packet Pg. 211
process was consistent with Government Code section 54957.1(a)(3)(B), which provides in relevant part: “If final approval rests with some other party to the litigation or with the court, then as soon as the settlement becomes final, and upon inquiry by any person, the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval, and identify the substance of the agreement.”
On June 23, 2025, in response to a joint ex parte request by OSEE and the City, the Court signed an order discharging the writ as requested by their stipulation. Mr.

Waranoff appeared by Zoom and raised his objections to the Court. The Court’s June 23, 2025 order commenced a 60-day period for the City to satisfy its settlement obligations to: (1) enter into the contact with Ladris; (2) consider the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (SSTOC) bylaws amendments; and (3) pay OSEE $45,000.

Based on his citation to Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu (Attachment F) the concerns raised by Mr. Waranoff appear to be based, in part, on an assumption that a “public hearing” was required by law prior to Council’s June 17, 2025 authorization of certain settlement terms. However, no such public hearing was required. To the contrary, Trancas affirms that closed session discussion and approval of settlement terms like those authorized by the Council on June 17, 2025, are permissible under the Brown Act. The Court explained:
“The statutory exemption of discussions with counsel remains plenary: under section 54956.9, governing bodies may discuss with their counsel, in closed session, any settlement proposals or terms they deem worthy of consideration. And they generally may agree to such terms and settlements in closed session.” The settlement term rejected as impermissible by Trancas was one for which state law required the City of Malibu to hold a public hearing (i.e., approval of a development project’s zoning exemption). The Court reasoned that “established regulatory regimes such as zoning may not be deviated from solely on bilateral agreement.” By contrast, the settlement terms authorized by the Council in closed session on June 17, 2025, were permissible and did not require a public hearing.

Finally, in the interest of full transparency and consistent with the Brown Act, this July 15, 2025, Council agenda includes the following open session items:

Item H.3: Consider Amendments to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (“SSTOC”) Bylaws. This item is being presented to the Council consistent with the settlement, which states in relevant part, “Within 60 days of the writ being discharged, the City will place an item on a regular City Council meeting agenda for the Council to consider amendments to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (“SSTOC”) bylaws as shown in Exhibit 5. Staff will recommend adoption of these amendments.” Those SSTOC bylaws amendments are being presented tonight for public comment and will be effective when and if approved by Council resolution.

H.2
Packet Pg. 212
Item H.4: Agreement with Ladris for Evacuation and Wildfire Modeling Services and Software. This item is being presented to the Council consistent with the settlement, which states in relevant part, “Within 60 days of the writ being discharged, the City will enter into a one-year contract with Ladris for software and services as described in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Specifically, the City will contract for all of the software and services listed on page 4 of the attached proposal at total cost of $242,131 for the one-year term. This will include “Public Edition Software & Services” at a cost of $24,300 for the one-year term.” The settlement commits the City to spend the amount listed, plus a $20,000 implementation fee, to obtain special wildfire and evacuation modeling services and software available from Ladris. To remain compliant with the commitments contained in the settlement, the City should therefore enter into such a contract prior to August 22, 2025. The details, wording, and funding source for the Ladris contract are being presented tonight for public comment and the City Council consideration.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff B. Email Exchange
C. Weblink to: Brown Act
D. Weblink to: June 18, 2025 Settlement
E. Weblink to: June 17, 2025 Closed Session Report
F. Weblink to: Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 172
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.2
Packet Pg. 213
29 Valley View Road
Orinda, CA 94563-1432
July 7, 2025
Cell: 510-334-0729
[email protected]
Via facsimile to 925-254-2068
City of Orinda
Orinda City Council
c/o Sheri Smith, City Clerk
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Re: Brown Act Cure and Correct Letter re Settlement of Litigation with OSEE
Dear Members of the Orinda City Council:

This letter is to call your attention to what I believe was a substantial violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act that may jeopardize the finality of the action taken by the Orinda City Council ("Council"), and to demand that you cure and correct such action.

In its meeting of June 17, 2025, and thereafter, the Council took action relating to a settlement with Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation ("OSEE"). In so doing, the Council took "action" as defined in the Govt.

Code.

The action violated the Brown Act because, inter alia,:
-1-
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from • It was taken in closed session on a matter the Act does not permit to be discussed in closed session.
• It was taken on a matter that was not properly described in an agenda for an open meeting.

As you are aware, the Brown Act creates a legal remedy for illegally taken actions — namely, the judicial invalidation of them.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The City gave timely notice of an Agenda for a Closed Session to be held on June 17, 2025 at 5:30 p.m.
https://orindaca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2872 The public agenda for the Closed Session Special Meeting provided no notice that a settlement would be discussed. Notably, it did not mention that the City would commit to engage a consultant at a cost of almost $250,000. Nor did it mention anything about amending the SSTOC bylaws and staff committing to recommend adoption of such an amendment.

Instead, it merely provided generic notice regarding pending litigation as follows:

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.

The Closed Session was followed by a public Regular Meeting starting at 7. https://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2801 At -2-
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from the start of the open session Regular Meeting, the Mayor announced. that there were no reportable items. See start of video at 1:45 and 1:55.

At the end of the regular meeting, the City Attorney announced that Item L(C) was no longer needed. They adjourned the meeting (after the Closed Session) at 8:45 PM with no reportable action.
https://orindaca.igm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&Meetingl D=2801&MinutesID=1953&FileFormat=pdf&Format=Minutes&MediaFile Format=mp4
The very next day, June 18, 2025, OSEE and the City signed a Settlement Agreement.
https://cityoforinda.orgiDocumentCenterNiew/5133/Settlement-Agreement At some unknown time, the City prepared a Closed Session Report.

See Minutes here
https://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2872 The Closed Session Report states:
"On June 17, 2025, the Council unanimously (5-0) gave
approval to its legal counsel to settle the litigation if final terms could be reached with OSEE. On June 18, 2025, OSEE and the City signed a settlement agreement and filed a stipulation with the Court. Copies of both documents are available on the City's website
(https://www.planorinda.com/library). The settlement provides OSEE and the City will file a stipulation asking the Court to discharge the writ and remove from its calendar a July 24, 2025 hearing on the City's pending motion to discharge the writ. If the Court does so, the City would enter into an approximately $245,000, 1-year contact with Ladris for emergency wildfire evacuation modeling software and services. The Council would also consider adoption of certain -3-
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from amendments to the bylaws of the City's Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (SSTOC). The City would also pay OSEE $45,000 to resolve all remaining claims for attorneys' fees and costs in this matter."
The settlement is void because the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit C) violated the Brown Act — it includes provisions that could only be adopted in a public meeting — an unconditional commitment to enter into a contract with a consultant for software and services:
"4. Obligations of City:
"a. Within 60 days of the writ being discharged, the City will enter into a one year contract with Ladris for software and services as described in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Specifically, the City will contract for all of the software and services listed on page 4 of the attached proposal at total cost of $242,131 for the oneyear term. This will include "Public Edition Software & Services" at a cost of $24,300 for the one-year term.
"d. Within 60 days of the writ being discharged, the City will place an item on a regular City Council meeting agenda for the Council to consider amendments to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission ("SSTOC") bylaws as shown in Exhibit 5.

Staff will recommend adoption of these amendments."
haps ://cityoforinda.org/DocumentCenterNiew/5133/SettlementAgreement Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, OSEE and the City signed a Stipulation and Order to Discharge Writ of Mandate, a Joint Ex Parte -4-
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Application for Order Discharging Writ, and the Court signed the Order.

See Litigation Documents here. https://www.planorinda.com/library

LEGAL ARGUMENT
In Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu (2006) 138 Ca1.App.4th 172, the Court of Appeal fully reviewed applicable law, and held that that adoption of the settlement agreement in that case, in a closed council session, violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq. (Brown Act), even though the agreement included a settlement of litigation. The opinion of the Court of Appeal contains a detailed analysis of the issue. "Section 54956.9's implied allowance for adoption of settlements in closed session thus may be subject to limits. And whatever else it may permit, the exemption cannot be construed to empower a city council to take or agree to take, as part of a non-publicly-ratified litigation settlement, action that by substantive law may not be taken without a public hearing and an opportunity for the public to be heard." (Id. at 186.) A different procedure, that would have complied with the Brown Act, was explained as follows:
"The city also states that, in its view and perhaps its normal practice, "any settlement agreement involving a permit or approval requiring a public hearing must provide that the public hearing will be held." The city explains that in its "typical settlement" involving such a situation, the litigation is tolled pending the hearing, after which the either the settlement is effective or the litigation is resumed. This is a salutary model, and its pursuit should avoid a Brown Act violation.

But it is not what the SA provided.
-5-
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from "Our conclusion that the Brown Act's implied exception for adoption of litigation settlements in closed session does not embrace such agreements as provide for governmental decisions without legally required public hearings should not burden local governments.

The statutory exemption of discussions with counsel remains plenary:
under section 54956.9, governing bodies may discuss with their counsel, in closed session, any settlement proposals or terms they deem worthy of consideration. And they generally may agree to such terms and settlements in closed session. What they may not do is decide upon or adopt in closed session a settlement that accomplishes or provides for action for which a public hearing is required by law, without such a hearing."
(Id. at 187. Emphasis added.)
In Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904, 923-24, the Court considered the scope of the public meeting exception for real estate negotiations. Shapiro concerned negotiation of a complex redevelopment project to build a baseball stadium. The court rejected the city's position that these closed sessions should be permitted to extend beyond the specific matter in the statute, to significantly related items, such as finance, environmental impact, and architectural design. The court declared that "The important policy considerations of the Brown Act ... must be enforced, even where particular transactions do not fit neatly within its statutory categories." (Shapiro, at 924.)
As stated in the Attorney General's manual on the Brown Act, "It should also be emphasized that the purpose of the exception is to permit the body to receive legal advice and make litigation decisions only; it is not to -6-
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from be used as a subterfuge to reach nonlitigation oriented policy decisions." See page 40 here: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown-act.pdf Here, the obligations to a consultant, Ladris, to which the City committed are not proper subjects of a closed session. An open public session is needed before the City can enter into a contract with Ladris.

Likewise, the commitment to consider an amendment to the bylaws of a city subcommittee in closed session was improper. Discussion of settlement of litigation cannot be used as a "subterfuge."
These facts establish a violation of the Brown Act and render the settlement invalid.

DEMAND
I demand that the Council cure and correct the illegally taken action as follows:

1. Rescind the Settlement Agreement;

2. Rescind the Stipulation and and Joint Ex Parte Application, and submit a new Joint Stipulation and order vacating the order discharging the writ;

3. Proceed in accordance with law.

As provided by Section 54960.1, you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand to either cure or correct the challenged action or inform me of your decision not to do so. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, I may seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged action pursuant to Section 54960.1, in which case I would also ask the court to order you to pay my court costs and reasonable attorney fees in this matter, pursuant to Section 54960.5. -7-
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Respectfully,
Nicholas B. Waranoff
cc Osa Wolff, Esq. (city attorney)(email)
-8-
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: July 7, 2025 Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from 1 Osa L. Wolff
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:49 PM
To: Osa L. Wolff
Cc: 'Sheri Smith'; 'Linda Smith'; Winter King
Subject: RE: closed session report
I have a number of remaining concerns. I am presently considering whether to submit my concerns to the Government Corruption section of the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office, and who to name in a complaint. I don’t see any point in discussing them with you.

From: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:44 PM
To: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Sheri Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Linda Smith' <[email protected]>; Winter King <[email protected]> Subject: RE: closed session report
Mr. Waranoff,
I am offering to set up a call with you if you have any remaining questions or concerns related to the June 17, 2025 Closed Session Report.

