Agenda packet — Orinda City Council, August 18, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

The rear of the property is steeply sloped which does not allow use of the area as a back yard, where the majority of the trees will remain and provide screening.

The existing natural trees and vegetation will allow the proposed residence to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. Given the extent of the existing and proposed vegetation, the landscaping elements are appropriate for the structure, site, and neighborhood.
§17.30.7 – Special Design Review Standards – Severely Sloped Development Footprints
The project is in substantial compliance with the Hillside and Ridgeline Design Guidelines.

The project, including the modifications from the previous approvals, is in substantial compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines.

For severely sloped development footprints, the floor elevations of the residence shall respond to the existing topography so that the apparent mass is reduced rather than accentuated. Generally, foundations shall be cut into the hillside, with retaining walls concealed by and integral to the proposed structure. Floor elevations shall step with the hillside's existing grades, and skirt walls higher than six feet are generally to be avoided.

The plans approved in 2023 met this standard and the standard is still met following the exterior changes made during construction. The building footprint and floor elevations respond to the existing topography with the mass reduced along the front of the house. Due to the depth of the lot and the slope of the property, the apparent mass has been reduced to the fullest extent possible.

For ridgeline lots, the natural appearance of the ridgeline is preserved to the greatest extent possible, minimizing the addition of machine-made features to the natural silhouette of the ridge as viewed from throughout the community.

The subject lot is not a ridgeline lot.
§17.35.3 – Elevated Deck Permit Standards
The elevated deck does not substantially diminish the privacy of neighbors.

Item J.1
Packet Page 270
5 As described above, an Elevated Deck Permit is required for the approximately 750 square-foot main deck. This is an approximately 50 square-foot increase in size from the previously approved project. The 2023 approved project’s elevated deck wraps approximately halfway around the side of the structure, as-built, the deck has been expanded to wrap the full length of the side of the structure and connect to the front. As-built, the elevated deck is located approximately 40 feet away from the closest adjacent neighbor (to the south) and is screened from view from that neighbor by existing mature trees. The deck is located approximately 150 feet away from the rear wall of the neighbor to the east, in Lafayette. The deck is screened from the right-of-way by the home. There is no residence to the north of the property. Further, the existing landscape and trees, including the 18 trees to remain, provide privacy screening of the elevated deck. A large number of existing trees and vegetation maximizes privacy for the adjacent neighbors.

The elevated deck does not substantially block desired views from neighboring residences.

The as-built elevated deck does not block desired views from adjacent properties. The deck is integrated into the perimeter of the home. The house location and elevation of the deck relative to neighbors will not impact their views.

The elevated deck does not result in the removal of trees which screen undesirable views.

No further trees are slated for removal for this project. The previous project approved the removal of two bay trees for construction of the deck; the removal of those trees do not affect the screening of the project from adjacent properties.

The approximately 50 square-foot expansion of the deck did not necessitate the removal of any additional trees. All existing trees shall remain (the Planning Commission approved the removal of twelve (12) trees under Planning Commission Statement of Official Action SOA-2023-002).

Reasonable use of the deck will not cause a material increase in ambient noise for neighboring properties.

As-built the elevated deck is located approximately 40 feet away from the closest adjacent neighbor (to the south) and is screened from view from that neighbor by existing mature trees. The deck is located approximately 150 feet away from the rear wall of the neighbor to the east, in Lafayette. The deck is screened by existing vegetation and portions of the home, which will help to significantly reduce ambient noise associated with the use of the elevated deck. There is a hedge at the south property line and extensive tree coverage blocking the property to the east. Reasonable use of the deck will not cause material increase in ambient noise.

Item J.1
Packet Page 271
6 §17.32 – Exception – To § 17.4.2, Building Height, Aggregate Height, and Number of Stories
The strict application of the respective zoning regulations will either: (1) deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district, because the site's unique characteristics, such as an irregular or constrained size, shape or topography, or limitations created by the site's existing development, limit design options available to the subject property; or (2) serve no land use planning purpose under this title or the general plan because of the absence of any negative impact whatsoever on the semi-rural character of Orinda or on the privacy, views and general well-being of neighboring properties as a result of the size, shape, location or topography of the site.