Best,
Osa
Osa L. Wolff
City Attorney
City of Orinda
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
396 Hayes St.

San Francisco, CA 94102
415.625.4733 (direct)
510.484.4672 (cell)
[email protected]
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 4:24 PM
To: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Sheri Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Linda Smith' <[email protected]>; Winter King <[email protected]> Subject: RE: closed session report
Would this call be at your request or mine?
From: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2025 3:23 PM
To: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Email Exchange (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff Dated July 7, 2025) 2 Cc: 'Sheri Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Linda Smith' <[email protected]>; Winter King <[email protected]> Subject: RE: closed session report
Mr. Waranoff,
Thank you for your patience. I am now back from vacation and would be happy to discuss this with you. When would be a good time this week for us to talk by phone or Zoom? In the meantime, I believe this is the information you requested (see questions below): the June 17, 2025 Closed Session Report was provided in writing to you on June 19, 2025 (see attached email) and was concurrently posted on the City’s website here:

Best,
Osa
Osa L. Wolff
City Attorney
City of Orinda
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
396 Hayes St.

San Francisco, CA 94102
415.625.4733 (direct)
510.484.4672 (cell)
[email protected]
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 3:17 PM
To: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Sheri Smith' <[email protected]>; 'Linda Smith' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: closed session report
I will not be attending.

From: Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 1:51 PM
To: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Cc: Sheri Smith <[email protected]>; Linda Smith <[email protected]> Subject: Re: closed session report
Mr. Waranoff,
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Email Exchange (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff Dated July 7, 2025) 3 I’m on vacation this week, but can discuss this with you next week. Will you be attending the Council meeting Tuesday? If yes, perhaps we can talk then.

Osa
On Jun 25, 2025, at 9:01 PM, Nick Waranoff <[email protected]> wrote:

Item B5 of the Special Meeting Agenda refers to an “OPEN SESSION REPORT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION.” I watched the open session video and it appears that no closed session report was made at the start of the regular meeting. The video wasn’t completely clear but it seems that at the end the council went back into closed session. The video ends at that point.

My questions:

1. When did the OPEN SESSION REPORT REGARDING CLOSED
SESSION take place? Is there video? Audio?

2. Where on the city’s website is the attached June 17, 2025 Closed Session Report? Was it presented orally or in writing, and if so, when? Nick Waranof
<June 17, 2025 Closed Session Report_ OSEE settlement.pdf> <City Council - Special Meeting - Jun 17, 2025.pdf>
H.2.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Email Exchange (3670 : Brown Act "Cure And Correct" Letter from Nicholas Waranoff Dated July 7, 2025) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.3
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Consider Amendments to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (“SSTOC”) Bylaws
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Resolution No. 43-25 Amending the Bylaws for the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission.

BACKGROUND:

The existing bylaws of the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (“SSTOC”) were adopted by the City Council in 2020 with Resolution 67-20 (Attachment B). Staff now recommends certain changes to those SSTOC bylaws.

As detailed in the June 17, 2025 closed session report (Attachment C), on March 3, 2023, Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE) filed litigation against the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenging the City Council’s January 31, 2023 approval of Plan Orinda. On June 18, 2025, OSEE and the City signed a settlement (Attachment D) and filed a stipulation with the Court to resolve the remaining issues in the case. On June 23, 2025, the Court signed the order discharging the writ as proposed by the parties. Per the settlement, the City now has until August 22, 2025 to consider these proposed amendments to the SSTOC bylaws.

Specifically, the settlement states: “Within 60 days of the writ being discharged, the City will place an item on a regular City Council meeting agenda for the Council to consider amendments to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (“SSTOC”) bylaws as shown in Exhibit 5. Staff will recommend adoption of these amendments.” DISCUSSION:

Section 8(A) of the existing SSTOC bylaws explains the duties of the SSTOC. Those duties include making recommendations to the Orinda City Council and the Staff with respect to proposed expenditure plans for priority programs, services, and projects to be funded by the Supplemental Sales Tax approved November 3, 2020 by the voters as Measure R.

This is the current list of “Priority Programs Services and Projects” in the SSTOC bylaws:
• Wildfire threats and reduction of fire fuel from public and private property. • Disaster planning and emergency response.
• Coordination and delivery of the programs funded by the tax. • Critical public storm drainage infrastructure.

H.3
Packet Pg. 225
• Long-term road repair and maintenance.

The proposed amendments to the SSTOC bylaws would add text relating to emergency evacuation as shown in this redline:
• Wildfire threats and reduction of fire fuel from public and private property. • Disaster planning and emergency response, including evacuation. • Coordination and delivery of the programs funded by the tax. • Critical public storm drainage infrastructure.
• Long-term road repair and maintenance.
• Infrastructure improvements to facilitate emergency evacuation.

These proposed text amendments will make clear that the SSTOC’s duties include making recommendations to the City Council and the Staff with respect to proposed expenditures related to emergency evacuation, as noted.

Section 8(B) of the existing SSTOC bylaws describe the types of reports subject to review by the SSTOC as follows:

The proposed amendments to the SSTOC bylaws would add text as shown in this redline:

H.3
Packet Pg. 226
The proposed text amendments will make clear that for the duration of the 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle, reports subject to review by the SSTOC include those items described in Mitigation Measures WFR-4 and WFR-5, which were adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2025, when it approved Resolution No. 13-25 (Attachment E).

Staff recommends these amendments to the SSTOC bylaws.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no immediate fiscal impacts as a result of this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. 43-25 Amending the Bylaws of the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission
B. Resolution 67-20 (Existing SSTOC Bylaws)
C. Weblink to: June 17, 2025 Closed Session Report
D. Weblink to: June 18, 2025 Settlement
E. Weblink to: Resolution No. 13-25 (Certification of the Revised Final EIR, with Revised Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Revised Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan)
Respectfully Submitted by:

Linda Smith
City Manager
H.3
Packet Pg. 227
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

H.3
Packet Pg. 228
RESOLUTION NO. 43-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

AMENDING THE BYLAWS FOR THE

SUPPLEMENTAL SALES TAX OVERSIGHT COMMISSION
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 67-20, which was titled “Adoption of Bylaws For The Establishment of a Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission And Reassignment of Duties of Citizens Infrastructure Oversight Commission”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to make certain amendments to the bylaws of the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (SSTOC); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby adopt the bylaws amendments as shown in the attachment hereto, which is by this reference made a part hereof.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda on July 15, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Attachment: redline showing amendments to SSTOC bylaws
1936253.1
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Resolution No. 43-25 Amending the Bylaws of the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC Bylaws of the City of Orinda
Orinda Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission
SECTION 1. NAME
The name of this Commission shall be the Orinda S u p p l e m e n t a l S a l e s T a x O v e r s i g h t Commission (herein referred to as the "Commission").

SECTION 2. OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES
The primary objectives and purposes of this Commission shall be with respect to revenue generated from the Voter Approved Sales Tax, to make recommendations and provide advice to the City Council and City Staff, regarding the planned expenditures for priority programs, services, and projects; and to review, monitor, and report on the expenditures incurred. The Commission may be assigned oversight responsibilities for other voter approved taxes.

SECTION 3. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS
A vote by a majority of the City Council shall appoint all members of the Commission in accordance with procedures established by the City Council. In the event of a vacancy the City Council shall select an individual to fill the remaining term as soon as reasonably practicable.

SECTION 4. MEMBERS
The Commission shall consist of no less than seven (7) members and no more than ten (10) members. Members must be at least 18 years of age and residents of Orinda. The Commission may not include any employee or official of the City, or any vendor, contractor, or consultant doing business with the City. All members shall be voting members.

In making appointments to the Commission, consideration will be given by the City Council to provide diversity among the appointed member representation and backgrounds, which may include the following: participation in community organizations focused on priority areas for expenditures including participants in the NFPA Firewise, USA neighborhood program, Firewise Council and/or and CERT; familiarity with and/or understanding of complex public works projects (including roads and drainage); financial, accounting, and/or auditing; and geographic location. Members are not prohibited from serving on other City Committees or Commissions.

SECTION 5. TERM OF SERVICE
The term of service of each member shall be three (3) years. Each member serves until his/her successor is appointed. Notwithstanding the previous sentence for members appointed at the time the Commission is established, their term expiration dates shall be selected by random drawing and scheduled to be staggered so that a majority of members' terms do not expire in the same year.

SECTION 6. ABSENCE FROM MEETINGS GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
If a member of the Commission is absent without cause from three successive meetings of the Commission, the position becomes vacant automatically. The Commission shall immediately notify the City Council of the vacancy. A member is not absent without cause if the absence is (1) due to illness or (2) unavoidable and the member notifies the presiding member of the Commission or the Commission staff liaison before the day of the meeting that the member will be absent and gives the reason for the absence.

SECTION 7. COMPENSATION
Commission members shall not be compensated for their services.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Resolution No. 43-25 Amending the Bylaws of the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC SECTION 8. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION
The Commission shall have the following duties:

A. Priority Funded Programs
The Commission shall make recommendations to the Orinda City Council and the Staff with respect to proposed expenditure plans for priority programs, services, and projects to be funded by the Supplemental Sales Tax approved November 3, 2020 by the voters as Measure R. It is recognized that although the City has limited sources of funding, in order to economically finance programs and projects a variety of sources of funding may be proposed including sources that are not derived from the sales tax. The Commission expertise and input will include related programs and projects that may be partially or fully funded by a revenue other than the add-on sales tax.
• Priority Programs Services and Projects include efforts to impact:
o Wildfire threats and reduction of fire fuel from public and private property. o Disaster planning and emergency response, including evacuation. o Coordination and delivery of the programs funded by the tax. o Critical public storm drainage infrastructure
o Long-term road repair and maintenance
o Infrastructure improvements to facilitate emergency evacuation B. Types of Reports Subject To Review
The Commission may review and provide strategic input on the preparation of both short- and long-term short and long term plans as they relate to the Priority Funding including: Multi-Year Capital Improvement Program; Biennial Operating Budget; Mid-Cycle Update to the Operating Budget; Focused infrastructure planning documents such as Drainage Master Plan, Street Saver reports on Maintenance Conditions; and other financial and technical reports as presented.

As detailed fully in Mitigation Measures WFR-4 and WFR-5 adopted by the City for Plan Orinda, for the duration of the 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle, the Commission will receive regular updates from staff on the City’s progress with regard to adopted wildfire evacuation mitigation measures, Safety Element policies regarding wildfire evacuation, and the recommendations related to wildfire evacuation contained in the Evacuation Analysis and/or Supplemental Evacuation Analysis conducted by the City for Plan Orinda. The regular updates will include a spreadsheet as detailed in the mitigation measures. Staff will also provide the SSTOC with information and analysis regarding projects that are or may be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to improve wildfire evacuation. The CIP will include information regarding the relative importance and priority of such projects.

C. Financial Information and Analysis
The Commission may be requested to review and provide input on funding alternatives as directed by the City Council and/or as brought forward by City Staff including:
• Feasibility of partnerships with other organizations
• Grant funding
• Public debt financing
D. Oversight / Communication Responsibilities
The Commission is designated as the formal oversight body to review the overall expenditures of the add-on supplemental sales tax. The Commission shall promote communication with the public regarding the programs and projects assigned.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Resolution No. 43-25 Amending the Bylaws of the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC SECTION 9. ACTIONS AND REPORTS
Annually the Commission shall provide a written report to the City Council. The report shall include information from the Annual Audit which identifies the expenditures from the addon / supplemental sales tax. The report shall also highlight the achievements and plans of the Commission.

To the extent there remain oversight duties for the reporting of previous voter approved taxes that have been assigned to this Commission those reports shall also be included. (Measure L 2012 add-on Supplemental tax; Measure J 2014 GO Bond Funds; and / or Measure L 2016 GO Bond Funds).

SECTION 10. REGULAR MEETINGS
Annually the Commission shall adopt a regular meeting schedule which shall be transmitted to the City Clerk. The Commission regular meeting schedule shall be at least quarterly. The City Manager shall designate staff support for the Commission.

SECTION 11. COMPLIANCE WITH BROWN ACT
All meetings shall comply with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (the "Brown Act").

SECTION 12. QUORUM FOR MEETINGS
A quorum shall consist of four members if the size of the Commission has been established by the City Council as either 7 or 8 appointed members; and quorum shall consist of five members if the size of the Commission has been established by the City Council as either 9 or 10 appointed members.

SECTION 13. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
Meetings of the Commission shall be presided over by the Chairperson or, or in his or her absence, by the Vice Chairperson.

SECTION 14. DUTIES OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION The Chairperson shall conduct the meetings of the Commission. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings.

The Orinda City Council shall appoint the first Chairperson of the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission shall annually select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson by majority vote.

SECTION 15. AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS
Subject to any provision of applicable law, these Bylaws, may be altered, amended or repealed, by formal action taken by the Orinda City Council at a public meeting. 1936269.1
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Resolution No. 43-25 Amending the Bylaws of the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC H.3.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 (Existing SSTOC Bylaws) (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC Bylaws) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 (Existing SSTOC Bylaws) (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC Bylaws) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 (Existing SSTOC Bylaws) (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC Bylaws) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 (Existing SSTOC Bylaws) (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC Bylaws) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 (Existing SSTOC Bylaws) (25-39 : Amendment to SSTOC Bylaws) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.4
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Agreement with Ladris for Evacuation and Wildfire Modeling Services and Software
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve a one-year agreement with Ladris for evacuation and wildfire modeling services and software, approve a Budget Change Form #003-26, and confirm the contract is exempt from competitive bidding.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Orinda is dedicated to its efforts of emergency preparedness and disaster response. Over the last several months, the City has taken steps to bolster its activities, including entering into an agreement to update its Emergency Operations Plan, hosting a Community Education Event, as well as planning for more events in the fall.

Additionally, public safety personnel in Orinda have been actively participating in tabletop exercises, as well as field exercises to enhance readiness. These efforts are in addition to the enhanced fuel mitigation work that has taken place along key evacuation routes in the community. One area in need of support is to better understand the timing of evacuations in the context of wildfire spreading in the community.

Rather than using traditional traffic modeling tools, which are limiting in terms of the number of scenarios that can be analyzed, the City began investigating consulting services and software tools that would enable the City to run a multitude of scenarios to enhance the City’s preparedness efforts.

In conducting this research, the City identified Ladris as a potential solution. Ladris provides artificial intelligence models that forecast the impact of man-made and climatedriven disasters (including wildfires) on infrastructure and population. This product has been specifically designed to support government agencies. Ladris AI enables users to create dynamic evacuation and disaster simulations before, during, and after emergency events with quantified evacuation times and traffic congestion conditions, allowing users to analyze “what-if” scenarios that show how specific changes may impact readiness, response plans, and operations.

Many governmental agencies use Ladris’ services. The City reached out to a number of these agencies to get a sense of their experience using these tools. In summary, the other agencies believed that these tools were extremely valuable in assisting the agency with their preparedness efforts.

As detailed in the June 17, 2025, closed session report, on March 3, 2023, Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE) filed litigation against the City under the California H.4
Packet Pg. 238
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenging the Council’s January 31, 2023, approval of Plan Orinda. On June 18, 2025, OSEE and the City signed a settlement and filed a stipulation with the Court to resolve the remaining issues in the case. OSEE and the City agreed to this “joint statement” regarding the settlement:
“After more than two years of litigation, the City and Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE) have reached a settlement in the matter of the City’s environmental impact analysis for Plan Orinda, which includes the City’s state-mandated Housing Element and Safety Element. The settlement discussions confirmed the City and OSEE's shared goals regarding the safety of Orinda residents and allowed us to find mutually acceptable methodologies to evaluate evacuation scenarios and communicate this information to the community. The settlement affirms the parties’ commitment to investing in data, disaster preparedness planning and transparency. As part of the settlement agreement, the City has agreed to license Ladris, AI software that models evacuation timing and wildfire behavior. The City will not only use this software for its emergency planning services and to update its Emergency Operations Plan, but it will make the data from this tool publicly available so that residents can better understand the timing and challenges of evacuation during a wildfire event. This software was selected for its capability to model numerous wildfire evacuation scenarios based on a range of assumptions (e.g., wildfire location, weather, vegetation, and the location/extent of potential future development in Orinda).”
On June 23, 2025, the Court signed the order discharging the writ as proposed by the parties. Per the settlement, the City now has until August 22, 2025, to enter into the proposed one-year contract with Ladris. Specifically, the Agreement states in relevant part: “Within 60 days of the writ being discharged, the City will enter into a one-year contract with Ladris for software and services as described in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Specifically, the City will contract for all of the services and software listed on page 4 of the attached proposal at total cost of $242,131 for the one-year term.

This will include “Public Edition Services & Software” at a cost of $24,300 for the oneyear term.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed contract with Ladris will enable the City and public to review various scenarios for evacuation timing and wildfire modeling. This will bolster public education efforts and provide transparency regarding the difficulties of evacuation in neighborhoods. The details, wording, and funding source for the Ladris contract are being presented to the City Council as part of this agenda item.

The selection of Ladris for this unique work was based on the Staff research described above is consistent with the City’s procurement policy. The services and software to be provided by Ladris include both “consultant or professional services” and software as a service (SAAS) that qualifies as “goods of a technical nature” such that a competitive procurement process was not required or feasible.

H.4
Packet Pg. 239
NEXT STEPS:

If the City Council approves the agreement with Ladris, work will begin immediately on its implementation, including the development of a cross-departmental team within the organization.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost for the one-year agreement is $262,131. The detailed costs are included in the Agreement. Because this item was not budgeted, the City Council will also need to approve Budget Change Form #003-26. Funding for these services will come from Measure R.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc.

B. Budget Change Form #003-26
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.4
Packet Pg. 240
1 CITY OF ORINDA

SERVICES CONTRACT
Ladris Technologies, Inc. (“Provider” or “Ladris”) and the City of Orinda (“City” or “Customer”), a municipal corporation, agree as set forth below. City and Provider are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

1. Purpose of Contract.
a. City requires certain special services for the purpose assisting in its preparation for and remediation of natural disasters including wildfires. Services to be provided, as further set forth in Exhibit A (Proposal Documents: Scope of Services, Rates and Payment Schedule) include evacuation modeling, flood forecasting and the creation of a data lake. b. Provider is qualified to provide these services and is willing to provide them according to all of the terms of this agreement, including all insurance requirements set forth herein.

2. Duties of Provider.
a. Provider agrees to perform services described in Exhibit A (Proposal Documents: Scope of Services, Rates and Payment Schedule), which is attached to this agreement and incorporated by this reference. Provider agrees to perform these services diligently in accordance with the standards of its profession and to City’s satisfaction. Provider promises and agrees to furnish to City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately perform the services described in this agreement.
b. The parties may, from time to time, agree in writing that Provider, for additional compensation, shall perform additional services. c. Provider shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this agreement. Provider shall notify City in writing of any changes in Provider’s staff assigned. City may, in its sole discretion, determine that a person assigned to perform services is not performing in accordance with the standards required herein. If the City makes such a determination, Provider shall replace such person immediately.

3. Time of Performance.
a. This agreement shall not be effective and no payments shall be made to Provider until:
(i) City has received satisfactory evidence that Provider has met all of the insurance requirements, and
(ii) All required signatures have been obtained.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 2 b. The effective date of this agreement shall be the date on which the last signature is affixed or on receipt of satisfactory evidence of insurance, whichever is later. c. The services of Provider shall begin no sooner than the effective date. If a Schedule of Performance is provided in Exhibit A, Provider must deliver the services according to that schedule.
d. Time is of the essence for the performance of the services. Provider must have sufficient time, resources, and qualified staff to deliver the services on time, according to any Schedule of Performance specified in Exhibit A.

4. Compensation.
a. City agrees to pay Provider at the rates described in Exhibit A (Proposal Documents: Scope of Services, Rates and Payment Schedule), based on actual costs, not to exceed a maximum contract price of $262,131 for the term of this agreement. b. Provider shall bill City as described in Exhibit A for the Software as a Service and other work described in Exhibit A (Proposal Documents: Scope of Services, Rates and Payment Schedule).
c. The parties shall agree in writing to any changes in compensation due to changes in Provider’s services prior to performance of those changed services. d. To the extent that Provider’s insurance documentation is not in compliance with the requirements of this agreement and the City Attorney is required to intervene to explain and obtain the proper documentation from Provider’s insurer, the cost of the City Attorney’s services will be deducted from the contract price to which Provider would otherwise be entitled under the terms of this agreement.

5. Provider Status.
a. Provider is an independent contractor and is solely responsible for its acts and omissions. Provider is not City’s agent, employee, partner, joint venture, or representative for any purpose. Provider has no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City. Provider is solely responsible for the means and methods of performing the services under this agreement and for the persons hired to work under this agreement. Provider shall direct and control its personnel and shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with this agreement and as required by law. Provider is responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel. Provider shall pay of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of Provider’s business, and shall provide City with proof of compliance upon request. Provider is not entitled to health benefits, worker’s compensation, or other benefits from the City.
b. Provider is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. Provider and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall not have any claim under this agreement or otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick leave, personal time off, Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 3 overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits, social security, disability, unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any kind. Provider shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, fees, contributions, or charges applicable to Provider’s business including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes. City shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes or benefits on behalf of Provider. Should any court, arbitrator, or administrative authority, including but not limited to the Internal Revenue Service or the State Employment Development Division, determine that Provider, or any of its employees, agents, or subcontractors, is an employee for any purpose, then Provider agrees to a reduction in amounts payable under this agreement, or to promptly remit to City any payments due by the City as a result of such determination, so that the City’s total expenses under this agreement are not greater than they would have been had the determination not been made.

6. Conflict of Interest.

Provider understands that its professional responsibility is solely to City. Provider warrants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any direct or indirect interest, that would conflict with its performance of this agreement. Provider shall not employ a person having such an interest in the performance of this agreement.

Provider and its agents or employees working under this agreement shall submit statements of economic interest under the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.) if requested to do so by City.

7. Work Product, Intellectual Property and Records.
a. Ownership. All documents furnished to Provider by City and all reports or work product (including electronically stored documents) prepared by Provider under this agreement are City’s property and shall be given to City at the completion of Provider’s services without restriction or limitation on use or dissemination by City. Provider grants City a royaltyfree, exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish and use all original computer programs, writing, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, diagrams, charts, computations, drawings, and other works of similar nature produced in the course of the performance of this agreement. Provider shall not publish any such material without the prior written consent of City. Notwithstanding Section 21 (Entire Agreement) this provision is subject to Exhibit F (Intellectual Property Rights) with respect to the Software as a Service described in Exhibit A (Proposal Documents: Scope of Services, Rates and Payment Schedule) and all updates and upgrades with respect of such SAAS.