Strict application of the building height and aggregate height requirements would limit the ability for the site to be developed as the site has steeply sloping topography (approximately 48% average slope) and a limited area to build on the site. The increase in both building height and aggregate building height from the approved project is less than 3 feet (see Table 2 for details) and is limited to aesthetic choices, including the tile accent wall added to the structure’s front elevation. The increase in the number of stories did not affect the overall building height, rather it involved an interior vertical reorganization of floors to allow for a third story, and therefore had no negative impact. The as-built project with the modifications still presents as an approximately 15-foot-tall, one-story structure from the right-of-way.

The exception will result in development which substantially complies with the intent and purpose of the requirements, including design review, of the land use district in which the subject property is located.

Exceptions are intended to provide a degree of design flexibility in the application of certain quantitative regulations in this title, so that factors of site design and architecture can be addressed. Title 17 further advises that strict application of zoning standards could deprive a particular parcel of opportunities for design flexibility where there is no adverse impact to be regulated. In such circumstances, there is a benefit to the public to avoid unintended regulatory results. Other than those regulations for which the applicant has requested an Exception Permit, the project complies with the intent and purpose of the requirements, including design review applied for with this project, of the land use district in which the subject property is located.

For a project affecting an existing structure: 1. The exception does not substantially increase the degree of an existing nonconformity; and 2. The exception is necessary to preserve or enhance a feature of the existing structure which is architecturally or functionally appropriate.

Item J.1
Packet Page 272
7 An Exception Permit is required for the 1) Building Height (proposed approximately 30.5 feet, maximum allowed 27 feet, previously approved 29.5 feet); 2) Aggregate Building Height (proposed 38.5 feet, maximum allowed 35 feet, previously approved 36 feet); and 3) Number of Stories (proposed 3, maximum allowed 2.5, previously approved 2). The slight increase in Building Height and Aggregate Height from the previous project approvals are to accommodate an updated design feature (tile wall) on the front elevation, this feature only raises the height of the structure by approximately 1-foot along the front elevation.

The increase in the number of stories did not significantly affect the overall building height and therefore does not substantially increase the degree of nonconformity. Further, the third story that was created in what was previously approved as a crawlspace/mechanical platform is proposed to be an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), which is not subject to discretionary review by the City and helps address the need for additional housing units.

An exception from sign size limitations is necessary for the sign to remain proportional to preexisting architectural features or site conditions.

Not applicable.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on August 18, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

________________________

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Item J.1
Packet Page 273
8 Item J.1
Packet Page 274
9 EXHIBIT A – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DRA-2026-009, EDP-2026-006, EXC-2026-009 42 Charles Hill Circle

THE CITY OF ORINDA CITY COUNCIL HEREBY APPROVES THE
PROPOSED PROJECT, PURSUANT TO THE COUNCIL’S FINDINGS AS STATED IN THIS RESOLUTION 63-26, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS: WHEN SUBMITTING A REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL, THE AUTHORIZED AGENT/PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUIRED TO PRINT ON THE PROJECT PLANS, A COPY OF THE CONDITIONS BELOW. ALL CONDITIONS ARE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UNLESS INDICATED IN ITALICS.

THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT OR APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A PERMIT OR AN APPROVAL OF ANY WORK THAT VIOLATES THE OMC.

Standard Conditions

PLANNING CONDITIONS

1. The applicant shall submit the Building-Permit Application, to the City of Orinda for review and approval, and shall be responsible to implement and pay all costs associated with the preparation of the Building-Permit Application.

2. All development shall conform to plans presented at the August 18, 2026 City Council meeting, or the most recent version on file in the Planning Department, unless otherwise specified by conditions of approval provided in this exhibit.

3. Per §17.44.1 of the OMC, project approval terminates according to its terms, if any, or upon the expiration of one year from the date of approval, unless building permit plans have been submitted to the City/County for plan-check or a building permit has been issued. The duration of the approval may be extended for a maximum of one additional year by the Zoning Administrator upon written request by the property owner, agent or applicant, filed within the effective period of approval if the proposed project as approved conforms to the regulations in effect at the time of the extension. The request shall specify the reason for the extension. A fee, consistent with the most recently-adopted fee schedule by the City Council, is required for the processing of an extension.

4. Minor changes to the approved building plan(s) shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director prior to implementation. Major changes to the approved building plan(s) shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission.

5. The applicant shall submit a plan for recycling building and construction materials that are generated from the demolition of existing buildings, and for recycling waste materials from Item J.1
Packet Page 275
10 construction, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and/or building permit. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department documentation that the materials have been recycled.

6. Construction, alteration, demolition, grading, excavation, or repair activity ("construction activities") may occur during times specified in OMC §17.39.3 as follows:
a. Weekdays: Monday through Friday, construction activities may occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
b. Weekends: On Saturdays and Sundays, construction activities may occur between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., except that on Sundays only a resident of the site and one additional person may work on the site. c. Heavy Construction Equipment: Use of heavy construction equipment is prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays.
d. Holidays: On the following holidays, construction activities are prohibited:

New Year’s Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
No exceptions from this rule may be granted.

7. The site shall be properly maintained during construction or a Stop-Work Order will be issued by the Planning Director (i.e. refuse shall be discarded promptly, construction materials shall be neatly stored, and the public right-of-way shall not be encroached upon).

8. All rubbish and dead vegetation shall be removed from the site prior to final inspection by staff.

9. All projects are subject to the model water efficiency landscape ordinance (MWELO) if they meet the following landscaping area size thresholds:
a. New landscapes: 500 square feet
b. Existing landscapes: 2500 square feet
For MWELO-qualifying projects, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) will conduct a review of the landscape documentation package, which must include:
project information; water efficient landscape worksheet; soil management report; landscape, irrigation and grading design plans. After landscape installation, the applicant must submit a completed, signed certificate of completion and associated documentation to EBMUD for approval.

10. Failure to comply with any of these Conditions may result in a Stop-Work Order and/or a rescinding of the Design-Review Approval.

TREE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
Item J.1
Packet Page 276
11 1. If a protected tree proposed for removal can be relocated, the applicant shall move the tree to a suitable location on a site shown on the approved plans.

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

3. The applicant shall replace a protected tree that dies during the guarantee period in accordance with the tree-replacement provisions, provided below, of §17.21 of the OMC. a. Protected-Tree Replacement
i. For each 6-inches, or fraction thereof, of the aggregate diameter of trees approved for removal, the applicant shall plant 1 native tree with a diameter no less than 0.75 inches. One-third of the replacement tree requirement may be fulfilled by planting native shrubs that mature at a height no less than 5 feet. The applicant may substitute a larger number of smaller trees or a smaller number of larger trees if approved by the Planning Director based on a finding that tree replacement will be more beneficial to the health and vigor of all trees on the property.
ii. If the development site cannot accommodate the replacement trees, the applicant may, with the written approval of the Planning Director and the property owner, plant the replacement trees on public or private property located in Orinda. Alternatively, the applicant may make an in-lieu payment of one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125.00) for each replacement tree otherwise required. All in-lieu payments shall be used for the City’s landscape-related projects.
b. Care of Protected Trees
i. Before starting, the applicant shall securely fence off every protected tree at the protected perimeter. The fence shall remain continuously in place for the duration of work undertaken in connection with the building or grading permit. The fenced area may not be used as a storage area or altered or disturbed except as may be permitted by the Planning Director. ii. If the proposed development or work encroaches upon the protected perimeter of a protected tree, the applicant shall take special measures, as approved by the Planning Director, to allow tree roots to obtain oxygen, water, and nutrients as needed.
iii. An authorized excavation, filling or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter of a tree shall be minimized and subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the Planning Director.
iv. No significant change in existing ground level may be made within the dripline of a protected or heritage tree.
v. No burning or use of equipment with an open flame may occur near or within the protected perimeter.

Item J.1
Packet Page 277
12 vi. All brush, earth and debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.
vii. No oil, gas, chemical or other substance that may be harmful to a tree may be stored or dumped within the protected perimeter of a protected tree or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the protected perimeter of a tree.
viii. Trenching for utilities shall avoid interfering with roots of protected trees wherever possible. If complete avoidance of the root zone is impractical, a tunnel shall be made below the roots. A trench shall be consolidated to serve as many units as possible. Trenching and tunneling within the protected perimeter shall be avoided to the extent possible and shall be done only under the on-site supervision of a professional arborist. ix. No concrete, asphalt or other impervious paving shall be placed within the protected perimeter of a protected tree. No supplementary irrigation shall occur within the protected perimeter of a native oak.

PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS

1. When permitted in the public right-of-way, the following activities shall only be allowed directly in front of the subject property, unless prior written consent of the City and affected property owner(s) is obtained.
a. Delivery, unloading, and staging of construction materials and equipment b. Installation of above or underground utilities.
c. Installation of any drainage facilities, including but not limited to, drainage pipes, drain inlets, drain outfall, culverts, swales, etc. d. Installation of retaining walls, mailboxes, curbs.
e. Installation of temporary or permanent driveways.
f. Installation of landscaping.
g. To the greatest extent possible, parking of workers’ vehicles.