Right to Use. Provider represents and warrants that it has the legal right to utilize all intellectual property it will utilize in the performance of this agreement. Provider further represents that it shall ensure City has the legal right, during its subscription to the Cloud Services to utilize all intellectual property involved in and/or resulting from Provider’s performance of this agreement, as set forth in Exhibit D (Exhibit D – Authorization for Use and Restrictions.). b. Confidential Information. In the performance of this agreement, Provider may be given access to confidential information owned or controlled by the City, which may Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 4 contain proprietary or confidential details the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to City. Provider shall hold in confidence all City information provided by City to Provider and use it only to perform this agreement. Provider shall exercise the same standard of care to protect City information as a reasonably prudent contractor would use to protect its own proprietary data.
c. Recordkeeping. Provider shall maintain and make available to City accurate books and accounting records relating to its work under this agreement. Provider will permit City to audit, examine, and make excerpts and transcripts from such books and records, and to make audits of all invoices, materials, payrolls, records, or personnel and other data related to all other matters covered by this agreement, whether funded in whole or in part under this agreement. Provider shall maintain such data and records in an accessible location and condition for a period of not less than three years after final payment under this agreement or until after final audit has been resolved, whichever is later.

8. Licenses.

Provider represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals legally required for Provider to practice its profession and/or provide services under this agreement. Provider shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect such licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals at all times during the term of this agreement.

9. Insurance Types and Limits.

Provider shall procure and maintain for the duration of this agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with its performance under this agreement. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
a. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis for bodily injury and property damage, including products-completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
b. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Provider has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (nonowned), with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
c. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Workers’ Compensation insurance will not be required if Provider furnishes to City a written verification that it has no employees.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 5 d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Provider’s profession, with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

If Provider maintains higher limits or broader coverage than the minimums shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits or broader coverage maintained by the contractor.

10. Additional Insurance Requirements.

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
a. Additional Insured Status: City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds on the Automobile Liability policy and on the Commercial General Liability policy.
b. Primary Coverage: For any claims related to this agreement, Provider’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Provider’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
c. Notice of Cancellation. Provider shall not cancel, assign, or change any policy of insurance required by this agreement or engage in any act or omission that will cause its insurer to cancel any insurance policy required by this agreement except after providing 30 days prior written notice to the City. If an insurance policy required by this agreement is unilaterally cancelled or changed by the insurer, the Provider shall immediately provide written notice to the City and obtain substitute insurance meeting the requirements of this agreement.

Nothing in this subsection relieves Provider of its obligation to at all times maintain all insurance required by this agreement.
d. Waiver of Subrogation: Provider hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of Provider may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Provider agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. e. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions: Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City may require Provider to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.
f. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to City.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 6 g. Claims Made Policies: If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:
(i) The retroactive date must be shown and must be before the effective date of this agreement or the beginning of work, whichever is earlier.
(ii) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the of work. (iii) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the effective date/beginning of work. Provider must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.
h. Subcontractors: Provider shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. i. Special Risks or Circumstances: City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

11. Verification of Insurance.

Provider shall furnish City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required herein.

Such evidence of insurance shall be attached hereto as Exhibit B (Evidence of Insurance:

Certificates, Endorsements and Policy Language) and considered an integral part of this agreement, which shall not become effective until satisfactory evidence of insurance has been received by City. All evidence of insurance must be received and approved by City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive Provider obligation to provide them. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

12. Indemnification.

To the fullest extent allowed by law, including but not limited to Civil Code section 2782.8, Provider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, losses, injuries, damage, demands, expenses, and costs (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and expert fees) of every nature, arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Provider’s in the performance of this agreement. Provider shall not be obligated to indemnify City against liability arising to the extent such claims, suits, losses, injuries, damage, demands, expenses, and costs arises from negligence or willful misconduct by City.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 7 Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Provider from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. The obligations of Provider under this Section 12 will not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act.

Provider agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this Section 12 from each and every subcontractor, or any other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Provider in the performance of this Agreement.

The provisions of this section survive termination of this agreement.

13. Equal Employment Opportunity.

Provider is an equal opportunity employer and agrees to comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. In the performance of this agreement, Provider shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, ethnicity, creed, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, or medical condition, or any other protected classification. Provider shall comply with all anti-discrimination laws, including Government Code Sections 12900 and 11135, and Labor Code Sections 1735, 1777, and 3077.5. Provider agrees to provide records and documentation to the City on request necessary to monitor compliance with this provision.

14. Compliance with Laws.
a. General Laws. Provider shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations applicable to this agreement. Provider will promptly notify City of changes in the law or other conditions that may affect the services or Provider’s ability to perform. b. Labor Laws. Provider shall comply with all labor laws applicable to this agreement. If the services include a “public works” component, Provider is required to comply with prevailing wage laws under Labor Code Section 1720 and other labor laws. c. Provider shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all applicable laws affecting its performance under this agreement.

15. Notices.

Any notice to be given under this agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the parties as follows:

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 8 City:

City Manager
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Provider:

Ladris Technologies, Inc.
350 Crown Point Circle
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Attention: Leo Zlimen
or such other address as a party may provide notice of in writing to the other party.

16. Litigation.

If either party brings an action to enforce this agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and discovery costs).

17. Waivers.

Waiver of a breach or default under this agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this agreement.

18. Modification.

No waiver, modification or termination of this agreement is valid unless made in writing.

19. Severability.

If any provision of this agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this agreement shall remain in effect to the greatest extent permitted by law.

20. Termination.
a. Termination For Cause: In the event of Provider’s substantial failure to meet its obligations under this agreement, City may elect to give Provider 10 days written notice and an opportunity to cure. If Provider has not cured the defects in its performance within 10 days, City may terminate the agreement for cause. After termination for cause, City shall pay Provider for services satisfactorily rendered to date, and Provider shall deliver to City any work product, whether complete or incomplete.
b. Suspension: City may, at any time, temporarily suspend Provider’s performance, in whole or in part, by giving a written notice of suspension to Provider. If City Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 9 gives such notice, Provider shall immediately suspend its activities under this agreement as specified.
c. Renewal: This Agreement has a term of one year. Any term extensions to this Agreement will require a written amendment to the Agreement.

21. Entire Agreement.

This agreement, together with its attachments, sets forth the entire understanding between the Parties and supersedes any oral or written understanding they may have had prior to the execution of this agreement. No other contract, statement, or promise relating to the subject matter of this agreement shall be valid or binding. If there is any inconsistency between any term, clause, or provision of the main agreement and any term, clause, or provision of the attachments or exhibits thereto, the terms of the main agreement shall prevail and be controlling.

22. Governing Law and Venue.

The formation, interpretation, and performance of this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation, and performance of this agreement shall be in Contra Costa County.

23. Authority to Enter Agreement.

Provider has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this agreement and bind each respective Party.

24. Successors and Assigns.

This agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the Parties.

25. Headings and Construction.

Headings appearing herein are descriptive only and for convenience in reference to this agreement. References to Provider include its agents, servants, and employees.

References to City include its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement.

City of Orinda
__________________________________
City Manager
Ladris Technologies, Inc.
__________________________________

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 10 Date
Attest
___________________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form
___________________________________
City Attorney
Date
__________________________________
Printed Title: President
__________________________________
Printed Name: Leo Zlimen
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Proposal Documents: Scope of Services, Rates and Payment Schedule Exhibit B – Evidence of Insurance: Certificates, Endorsements and Policy Language Exhibit C – Additional Definitions
Exhibit D – Authorization for Use and Restrictions
Exhibit E – WARRANTIES, DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITS ON LIABILITY Exhibit F – Intellectual Property Rights
Exhibit F – Data Usage and Rights
Exhibit H – Uptime
Exhibit G – Support
Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 7/10/2025
H.4.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 11 Exhibit A
Proposal Documents: Scope of Services, Rates and Payment Schedule

CITY OF ORINDA
CONFIGURATION: EVACUATIONS, WILDFIRE SPREAD (ENTERPRISE) + CORE One-Time Fees:

Implementation Services $20,000
INVOICE SCHEDULE:

Services & Software Start Date List Price/Fees Term Total Price Enterprise Version -
Ladris SAAS for
Evacuations:
8/30/2025 $157,231 per
year, including
SAAS for
Wildfire Spread
One Year $157,231
Ladris SAAS for Core
(Flood prediction, Data
Lake and sensor data)
8/30/2025 $60,600 One Year $60,600
Public Version Ladris
SAAS for Evacuations:
8/30/2025 $24,300 One Year $24,300
Ladris SAAS for
Wildfire Spread: Initially
using standard resolution
fuels data. Finerresolution fuels data from
the Pacific Veg Map to be
added no later than
12/15/25
8/30/2025 Included with
Enterprise
Version - Ladris
SAAS for
Evacuations
One Year Included with
Enterprise
Version -
SAAS for
Evacuations
Training 8/30/2025 Included with
Enterprise
Version - SAAS
for Evacuations
and SAAS for
Wildfire Spread
9/30/2025 Included with
Enterprise
Version -
SAAS for
Evacuations
and SAAS for
Wildfire
Spread
Support Premium 8/30/2025 $5,100 One Year $5,100
Annual Discount 8/30/2025 ($5,100) One Year ($5,100)
Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 12 Billing Frequency: Annual, commencing on start date for software and services (8/30/2025) Payment Terms: Net 30 Billing Method: Email
Invoice Date Amount
Software as a Service & Support for: SAAS
Evacuations (Enterprise and Public),
Wildfire Spread, Core, and Support + OneTime Implementation Services 8/30/2025 $262,131
Customer shall pay all fees in US dollars within thirty (30) days following the date of the invoice therefore. Customer shall make payments to the address or account that Ladris may specify in writing from time to time.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) Exhibit B
Evidence of Insurance: Certificates, Endorsements and Policy Language (pages attached)
Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement)

INSR ADDL SUBR

LTR INSR WVD

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

PRODUCER CONTACT
NAME:

PHONE FAX
(A/C, No, Ext): (A/C, No):

E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

INSURER A :

INSURED INSURER B :

INSURER C :

INSURER D :

INSURER E :

INSURER F :

POLICY NUMBER

POLICY EFF POLICY EXP TYPE OF INSURANCE (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

UMBRELLA LIAB

EXCESS LIAB

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #
Y / N
N / A
(Mandatory in NH)

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
EACH OCCURRENCE $

DAMAGE TO RENTED
CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $
MED EXP (Any one person) $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $
$
PROOTHER:

JECT LOC

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
(Ea accident) $
ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $
OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS

AUTOS ONLY
HIRED PROPERTY DAMAGE $
AUTOS ONLY (Per accident)
$
OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $
CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $
DED RETENTION $ $
PER OTHSTATUTE ER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $
If yes, describe under
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ POLICY

NON-OWNED

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer any rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD

ACORDTM CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company
7/01/2025
USI Insurance Services LLC
2375 E.Camelback Road, Suite 740
Phoenix, AZ 85016
877 468-6516
Ellen Carter
877 468-6516
[email protected]
Ladris Technologies, Inc.
980 9th St.

Sacramento, CA 95814
30104
A X
X
X
X 59SBABR6HAU 03/14/2025 03/14/2026 2,000,000
1,000,000
10,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
4,000,000
A
X X
59SBABR6HAU 03/14/2025 03/14/2026 2,000,000
A
B
C
Crime
Pro Liability
EPL
59SBABR6HAU
EO00006361601
EKS3565579
03/14/2025
08/05/2024
03/13/2025
03/14/2026
08/05/2025
03/13/2026
1,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
The General Liability policy includes an automatic Additional Insured endorsement that provides Additional Insured status to the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers only when there is a written contract that requires such status, and only with regard to work performed by or on behalf of the named insured.