2. Damage to public roads caused by construction of applicant's project shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department at the applicant's expense prior to final building inspection. The owner shall post a bond to secure payment for damage to a city street caused by construction activity in connection with work authorized by the permit.

The Public Works Department may waive this requirement when the construction activity will not foreseeably damage the street.

3. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all work proposed to be constructed in the public right-of-way. This permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of any permits.

4. An applicant may not place, maintain or operate steel-tracked grading or construction equipment with cleats on a public or private street without placing protective material Item J.1
Packet Page 278
13 beneath the equipment to protect the surface of the street.

5. Trash, scrap and debris shall be stored in a container with a lid on the construction site.

6. No person shall place or maintain a container in the public right-of way without an Encroachment Permit.

7. No person shall place, install, or maintain a portable-sanitary facility on a construction site closer to the property line than the building setback line.

8. The City may temporarily prohibit or restrict stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles along a street abutting a construction project where necessary for public safety. The restriction does not apply until the City places a sign or marking at the site. The special restriction shall be limited to the duration of the project.

9. Upon issuance of any permits for the project, the City may request carpooling to a construction site.

10. The City may designate a truck route for ingress and egress from the property during the term of the building permit upon findings that:
a. The designation of the truck route will minimize the impact of the construction such as noise, dust, traffic safety hazards and potential damage to pavement on a residential street; and
b. Designation of the truck route will not unreasonably impair the contractor's access to the site or cause undue economic hardship.

11. The City shall require an applicant for a building or grading permit for a major improvement to rehabilitate the street pavement along the frontage of the property from the edge of the street to the center of the right-of-way.

12. When required for: (1) continuity of existing curb and gutter; (2) street drainage; or (3) to ensure structural support for the edge of the street pavement, the City shall require that an applicant for a building permit install appropriate roadway improvements to the satisfaction of the City’s Public Works Department.

13. At the time of building permit, the applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of OMC §15.32, “Building Permit Conditions;” as such conditions apply to "Major Improvements." The applicant may be required to improve the frontage along the project site. The City shall determine these improvements and the applicant shall be informed of these improvements prior to building permit issuance.

14. The City shall require that a street extension to the property meet the applicable city-road standard set forth in §15.32.180. The City may modify this standard based upon unique topography which makes current city standards impractical or impossible.

15. The City shall require, as a condition, of a building permit for a major improvement that the applicant widen the public or private street along the property frontage so that it either (1) meets current standards for pavement width; or (2) matches the width of the existing street in the vicinity of the property if widening to current standards is unreasonable. The City shall impose this condition upon finding that:
a. The existing street is so narrow that it creates a safety hazard for pedestrians and Item J.1
Packet Page 279
14 vehicles;
b. The existing street fronting the subject property is narrower than other sections of the street in the same vicinity; and
c. Increasing the width of the street is not an unreasonable burden given the topography of the area and the cost of the work.

Grading and Drainage Conditions

1. A grading permit is required for all proposed earthwork in excess of 50 cubic yards of cut or 200 cubic yards of fill. Excavation, grading, or construction of fills may be prohibited by the City Building Official during the months in which it finds that rainfall will likely preclude compliance with these requirements. As such, no grading shall be allowed from October 1 st through April 1st, unless adequate erosion control measures are in place. A grading plan and an erosion-control plan shall be approved by the Building Inspection Department prior to issuance of building permits if proposed earthwork exceeds 50 cubic yards. The erosion-control plan shall specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the following six categories:
a. Erosion control,
b. Run-on and run-off control,
c. Sediment control,
d. Active treatment system (as necessary),
e. Good site management, and
f. Non-stormwater management.

2. If the Building Official determines that the permittee has violated or failed to fully and adequately implement an approved erosion-control plan, no grading shall occur under the permit from October through April.

3. Approval of grading permits by the Building Inspection Department shall be made subject to the following appropriate conditions or reservations required to protect public health, safety, and general welfare:
a. Completion of the work within a period approved by the City Building Official, b. Cleaning of the area and planting in accordance with approved plans, c. Designation of the area in which work may be done,
d. Designation of the slope of excavation or filling, or the grade and elevation of excavation or filling,
e. Reasonable provisions for controlling excessive dust, f. Hours of operation,
g. Safety precautions to guide pedestrian and vehicular traffic, in around, and by Item J.1
Packet Page 280
15 the operation,
h. Posting of a good and sufficient bond to assure compliance with the conditions, and
i. Other conditions deemed necessary by the City Building Official and based on accepted engineering practices.

4. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits.

Attachments. The plan shall show all on-site and nearby off-site drainage details necessary to locate, delineate, illustrate, identify, justify and substantiate the proposed work, and the right and necessity of the applicant to perform the work, the adequacy of which shall be verified by the applicant's engineer.

Additional Information. The City may require soil investigation, tests of materials, environmental documents, engineering plans and investigations, technical reports and other permits as the enforcement officer considers necessary and proper.

Conditions of Approval. In approving the permit, the City may impose one or more conditions which are reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare, including but not limited to riparian habitat restoration under OMC §18.04, daylighting, stormwater runoff controls, pre-construction inspections and performance security.

5. The drainage-permit application shall include the written consent and waiver of liability given by each person having an interest in the property where work is to be performed (excluding a security interest) and who may be affected by it.

6. Upon a finding that the existing drainage improvements are inadequate or need repair, the City shall require an applicant for a building permit for a major improvement to make to make drainage improvements along the frontage.

7. The owner/applicant should consult the project geotechnical engineer to provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the construction of a pool.

8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any site work that will result in a land disturbance of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City/County Building Official that a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State Construction General Permit has been filed and submit a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to verify compliance with the City’s grading ordinance.

Watercourse Alteration Conditions

1. Each watercourse shall be maintained so that water will flow adequately and unimpeded through the watercourse. An existing watercourse shall be left unaltered unless (1) improvement is necessary to protect life, health, and property; or (2) riparian restoration is required under Title 18 of the OMC. Maintenance, repairs, and new construction shall be accomplished in an environmentally-sensitive manner as provided in Title 18 of the OMC.

2. A watercourse alteration permit, per §18.03 of the OMC, shall be obtained from the City prior to the issuance of any other permits. The following acts or situations shall require a drainage permit:

Item J.1
Packet Page 281
16 a. Impair, impede, redirect or otherwise affect the existing flow (permanent or intermittent) of stormwater or other water in a watercourse or allow on the property or cause or permit the obstruction of the watercourse;
b. Construct, alter or repair a watercourse;
c. Excavate, grade, or otherwise alter the surface of the land so as to affect the capacity of a watercourse;
d. Destroy or significantly alter vegetation at or near a watercourse, including without limitation cutting, clearing, grubbing, burning, removing, excavating or grading, except as is necessary to maintain or restore the hydraulic capacity of the watercourse or in compliance with riparian restoration requirements under Title 18 of the OMC;
e. Impair the use of an easement for drainage purposes; f. Install or construct a new structure or improve or expand an existing structure within a watercourse. The term structure shall include, but is not limited to, pipes, culverts, buildings, swimming pools, bridges, patios, paving, fences, retaining walls, poles and similar improvements.

3. The watercourse alteration permit application shall include the written consent and waiver of liability given by each person having an interest in the property where work is to be performed (excluding a security interest) and who may be affected by it.

4. The applicant shall apply for a permit through Bay Area Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for any proposed drainage modifications to be located within the creek setback. This application includes, but is not limited to, the Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers’ Section 404 permit, and the Clean Water Act Section 401A Permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. JARPA consolidates federal, state, and local permits and simplifies the permit process for applicants proposing any of the following activities:
a. Any work in, on or over a stream (perennial, season, or intermittent), and b. Projects that are not directly in or on the stream but may cause impacts (particularly in hillside areas).

5. The applicant shall obtain permits deemed necessary through JARPA prior to issuance of any City permits.

Stormwater Management and Discharge Control

1. The applicant for projects subject to the development runoff requirements in the City’s NPDES Permit (a “C.3. regulated project”) shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3. Guidebook (“C.3 Guidebook”). The SCP shall be submitted as part of the initial project submittal and shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any permits.