City of Orinda
28 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
1 of 1
#S49921340/M49915952
Client#: 2056086 LADRITEC
PIVZP

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement)

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A : NAIC #
NAME: CONTACT
(A/C, No): FAX
E-MAIL ADDRESS:

PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext): PHONE

INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A

SUBR WVDADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$ PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOS ONLY AUTOS NON-OWNED OWNED SCHEDULED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

Y / N WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEEE.L. EACH ACCIDENT EROTH- STATUTE PER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EFFLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY PRO- JECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY
11/7/2024
SUNZ Insurance Solutions, LLC ID: (Rippling PEO 1 Inc)
c/o Rippling PEO 1 Inc
430 California St, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
915-491-2687
A
Rick Leonard
Rippling Support Team
[email protected]
Rippling PEO 1 Inc
LCF Ladris Technologies Inc
430 California St, 11th Floor
San Francisco CA 94104
82652466
For Informational Purposes
Coverage provided for all leased employees but not subcontractors of: Ladris Technologies Inc Client Eff Date: 8/1/2023 SUNZ Insurance Company 34762
A WC087-00196-024 12/1/2024 12/1/2025 ✓
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
WC616-00205-023-SZ 12/1/2023 12/1/2024
United Wisconsin Insurance Company 29157
B
82652466 | 843080455 | (MCP) Multiple Coordinated Policy | Rippling PEO 572 | Rosemary Young | 11/7/2024 2:53:18 PM (EST) | Page 1 of 1 Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 14 Exhibit C – Additional Definitions
SECTION 1.01 Additional Defined Terms.
"Access Credentials" means any user name, password, license or security key, security token, or other method, technology or device used, alone or in combination, to authenticate and authorize access to and use of the Cloud Services.
“Affiliate” means, with respect to any corporate entity, a company controlled by, controlling, or under common control of a parent entity.
"Authorized User" means an employee of City authorized to use the Cloud Services pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
"Cloud Services," depending upon the modules selected in the executed Purchase Orders means Ladris Operator cloud-based software as a service for (i) Ladris SAAS for Evacuations, and/or (ii) Ladris SAAS for Wildfire Spread, (iii) certain modules of Ladris Core and (iv) in each case, all new versions, updates, revisions, improvements and modifications of the foregoing, including the software that Ladris uses to provide remote access to and use of the Cloud Services. Cloud Services excludes new products or services containing major enhancements and/or significantly enhanced functionality.
“Contract Year” means the period of twelve (12) consecutive months commencing on the start date for software and services (8/30/2025).
“Covered Region” shall mean (1) in the case of a City that is a government entity the jurisdictional boundaries of the Customer; and (2) in the case of a non-government entity, the regions specified in the Purchase Order. The definition of Covered Region may be modified in any signed purchase order.
"City Data" means information, data, images, maps, zone, video and other content, regardless of form or medium, that is collected, downloaded or otherwise received from City or an Authorized User for processing by the Cloud Services, but does not include Ladris Data or Resultant Data metadata derived from City usage.
"City Systems" means the Customer's information technology infrastructure, including computers, software, hardware, databases, electronic systems (including database management systems) and networks operated by Customer.
"Documentation" means any manuals, instructions or other documents or materials in any medium, as updated from time to time, that the Ladris provides or makes available to Customer. "Harmful Code" means any software, hardware or other technology, including any virus, worm, malware or other malicious computer code, the purpose or effect of which is to (a) permit unauthorized access to, or to destroy, disrupt, or otherwise harm or impede in any manner any (i) computer, software, firmware, hardware, system or network or (ii) any application or function of any of the foregoing or the security, integrity, confidentiality or use of any data processed thereby, or (b) prevent a City or end user from accessing or using the Cloud Services as intended by this Agreement.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 15 "Intellectual Property Rights" means any and all patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, database protection or other intellectual property rights laws, and all similar or equivalent rights or forms of protection, in any part of the world including any such intellectual property rights which come into existence following the Effective Date of this Agreement. “Provider Data” means (i) all data and information provided by the Cloud Services that is proprietary to Ladris, its suppliers or its or their licensors, (ii) all metadata captured by the Cloud Services, including time and duration of simulations, origin of fire, direction of travel and all other parameters set by City in running simulations, and frequency of use, and (iii) all Resultant Data.
"Ladris Materials" means the Specifications (if any), Documentation and any and all other information, data, documents, materials and other content, devices, methods, processes, hardware, software and other technologies and inventions, including any deliverables, technical or functional descriptions, requirements, plans or reports, that are provided to City or used by Ladris or any Subcontractor in connection with the Cloud Services or Ladris Systems. For the avoidance of doubt, Ladris Materials include Ladris Data and Resultant Data, but do not include Third Party Materials or City Data.
"Ladris Personnel" means all individuals involved in the performance of Cloud Services as employees, agents or independent contractors of Ladris or any Subcontractor. “Ladris Products” means the Evacuation Modeling Service, Ladris for Wildfire Spread Ladris Core and Ladris professional services.
“Ladris Core” means the Ladris cloud-based software as a service for (i) the forecasting of floods,(ii) a repository for Customer data (i.e. a data lake), and (iii) (iii) access to real-time and near-real time environmental and sensor feeds and readings. “Ladris SAAS for Evacuations” means the Ladris Operator cloud-based software as a service for transportation and evacuation modeling and all new versions, updates, revisions, improvements and modifications of the foregoing, but the term does not include new products or services containing major enhancements and/or significantly enhanced functionality. Ladris SAAS for Evacuations includes Third Party Materials.
“Ladris SAAS for Wildfire Spread” means the Ladris cloud-based software as a service for wildfire Spread and all new versions, updates, revisions, improvements and modifications of the foregoing, but the term does not include new products or services containing major enhancements and/or significantly enhanced functionality. Ladris SAAS for Wildfire Spread includes Third Party Materials. "Ladris Systems" means the information technology infrastructure used by or on behalf of Ladris to operate, maintain and make available the Cloud Services, including all computers, software, hardware, databases, electronic systems (including database management systems) and networks, whether operated directly by Ladris or through the use of Subcontractors. "Law" means any statute, law, ordinance, regulation, rule, code, order, constitution, treaty, common law, judgment, decree or other requirement of any federal, state, local or foreign government or political subdivision thereof, or any arbitrator, court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 16 "Losses" means any and all losses, damages, or other liabilities, awarded in a final judgment, including interest, awards, penalties, fines, costs and expenses, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees; provided, however, that losses shall not include (i) any amounts resulting from loss of property, loss of services, personal injury, or death resulting from an evacuation or wildfire, or (ii) loss resulting from any other hazardous activity.
"Map" means any diagrammatic or digital representation of all or any portion of the Covered Region displaying the relative positions and connections of different components or attributes, such as roads, zones, topography, or utility infrastructure, for the purpose of disaster planning, evacuation modeling, or other plan or analysis.
“Open Source Program(s)” means any software, documentation or other material that contains, or is derived (in whole or in part) from, any software, documentation or other material that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g., Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models.
"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability entity, governmental authority, unincorporated organization, trust, association or other entity. “Purchase Order” means one or more written purchase orders, order forms or quotations for the acquisition of Cloud Services by Customer, duly executed by both parties that includes pricing and licensing information. The initial Purchase Order may be appended to this Agreement as an Attachment.
"Representatives" means, with respect to a Party (including Ladris's Suppliers), the employees, officers, directors, consultants and legal advisors of a Party, their Affiliates' and Ladris Suppliers. "Resultant Data" means information, data and other content that is derived by or through the Cloud Services from Processing City Data and is sufficiently different from such City Data that such City Data cannot be reverse engineered or otherwise identified from the inspection, analysis or further processing of such information, data or content. Resultant Data includes but is not limited to information, data or other content derived from Ladris’ analysis of Customer's access of the Cloud Services.
“Specifications” means the published technical description for the Cloud Services or Documentation.
“Supplier” means any other entity that licenses or otherwise provides Ladris with Third Party Materials, including software.
"Third Party Materials" means materials and information, in any form or medium, including any open-source or other software, documents, data, content, specifications, APIs, products, equipment or components of or relating to the Cloud Services that are not proprietary to Ladris or its licensors.

Exhibit D Authorization for Use and Restrictions
During the Term of this Agreement, Provider shall provide to Customer, and their Authorized Users access to the Cloud Services and subject to the additional provisions of Authorization and City Restrictions. Use of the Cloud Services by City for modeling and simulations shall extend to Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 17 the Covered Region only. The Cloud Services shall be provided 24 hours per day, seven days per week every day of the year, except as provided in Service Levels and Service Credits.

Authorization. Provider authorizes City and its Authorized Users to access and use the Cloud Services and such Provider Materials as Provider may supply to Customer. This access and use is limited to use by City for its internal business, or in the case of governments, in exercise of its own responsibilities to its residents. This authorization is non-exclusive and non-transferable.

Prohibitions. City shall not (i) reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, decode, adapt or otherwise attempt to derive or gain access to the source code or object code of the Cloud Service software, in whole or in part, (ii) copy, modify, or prepare derivative works of the Cloud Service software or the Provider Materials or (iii) with respect to both clause (i) and (ii) permit any Other Person to do so..

Additional Limitations and Restrictions. Except to comply with the law, including without limitation, the California public Records, Act, the City shall not, and shall not permit any other Person to, copy, distribute, reproduce, incorporate, use, or access the Cloud Services or Provider Materials in any manner except as expressly permitted by this Agreement and, in the case of Third-Party Materials, the applicable third-party license agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, City shall not, except as this Agreement (or any applicable open source license) expressly permits:
(a) access or use the Cloud Services other than through the use of valid Access Credentials; (b) input, upload, transmit or otherwise provide to or through the Cloud Services any information or materials that are unlawful, injurious, or contain, transmit or activate any Harmful Code;
(c) remove, delete, alter or obscure any trademarks, terms of service, warranties or disclaimers, or any copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property or proprietary rights notices from the Cloud Services or Provider Materials, including any copy thereof; or
(d) access or use the Cloud Services or Provider Materials for the development of a competing software service or product or any other purpose that is to Ladris’ detriment or commercial disadvantage.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 18 EXHIBIT E – WARRANTIES, DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS ON

LIABILITY
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. ALL CLOUD SERVICES, PROVIDER MATERIALS AND THIRD PARTY MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND PROVIDER HEREBY

DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR

OTHERWISE, AND PROVIDER SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,

AND TITLE, AND ALL WARRANTIES ARISING FROM COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE.

WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, PROVIDER MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY

KIND THAT THE CLOUD SERVICES OR PROVIDER MATERIALS WILLL MEET CITY

REQUIREMENTS, OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, ACHIEVE ANY INTENDED

RESULT, BE COMPATIBLE OR WORK WITH ANY SOFTWARE, SYSTEM OR OTHER SERVICES, OR BE ERROR FREE. CITY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT EMERGENCY

RESPONSE ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING EVACUATIONS, ARE A HAZARDOUS

ACTIVITY AND CHAOTIC ACTIVITY AND THAT THE CLOUD SERVICES MAY

NOT FULLY REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF VARIABLES AFFECTING TRAFFIC FLOW OR WILDFIRE SPREAD AT THE TIME OF USE. FURTHER, THE

EXTRAPOLATION OF MOVEMENT OF WILDFIRE IS SUBJECT TO ESTIMATES OF

FUEL LOAD WHICH MAY NOT BE EXACT, ATOMOSPHERIC MOVEMENTS

WHICH MAY NOT BE FULLY PREDICTABLE AND OTHER UNANTICIPATED FACTORS.

ANY AFFIRMATIVE REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF OR CONCERNING ANY THIRD-PARTY MATERIALS IS STRICTLY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE THIRDPARTY OWNER OF THE THIRD-PARTY MATERIALS. PROVIDER MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY WITH RESPECT THERETO.

EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN DAMAGES. (A) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN

THE AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT WILL PROVIDER OR ANY OF ITS LICENSORS,

SUPPLIERS OR SUBCONTRACTORS BE LIABLE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH

THIS AGREEMENT OR ITS SUBJECT MATTER UNDER ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE

THEORY, INCLUDING BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY AND OTHERWISE, FOR ANY: (A) LOSS OF PRODUCTION, USE, BUSINESS, REVENUE OR PROFIT; (B) IMPAIRMENT, INABILITY TO USE OR LOSS,

INTERRUPTION OR DELAY OF THE CLOUD SERVICES, OTHER THAN FOR THE

ISSUANCE OF ANY APPLICABLE SERVICE CREDITS PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT H (UPTIME)., (C) ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY,

SPECIAL, ENHANCED OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER

PROVIDER WAS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES OR DAMAGES OR

SUCH LOSSES OR DAMAGES WERE OTHERWISE FORESEEABLE OR (D) USE OF THE

CLOUD SERVICES IN A LIVE, REAL TIME EVACUATION OR DISASTER RESPONSE EVENT.
(B) HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENT. PROVIDER AND CITY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT

THE SERVICE INVOLVES PLANNING FOR ACTIVITIES IN A HAZARDOUS, HIGH-RISK

ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ANTICIPATE ALL FACTORS THAT MAY INVOLVE RISK OR INJURY TO THOSE AFFECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, CITY

AGREES THAT PROVIDER AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY TO Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 19 CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING OR CALCULATION OF APPROPRIATE

EVACUATION ROUTES, TIMES OR TRAFFIC LOADS AND INCLUDING (WITHOUT

LIMITATION) THOSE VARIABLES ENTERED BY CUSTOMER, AND CITY HEREBY ACCEPTS, SUCH EXCLUSIONS AS THE BASIS FOR THIS CONTRACT.

CAP ON MONETARY LIABILITY. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN, IN

NO EVENT WILL THE COLLECTIVE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF PROVIDER AND ITS

SUPPLIERS AND SUBCONTRACTORS UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS

AGREEMENT OR ITS SUBJECT MATTER, UNDER ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE

THEORY, INCLUDING BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE),

STRICT LIABILITY AND OTHERWISE, EXCEED THE HIGHER OF (I) THE SUM OF ALL FEES PAID BY CITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR THE 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDING THE FIRST INCIDENT GIVING RISE TO LIABILITY OR (II) $1000. THE

FOREGOING LIMITATION APPLIES NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF ANY AGREED OR OTHER REMEDY OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

EXCEPTIONS. THE EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY DO NOT APPLY

TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 20 Exhibit F – Intellectual Property Rights
Acknowledgment. City acknowledges that Provider and its Suppliers own all right, title and interest, including all Intellectual Property Rights in the Cloud Services, Cloud Service software, Provider Data, and Provider Materials. City shall not acquire any Intellectual Property Rights with respect to the Cloud Services, Cloud Service software or Provider Materials (including Third-Party Materials), except for the limited authorization set forth in the Agreement and any applicable third-party licenses and in each case subject to the restrictions of the Agreement.

Open Source Programs. The Cloud Service software may include Open Source Programs. Any use of Open Source Programs by City is subject to and governed solely by the terms and conditions of the applicable open source license agreement(s). On Customer's written request, Provider will provide City (at no additional cost) information how to obtain a copy of the source code for such Open Source Programs in accordance with the terms of the controlling open source license agreement(s).

City Data. City hereby irrevocably grants to Ladris, its Suppliers, Subcontractors and Provider Personnel all such rights and permissions in or relating to City Data as are necessary or useful to perform the Cloud Services. In addition, to the extent that City may have intellectual property rights in Provider Data or Resultant Data, City hereby grants to Provider a perpetual, royalty free, non-exclusive worldwide license to reproduce, use and license and sublicense such intellectual property rights for use in connection with the Cloud Services including any derivative works thereof and any other products and services that are developed and marketed by Ladris, its successors or assigns.

City Maps. City shall supply Provider with Maps it uses in planning and modeling, including those used for evacuation scenarios. City represents and warrants that either such Maps are in the public domain or that City has full rights to license, including the right to sublicense use of, such Maps. City hereby irrevocably grants to Provider a perpetually, royalty-free, worldwide license to reproduce, use, license and sublicense such Maps in connection with the use of Cloud Services by its customers and as embedded in such other products and services as may be developed and marketed by Provider and its assignees.

Feedback. If City or any of its employees or contractors submits, orally or in writing, ideas, suggestions or recommended changes to the Cloud Services or Documentation, including without limitation, new features or functionality relating thereto ("Feedback"), Provider is free to use such Feedback irrespective of any other obligation or limitation between the parties governing such Feedback. City hereby assigns to Provider on Customer's behalf, and on behalf of its employees, contractors and/or agents, all right, title, and interest in, and Provider is free to use, without any attribution or compensation to any party, any ideas, know-how, concepts, techniques, or other intellectual property rights contained in the Feedback, for any purpose whatsoever, although Provider is not required to use any Feedback. Feedback will not be considered Confidential Information.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 21 Exhibit G – DATA USAGE AND RIGHTS
City hereby grants to Ladris, and Ladris Personnel all such rights and permissions in or relating to City Data and Infrastructure Data as are necessary or useful to perform the Cloud Services. In addition, to the extent that City may have intellectual property rights in Ladris Data or Resultant Data, City hereby grants to Ladris a perpetual, royalty free, non-exclusive worldwide license to reproduce, use save and license and sublicense such intellectual property rights and data.

Resultant Data and Infrastructure Data will be used in several CORE modules to train and develop machine learning and artificial intelligence transformers, including transformer weights. City acknowledges that once such transformers and weights are trained, such data cannot be extracted. Consequently, City grants to Ladris s a perpetual, royalty free, nonexclusive worldwide license to reproduce, use, save and license and sublicense such intellectual property rights as it may have in Resultant Data and City Infrastructure Data and City data feeds for use in connection with the Cloud Services for other Ladris customers and any other products and services that are developed and marketed by Contractors, its successors and assigns. Ladris represents and warrants that no other licensee of the CORE services will be able to extract such Resultant Data and Infrastructure Data in a manner that identifies such data as being associated with City.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 22 EXHIBIT H – UPTIME
Service Levels. During the Term of this Agreement, Ladris will use commercially reasonable efforts to make the Cloud Services Available at least 99.5% of the time as measured over the course of each calendar month during the Term (each such calendar month is a "Cloud Service Period”) excluding unavailability as a result of any of the Exceptions described below.

Availability Requirement Service Level Failure means a material failure of the Cloud Services to meet the Availability Requirement. Available means the Cloud Services are available for access and use over the Internet.

Service Level Failures and Remedies. In the event of a Service Level Failure, and if City otherwise meets its obligations under this Agreement, Ladris shall issue a credit to City in the amount of a percentage of the Fees due for the Cloud Service Period in which the Service Level Failure occurred (each a Service Credit as set forth in the following table: In the first column, the Percentage of Availability shall be calculated according to the formula referenced below.

Percentage of
Availability Amount of Service Credit
between 98.0% and 99.5% 10%
between 95.0% and 98.0% 18%
below 95.0% 40%
In addition, all Service Credits shall be subject to the following:
• Ladris has no obligation to issue any Service Credit unless City requests such Service Credit and provides to Ladris the supporting information set forth below within seven (7) days following the end of the applicable Cloud Service Period; • City must provide to Ladris all information necessary to document the Service Level Failure, including without limitation, log files showing the period(s) when the Cloud Services were not Available, the date(s) and time(s) on which they occurred, the number and location(s) of the affected Authorized Users (if applicable); descriptions of City’s attempts to resolve the matter; and any other pertinent information; • in no event will a Service Level Credit for any Cloud Service Period exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total Fees that would be payable for that Cloud Service Period if no Service Level Failure had occurred;
• if a dispute arises with respect to any Service Level Failure, Ladris will make a good faith determination to resolve the dispute based on its system logs, monitoring reports, configuration records, and other available information, which Ladris shall make available to City upon City’s request; and any Service Credit payable to City under this Agreement will be issued to City in the calendar month following the Cloud Service Period in which the Service Level Failure occurred. This Exhibit sets forth Contractor's sole obligation and liability and City’s sole remedy for any Service Level Failure.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 23 Measurement. If the Cloud Services are provided from servers operated and maintained by a nationally recognized cloud service provider (such as AWS or Azure), then availability will be measured by such provider's standard processes and formulas therefore. In measuring uptime, the following terms shall be used as defined below.

Anticipated Available Minutes means the Total Minutes less the Excluded Minutes.

Excluded Minutes means that the total number of minutes the Cloud Services were not available as a consequence of the exclusions set forth below, as reasonably determined by Contractor.

Unavailable Minutes means the number of minutes during the Cloud Service Period that the Cloud Services were not available, not including Excluded Minutes.

Total Minutes means the total number of minutes in the relevant Cloud Service Period.

Exceptions. For purposes of calculating the Availability Requirement, the following are "Exclusions" to the Availability Requirement, and neither the Cloud Services will be considered not Available, nor any Service Level Failure be deemed to occur that is due, in whole or in part, to any:
access to or use of the Cloud Services by City or any Authorized User, or using City’s or an Authorized User's Access Credentials, in a manner that does not strictly comply with this Agreement and the Documentation;
Any delay or failure of performance caused in whole or in part by City’s delay in performing, or failure to perform, any of its obligations under this Agreement; City’s or its Authorized User's Internet connectivity;
Force Majeure Event;
Scheduled Downtime as set forth below; and any suspension or termination of City’s or any Authorized Users' access to or use of the Cloud Services as permitted by this Agreement.

Scheduled Downtime. Ladris will use commercially reasonable efforts to give City at least five hours prior notice of all scheduled outages of the Cloud Services, “Scheduled Downtime" shall mean any such scheduled outage for which at least five hours prior notice has been given and which does not persist for more than 90 consecutive minutes. There shall not be more than one Scheduled Downtime event per month.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 24 EXHIBIT I – SUPPORT
Contractor's obligation to provide Support Services shall extend to the current Release and prior Versions whose Release number begins with the same number or immediately preceding number as the current Release. For example, if the current Release is 4.5, Ladris will support only those Versions between 3.x and 4.5. If City desires support for earlier Versions of the Software, such support may be treated by Ladris as additional consulting services for which City will be billed at Contractor' then current time-and-materials rates. City understands that its implementation of a new Version may require City to upgrade its Computer System.

Data Backup, Retention and Disposal. Ladris shall be responsible for creating and maintaining timely, accurate and readable electronic back-ups of all data, program and system files. Periodically, in accordance with information technology best practices, Ladris shall restore such backups to a test server to validate that the data backups are recoverable without lost or corrupted data.