2. The following shall apply to C.3-regulated projects:

Item J.1
Packet Page 282
17 a. Projects that create between 10,000 square feet and 1-acre of impervious surface shall prepare and submit a SCP, including features and facilities to ensure runoff is treated before leaving the site and an evaluation of the feasibility of storage for later use. Excluded from this requirement are detached, singlefamily homes that are not part of a larger plan of development. b. Auto service facilities, gas stations, restaurants, and uncovered parking lots that create over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface shall prepare and submit a SCP, including features and facilities to ensure runoff is treated before leaving the site and an evaluation of the feasibility of storage for later use. c. Projects that create 1-acre or greater of impervious surface shall include in the SCP, documentation demonstrating compliance with hydromodofication management by selecting one of four flow-control compliance options in Appendix C of the C.3 Guidebook. Where required, design project features and facilities for hydrograph modification management (flow-control) as well as stormwater treatment.

3. Prior to issuance of permits for building, site improvements, or landscaping, the permit application shall be consistent with the applicant’s approved SCP and shall include drawings and specifications necessary to implement all measures in the approved SCP.

The permit application shall include a completed Construction Plan C.3 Checklist and a draft Operations and Maintenance Plan as described in the C.3 Guidebook.

4. Drawings submitted with the SCP and Grading-Permit Application (including structural, mechanical, architectural, grading, drainage, site, landscape, and other drawings) shall show drainage management areas as well as the details and methods of construction for pervious pavements, self-retaining areas, self-treating areas, areas draining to selfretaining areas, treatment and flow-control facilities, permanent source control BMPs, and other features that control stormwater flow and potential stormwater pollutants.

5. Prior to building permit final and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a final Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and execute any agreements identified in the SCP that pertain to the transfer of ownership and/or long-term maintenance of stormwater treatment or hydrograph modification BMPs (Operation and Maintenance Agreements, CC&Rs, etc).

6. Projects creating or replacing between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, including detached, single-family home projects, shall include one or more of the following:
a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse; b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas;
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios on to vegetated areas; d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots on to vegetated areas; e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces; or f. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.

Item J.1
Packet Page 283
18 7. The applicant shall submit the Project Data Form which is included in the December 1, 2012 Addendum to the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook.

MORAGA-ORINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CONDITIONS

1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant must submit the construction drawings to the Moraga-Orinda Fire District for approval.

Item J.1
Packet Page 284
19 EXHIBIT B – INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
Pursuant to the conditions of approval of DRA-2026-009, EDP-2026-006, EXC-2026-009 to legalize as-built modifications to a previously approved project, resulting in a constructed 4,789 adjusted square-foot (5,919 gross square-foot (including proposed 730 square-foot ADU)), three-story, single-family residence with an expanded elevated deck, at 42 Charles Hill Circle, APN 260-080-001 (hereafter “project”), Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City of Orinda, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, departments, boards and commissions (hereafter collectively “City”) from any claim, action or proceeding (hereafter collectively “proceeding”) brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City’s discretionary project approvals and/or any action relating to such project approvals, including actions taken to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, any damages awarded against the City, the City’s attorneys’ fees and cost of suit, the cost of preparing the administrative record, any award of opposing counsel’s attorneys’ fees or costs of suit, and any other liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding, whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. Applicant acknowledges that the City may elect to retain its own counsel to represent it in such proceeding and agrees to reimburse the City for associated attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. Applicant further agrees to indemnify the City for all costs, attorneys’ fees, and damages, which the City incurs in enforcing this indemnification agreement.

Notification. In the event any such proceeding is brought, City shall promptly notify the Applicant of the proceeding, and City shall coordinate with Applicant regarding defense of the proceeding.

Amendment. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing signed by the parties.

Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California.

Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of each party and each party’s employees, agents, successors and assigns.

Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date upon which all of the signatories have signed the Agreement.

Execution in Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and all executed copies are duplicate originals, equally admissible in evidence.

Authorization. Each signatory to this Agreement represents that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement so as to bind the Parties on whose behalf he or she is a signatory.

Item J.1
Packet Page 285
Resolution 63-26
20 Project Identification:

DRA-2026-009, EDP-2026-006, EXC-2026-009
42 Charles Hill Circle (APN 260-080-001)
Date: ___________________ By: ______________________
Its: Property Owner(s)

Date: ___________________ City of Orinda:

By: _____________________________f
Its: City Manager
Attest:

By: _____________________________
Its: City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

By: _____________________________
Its: City Attorney
1852321.1
Item J.1
Packet Page 286
Item J.1
Packet Page 287
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Edward Patmont <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 9:23 AM
Subject: 42 Charles Hill Circle
To: Edward Patmont <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Jelinek,
I am writing because I remain troubled by your past vote denying approval of my project. It seemed to me your mind was made up before I even had a chance to speak that evening.