Using appropriate and reliable storage media, Ladris will back up City data daily and retain such backup copies for a minimum of thirty-six months, or as consistent with requirements in federal, state and local law. At the end of that time period and at City’s election, Ladris will direct the Hosting Vendor to destroy or overwrite the backup copies. Upon City’s request, Ladris will supply City with a certificate indicating the nature of the storage media destroyed, the date the backups were destroyed or overwritten, and the method of destruction used.

Disaster Recovery
The Ladris will maintain a Disaster Recovery Plan with respect to the services provided to the City. For purposes of this Agreement, a "Disaster" shall mean any unplanned interruption of the operation of or inaccessibility to the Ladris' service in which the Contractor, using reasonable judgment, requires relocation of processing to a recovery location. Ladris shall notify the City as soon as possible after the Ladris deems a service outage to be a Disaster. The Ladris shall move the processing of the City’s services to a recovery location as expeditiously as possible and shall coordinate the cut-over. During a disaster, optional or on-request services shall be provided by the Ladris only to the extent adequate capacity exists at the recovery location and only after stabilizing the provision of base services.

Administrative Functions Performed by Ladris.

Ladris shall provide certain limited administrative services regarding the maintenance of the Software including, (i) setting permissions, (ii) adding, modifying or deleting attributes, events, statutes, program and case types and lookup items, (iii) adding and deleting case types, and (iv) creating and modifying workflows, (v) adding and modifying assessments and related scoring.

Covered Maintenance
Ladris will provide to City: (a) all services required to ensure that the Software operates in conformity with all Specifications; and (b) all Enhancements developed by Ladris for the Software and related Documentation during the Term of this Agreement. Covered Maintenance Services do not include the costs of accessories and expendable supplies necessary to operate the Software, such as magnetic tape cards, optical disks, disk packs, paper, and similar items, and such items are not provided free of charge by Ladris hereunder.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 25 Service Level Agreement
Ladris will maintain a website accessible by City, which contains information concerning the Software and Support Services.

Ladris will respond to City requests for software support services regarding the Cloud Services in accordance with the procedures identified below. In each case, City may describe and submit notice of the support need by telephone, facsimile or electronic mail.

All Ladris staff assigned to provide services to City will be appropriately qualified by education, training and experience to deliver those services, and will be familiar with the functional capabilities of the Software.

Telephone Support includes: (i) remote diagnostics; (ii) service desk and dispatch; (iii) question and answer consulting; and, (iv) non-chargeable user error remedies. Ladris shall provide a toll-free maintenance telephone number. Remote diagnostics equipment is required at City remote support, which equipment is to be obtained by City at its sole expense.

Ladris shall provide City with telephone support services for Software from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, excluding City-recognized holidays.

Response Policy. Ladris shall respond to any Errors reported by City based on the priority code assigned to each such Error. City shall identify the priority code when it initially reports the Error to Contractor. Ladris may, in its reasonable discretion, reclassify the Error after its initial investigation. In the event Ladris does not meet the service level response for the Error as described in the table below, the City may request to escalate the Error to a higher priority code, which request the Ladris shall not unreasonably deny.

Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 26 Priority Levels and Response Times
Response times are for business hours.

Tier Priority Response
Initial
Update Workaround Restore
Tier-1 Urgent 1 2 6 24
Tier-1 High 2 3 9 36
Tier-1 Normal 4 8 24 as agreed
Tier-1 Low 8 12 as agreed as appropriate
Premium Urgent 2 4 12 48
Premium High 4 6 18 72
Premium Normal 8 16 48 as agreed
Premium Low 16 24 as agreed as appropriate
Pro Urgent 4 8 24 96
Pro High 8 12 36 144
Pro Normal 16 32 96 as appropriate
Pro Low 32 48 as appropriate as appropriate
Standard Urgent 8 16 48 192
Standard High 16 24 72 288
Standard Normal 32 64 192 as appropriate
Standard Low 64 96 as appropriate as appropriate
Priority Level Definition
Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement) 27 Urgent
Trouble condition where the system is completely out
of service or is causing significant business impact to the City and no immediate workaround is available
High
System affected with intermittent loss of simulation
capability or a problem that significantly affects
deployment
Normal System issues alerts and/or exhibits unexpected
behavior without affecting core functionality
Low Technical consultations, feature suggestions
Docusign Envelope ID: 38FF791D-CF63-44F9-8E51-1B549B642405 H.4.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Proposed Contract with Ladris Technologies, Inc. (3673 : Ladris Agreement)

CITY OF ORINDA
BUDGET CHANGE FORM FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Funds Originally Appropriated as Part of 2025-26 and 2026-27 Biennial Budget Adopted on June 3, 2025
CHANGE FORM # 003-26
New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required): Budget Transfers:

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

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

BUDGET ACCOUNT
(Revenue / Expense)

INCREASE
AMOUNT

DECREASE
AMOUNT
INCREASE OF BUDGETED EXPENSE IN FY 2025-26:
106-10-13-7180

ADD-ON SALES TAX MEASURE R/ CITY MANAGEMENT / CITY

MANAGER / PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$262,131
As Presented at the City Council Meeting on July 15, 2025 #################(Finance Use Only)###################
Posted By: Date:

REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: Purchase Ladris consulting services and software as a service for emergency evacuation modeling.

H.4.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Budget Change Form #003-26 (3673 : Ladris Agreement) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.5
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Filling Vacancies on the Planning Commission, Arts in Public Places Committee, and Finance Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION:

Consider approval of the Mayor's recommendations for Planning Commission (Brenda Davis) and Arts in Public Places (Harmony Anderson) and provide direction on the appointment of Jay Selwitz to the Finance Advisory Committee.

BACKGROUND:

There are currently three unscheduled vacancies on City advisory bodies due to recent resignations:

1. Planning Commission – Vacancy created by the resignation of Ann Parnigoni, effective May 1, 2025. Her term was set to expire in February 2026.

2. Arts in Public Places Committee – Vacancy created by the resignation of Ted Urban, effective April 23, 2025. His term was set to expire in February 2027.

3. Finance Advisory Committee – Vacancy created by the resignation of Jorge Escobar, effective February 20, 2025. His term was set to expire in February 2027.

DISCUSSION:

As required, public notices were posted following receipt of each resignation.

At the City Council meeting held on May 20, 2025, the Council discussed the possibility of filling the Planning Commission and Arts in Public Places Committee vacancies using applicants from the most recent annual recruitment and interview process conducted in February 2025. The City Council directed Staff to reach out to these previous applicants to confirm continued interest and schedule interviews with the Mayor as needed.

Following this outreach:
• Planning Commission: Mayor Malkani recommends the appointment of Brenda Davis to complete the remainder of Ann Parnigoni’s term, expiring February 2026.
• Arts in Public Places Committee: After contacting two previously interviewed applicants, Mayor Malkani recommends the appointment of Harmony Anderson to complete the remainder of Ted Urban’s term, expiring February 2027.

In addition to this direction by the City Council, the City conducted a recruitment to fill the vacancy on the Finance Advisory Committee. A Statement of Interest was received from Jay Selwitz. The City Council may choose to appoint Mr. Selwitz at this meeting H.5
Packet Pg. 275
based on his Statement of Interest or direct staff to arrange an interview with the Mayor, a Council subcommittee, or the full Council prior to making a final decision. If appointed he would fill the remainder of Jorge Escobar’s term, expiring February 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Brenda Davis - Statement of Interest
B. Harmony Anderson - Statement of Interest
C. Jay Selwitz - Statement of Interest
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.5
Packet Pg. 276
H.5.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Brenda Davis - Statement of Interest (3633 : Commission and Committee Appointments) H.5.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Brenda Davis - Statement of Interest (3633 : Commission and Committee Appointments) H.5.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Brenda Davis - Statement of Interest (3633 : Commission and Committee Appointments) Government Code Section 87200 requires that certain g ff st file a Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700). As a Commissioner you will be required to file statements of economic interests.

Statement of Interest
To serve in a Volunteer Capacity
For the City of Orinda
RETURN FORM TO:

City Clerk
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
925-253-4221
[email protected]
Please Note: This application for appointment is a Public Document subject to the State of California Public Records Act and will be open to the public for inspection and reproduction. If you wish, you may submit a resume or additional documentation; but such documents should supplement, not substitute for, the completion of this application.

I am interested in serving on the following Commission(s) or Committee(s): (may list more than one in priority order):
_________________________________________________________________________________________ Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Education: ________________________________________________________________________________ Past and Present Business Experience: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Number of Years an Orinda Resident: __________________________________________________________ List Present Volunteer Activities: ______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ List Previous Orinda Activities: _______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ List any Additional Relevant Experience: _______________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Please write a brief statement indicating why you are interested in serving in this capacity:
_________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Home Address: _ ________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: _ _____________E-mail Address: ____________ Signature: ________________________


 
 

 




)/,=3>/ 99<.38+>9<
2+@/ ;?3>/ + ,3> 90 /B:/<3/8-/ 38 ,<+8.381
+.@/<>3=381 +8. .313>+6 ./=318
+6=9 +7 + 89@3-/
+<>3=> 38 7C 0<// >37/

+<798C 8./<=98
 */+<= 38 %/@/8?/ !+<5/>381 +>
<9A>2 &>+<>?:= +<9?8. >2/ +C
</+
!9=> </-/8>6C ($ 313>+6  /7+8.
/8/<+>398 +> <7+.+
+3
+8. ($ 90 !+<5/>381 +> 9>/6
8138/

"

+7 /+1/< >9 4938 >2/ $?,63- <>= 9773>>// 38 #<38.+ += 2+@/ +6A+C= ,//8 :+==398+>/ +,9?> >2/ +<>= +8. +7 29:381 >9 1/> 79</ 38@96@/. 38 =?::9<>381 7C -977?83>C 89> 986C -</+>/ +<> +8. >+5/
-6+==/= 69-+66C ,?> +6=9 -966/-> +<> 0<97 69-+6 +<>3=>= ,/63/@/ 38 >2/ 37:9<>+8-/ 90
</-9183D381 +<>3=>= += @+6?+,6/ -?6>?<+6 </=9?<-/= +8. +7 -9773>>/. >9 +.@+8-381 >2/ -9773>>//= 73==398 90 ,<9+./8381 :?,63- +A+</8/== +8. /849C7/8> 90 >2/ +<>= +7 /B-3>/. >9 =?::9<> #<38.+ +8.
>23= -9773>>// 38 +8C A+C -+8
!9<+1+ )+C #<38.+  
+-2/69<= ?=38/== .7383=><+>398 
8></:</8/?<=23: +,=98 966/1/

'#$&
'2/ #<38.+ $</=-2996

?8.<+3=381 9
-2+3< +8.

 <> 38 $?,63- $6+-/=
#%

 $+<5= +8. %/-</+>398
 C/+<=
!9@/. >9 #<38.+ 38 !+C 

H.5.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Harmony Anderson - Statement of Interest (3633 : Commission and Committee Appointments) H.5.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Harmony Anderson - Statement of Interest (3633 : Commission and Committee Appointments) H.5.c
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Jay Selwitz - Statement of Interest (3633 : Commission and Committee Appointments) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.6
Date: July 15, 2025
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Board of Forestry Update on Draft Regulations for Zone Zero RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the update on the Board of Forestry efforts to establish statewide zone zero regulations and provide direction to Staff, as needed.

BACKGROUND:

State law (AB 3074 (2020) and SB 504 (2024)) mandates the establishment of an ember-resistant zone, commonly referred to as Zone Zero. Zone Zero refers to the ember-resistant zone extending five feet from a structure, including attached decks and stairs, designed to reduce the risk of wildfire ignitions from flying embers. The Board of Forestry, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal, is currently finalizing the specific regulations and guidelines for implementing Zone Zero.

Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-18-25 directed the Board to expedite the adoption of these regulations by December 31, 2025. While the formal rulemaking process is underway, homeowners should begin taking steps to create or maintain an effective Zone Zero to enhance wildfire preparedness, according to the Moraga-Orinda Fire District.

This report provides information on the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection's (Board) ongoing efforts to establish and implement Zone Zero defensible space regulations.

DISCUSSION:

The Board of Forestry has gone through four meetings and a few revisions of the regulations with the most recent version issued in June 2025.

The current draft has the following requirements included as Attachment A. Of note is that grass will not be allowed but potted plants will, subject to certain placement restrictions. Additionally, there are some specific rules around tree boles (trunks) being allowed in Zone Zero.

The Board is continuing to accept public comments on the proposed regulations and has another meeting scheduled for July 24. If the City Council desires, Staff can prepare a comment letter to submit on behalf of the City of Orinda. After discussion with MOFD staff, the City staff believe that the inclusion of grass as prohibited material is not supported by science and should be allowed. This decision could potentially be more aligned with other State priorities to encourage the use of drought tolerant materials.

H.6
Packet Pg. 283
Below is a link to the page where all the past actions and information have been stored by the Board of Forestry.
https://calfire-umb05.azurewebsites.net/projects-and-programs/defensible-space-zones0-1-2/ NEXT STEPS:

Staff can prepare a comment letter and/or attend the next meeting, if the City Council desires.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Board of Forestry - June 2025 Draft Regulations
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.6
Packet Pg. 284

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
1 1 Below is draft rule text that the Zone 0 Regulation Advisory Committee will discuss at a 2 public workshop on Monday, June 16, 2025. The Board invites comments on all 3 provisions of the draft rule text.
4 5 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection
6 Defensible Space Zone 0
7 Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
8 Division 1.5, Chapter 7,
9 Subchapter 3 Article 3
10 11 § 1299.01. Purpose.
12 The intent of this regulation is to provide guidance for implementation of Public 13 Resources Code Section 4291 to improve safety for fire fighters defending a home as 14 well as increase the survivability of a “Building or Structure” as defined, that exists in 15 grass, brush, and forest covered lands within the designated State Responsibility Area 16 (SRA) of California.
17 18 Note: Authority cited: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code. Reference:
19 Section 4291, Public Resources Code.
20 21 § 1299.02. Definitions.
22 The following definitions apply to this article:
23 (a) Attached: Directly connected or affixed to a Building or Structure. 24 (b) Building or Structure. Anything constructed that is designed or intended for support, 25 enclosure, shelter, or protection of persons, animals, or property, having a permanent H.6.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Board of Forestry - June 2025 Draft Regulations (3674 : Board of Forestry Update)

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
2 1 roof that is supported by walls or posts that connect to, or rest on the ground. A Building 2 or Structure, for the purpose of an ember-resistant zone, includes an attached deck. 3 (c) Combustible: Vegetative, wood, or petroleum-based materials that are likely to ignite 4 and transmit flames.
5 (ad) Defensible space. The buffer that landowners are required to create on their 6 property between a “Building or Structure” and the plants, brush and trees or other 7 items surrounding the “Building or Structure” that could ignite in the event of a fire. 8 (e) Existing Building or Structure. An Existing Building or Structure is a Building or 9 Structure other than a New Building or Structure.
10 (f) New Building or Structure. A New Building or Structure is a Building or Structure that 11 did not exist prior to the effective date of the regulation that added this subsection. 12 (g) Outbuilding. Buildings or Sstructures that are less than one hundred-twenty (120) 13 square feet in size and not used for human habitation. For purposes of this Section, an 14 “Outbuilding” is not a “Building or Structure” as defined in subsection (b) above. 15 (h) Roof Ridgeline: The highest point of a roof.
16 17 Note: Authority cited: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code. Reference:
18 Section 4291, Public Resources Code; and Sections 18908 and 18917, Health and 19 Safety Code.
20 21 § 1299.03. Requirements.
22 Defensible space is required to be maintained at all times, whenever flammable 23 vegetative conditions exist.
24 (a) One hundred feet (100 ft.) of defensible space clearance shall be maintained in two 25 three distinct “Zzones” as follows: Zone 0 is the area within five feet (5 ft.) around each H.6.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Board of Forestry - June 2025 Draft Regulations (3674 : Board of Forestry Update)

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
3 1 Building or Structure or to the property line, whichever comes first. “Zone 1” extends 2 from five (5ft.) to thirty feet (30 ft.) out from each “Building or Structure,” or to the 3 property line, whichever comes first; “Zone 2” extends from thirty feet (30 ft.) to one 4 hundred feet (100 ft.) from each “Building or Structure,” but not beyond the property line. 5 The vegetation treatment requirements for Zone 0 are more restrictive than for Zone 1; 6 the requirements for Zone 1 are more restrictive than for Zone 2,; as provided in this 7 section (a) and (b) below. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's “Property 8 Inspection Guide, 2000 version, April 2000,” provides additional guidance on vegetation 9 treatment within Zone 1 and Zone 2, but is not mandatory and is not intended as a 10 substitute for these regulations.
11 (b) Zone 0 Requirements:
12 (1) No landscaping materials that are likely to be ignited by embers are permitted 13 within Zone 0. This includes, but is not limited to grass, ornamental or native 14 plants, shrubs, branches, fallen leaves and tree needles, weeds, and 15 combustible mulches including bark and woodchips.
16 (A) Exception: Ten (10) or fewer Plants in pots are allowable if they are in 17 areas that are not directly beneath, above, or in front of adjacent to a 18 window, glass door, or vent; are kept in an unaffixed, not combustible pot 19 or container that is no larger than 5-gallon capacity; and set apart by 1.5 20 times the height of the plant or 12 inches, whichever is greater, from the 21 structure and each other. These plants shall be no greater than 18 inches 22 in height. Dead or dying material on the plants shall be removed. Potted 23 plants shall be moved out of Zone 0 on red flag warning days. 24 (2) Trees within Zone 0 are permitted if: No trees are permitted in Zone 0.

H.6.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Board of Forestry - June 2025 Draft Regulations (3674 : Board of Forestry Update)

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
4 1 (A) Exception: for Buildings or Structures with fewer than three stories or 2 for Buildings or Structures with any number of stories that have balconies 3 or decks: If the bole of a tree is present within Zone 0, a tree is permitted if 4 it is taller than the adjacent Building or Structure’s roof ridgeline and does 5 not have any dead and dying branches. All live tree branches shall be kept 6 ten feet (10’) above the adjacent Building or Structure’s roof ridgeline, ten 7 feet (10’) away from chimneys and stovepipe outlets, and five feet (5’) 8 away from the sides of any Building or Structure.
9 (B) Exception: for Buildings or Structures with three or more stories and 10 without balconies or decks a tree is permitted if the bole of a tree is 11 present within Zone 0, if it does not have any dead and dying branches; 12 and all live tree branches shall be kept ten feet (10’) above the adjacent 13 Building or Structure’s roof, ten feet (10’) away from chimneys and 14 stovepipe outlets, and five feet (5’) away from the sides of any Building or 15 Structure.
16 (3) No items that are likely to be ignited by embers are permitted within Zone 0, 17 including but not limited to combustible boards, timbers, firewood, synthetic lawn, 18 attached window boxes, and trellises. The roof and rain gutters of a Building or 19 Structure shall be kept clear of leaves and needles. Keep tThe area under decks, 20 balconies, and stairs shall be kept free from vegetative material and combustible 21 items.
22 (4) Combustible gates that are shall not be directly attached to a Building or 23 Structure.
24 (5) Fences that are directly attached to a Building or Structure shall have a five 25 foot (5 ft) non-combustible span at the point of attachment. After the effective H.6.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Board of Forestry - June 2025 Draft Regulations (3674 : Board of Forestry Update)

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
5 1 date of this regulation, no new sections of combustible fence are permitted within 2 five 5 feet (5 ft) of a Building or Structure including an attached deck. 3 (6) Outbuildings are not permitted in Zone 0.
4 (7) The requirements for Zone 0 shall take effect for New Buildings or Structures 5 upon the date that the guidance document, as described in PRC § 4291(e), is 6 updated and for existing Buildings or Structures three years thereafter. Upon 7 updating the guidance document, the Board shall post it on its website. 8 (8) For existing structures, the Department may allow the staging of work to 9 support implementation of Zone 0 and address the costs of compliance. 10 11 (ac) Zone 1 Requirements:
12 (1) Remove all dead or dying grass, plants, shrubs, trees, branches, leaves, 13 weeds, and pine needles from the Zone whether such vegetation occurs in yard 14 areas around the “Building or Structure,” on the roof or rain gutters of the 15 “Building or Structure,” or any other location within the Zone. 16 (2) Remove dead tree or shrub branches that overhang roofs, below or adjacent 17 to windows, or which are adjacent to wall surfaces, and keep all branches a 18 minimum of ten feet (10 ft.) away from chimney and stovepipe outlets. 19 (3) Relocate exposed firewood piles outside of Zone 1 unless they are 20 completely coverenclosed in a fire-resistant material. 21 (4) Remove flammable vegetation and items that could catch fire which are 22 adjacent to or under combustible decks, balconies and stairs. 23 (bd) Zone 2 Requirements:
24 (1) In this zone, create horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and trees 25 using the “Fuel Separation” method, the “Continuous Tree Canopy” method, or a H.6.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Board of Forestry - June 2025 Draft Regulations (3674 : Board of Forestry Update)

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
6 1 combination of both to achieve defensible space clearance requirements. Further 2 guidance regarding these methods is contained in the State Board of Forestry 3 and Fire Protection's, “General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space, 4 February 8, 2006,” incorporated herein by reference, and the “Property 5 Inspection Guide” referenced elsewhere in this regulation. 6 (2) In both the Fuel Separation and Continuous Tree Canopy methods the 7 following standards apply:
8 (A) Dead and dying woody surface fuels and aerial fuels shall be removed. 9 Loose surface litter, normally consisting of fallen leaves or needles, twigs, 10 bark, cones, and small branches, shall be permitted to a maximum depth 11 of three inches (3 in.).
12 (B) Cut annual grasses and forbs down to a maximum height of four 13 inches (4 in.).
14 (C) All exposed wood piles must have a minimum of ten feet (10 ft.) of 15 clearance, down to bare mineral soil, in all directions. 16 (ce) For both Zones 1 and 2:
17 (1) “Outbuildings” and Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) storage tanks shall have the 18 following minimum clearance: ten feet (10 ft.) of clearance to bare mineral soil 19 and no flammable vegetation for an additional ten feet (10 ft.) around their 20 exterior.
21 (2) Protect water quality. Do not clear vegetation to bare mineral soil and avoid 22 the use of heavy equipment in and around streams and seasonal 23 drainages. Vegetation removal can cause soil erosion, especially on steep 24 slopes. Keep soil disturbance to a minimum on steep slopes. 25 H.6.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Board of Forestry - June 2025 Draft Regulations (3674 : Board of Forestry Update)

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED
7 1 Note: Authority cited: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code. Reference:
2 Section 4291, Public Resources Code; and Sections 18908 and 18917, Health and 3 Safety Code.

H.6.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Board of Forestry - June 2025 Draft Regulations (3674 : Board of Forestry Update)