The letter written by Mr. Ogle, whose property is roughly a half mile away, is full of lies. As I recall, you referred to that letter and seemed to be profoundly influenced by it. This letter arrived roughly two hours before the hearing, leaving me little opportunity to respond. I have since responded, see the attached letter to him below. I have also attached a letter from the neighbor directly downhill of the house, along with signatures from neighbors expressing support for the home as constructed; more signatures are forthcoming.

Unfortunately you never gave me an opportunity to provide these before quickly casting me aside with your vote. I have also attached several photos of the completed building (along with a photo of a house close by showing you how large some houses are in the area).

I am having difficulty understanding why you sent this matter to the City Council instead of working with me on a proper resolution. Isn't the Planning Commission a more appropriate venue than the City Council for these types of matters? Why not work with me on a resolution instead of flatly denying it? I made MINOR changes to the house plans as originally submitted, nothing more. It is a beautiful house that I have invested significant time and money in designing and constructing. We have received numerous compliments from virtually all the surrounding neighbors.

Homes on steep lots such as this are incredibly challenging, often requiring modifications to get things right. Indeed, a home down the street has been under construction for the past five years, causing untold frustration for adjacent neighbors. I have always strived to complete construction operations quickly to reduce inconvenience to surrounding neighbors.

Unfortunately the City of Orinda does not have a way to 'modify' an existing design review approval, unlike most other cities. I was specifically told that 'minor' changes could be addressed at the end of the project, and that is how I proceeded. The thought of filing a brand new application for minor changes never occurred to me as I have never done that in more than forty years in business. If you recall, during the hearing, Commissioner Hubner Item J.1
Packet Page 288
expressed frustration expecting to see story poles (instead of a completed house) when he visited the site. I had no control over that. When such things occur, the process is deeply flawed. Furthermore, filing a completely new application for minor construction changes is extremely burdensome for a small company like ours. I would have had to stop all construction for weeks, if not months. It is virtually impossible to run a small business like that, we only handle one project at a time.

I only ask for a simple explanation of why you voted as you did. This seems to be a textbook example of why building housing in the Bay Area is so difficult. Forcing this expensive and time consuming process, with no end in sight, for some minor changes is clearly wrong and your vote significantly contributed to it.

Respectfully submitted,
Edward Patmont
---
Edward Patmont
925-381-2950
Hillside Homes Group, Inc.
---
Item J.1
Packet Page 289
Re: 42 Charles Hill Circle
Dear Commissioner Hubner,
I am writing because I remain troubled by your past vote denying approval of my project. It seemed to me your mind was made up before I even had a chance to speak that evening.

The letter written by Mr. Ogle, whose property is roughly a half mile away, is full of lies. As I recall, you seemed influenced by it. This letter arrived roughly two hours before the hearing, leaving me little opportunity to respond. I have since responded; please see the attached letter to him below. I have also attached a letter from the neighbor directly downhill of the house, along with signatures from neighbors expressing support for the home as constructed; more signatures are forthcoming. Unfortunately, you never gave me an opportunity to provide these before quickly casting me aside with your vote. I have also attached several photos of the completed building, along with a photo of a house close by showing you how large some houses are in the area.

I am having difficulty understanding why you sent this matter to the City Council instead of working with me on a proper resolution. Isn't the Planning Commission a more appropriate venue than the City Council for these types of matters? Why not work with me on a resolution instead of flatly denying it? I made minor changes to the house plans as originally submitted, nothing more. It is a beautiful house that I have invested significant time and money in designing and constructing. We have received numerous compliments from virtually all the surrounding neighbors.

Unfortunately, the City of Orinda does not have a way to "modify" an existing design review approval, unlike most other cities. I was specifically told that "minor" changes could be addressed at the end of the project, and that is how I proceeded. The thought of filing a brand new application for minor changes never occurred to me, as I have never done that in more than forty years in business. Before I had a chance to speak, you expressed frustration expecting to see story poles instead of a completed house when you visited the site. I had no control over that. When such things occur, the process is deeply flawed.

Furthermore, filing a completely new application for minor construction changes is Item J.1
Packet Page 290
extremely burdensome for a small company like ours. I would have had to stop all construction for weeks, if not months. It is virtually impossible to run a small business like that; we only handle one project at a time.

I only ask for a simple explanation of why you voted as you did. This seems to be a textbook example of why building housing in the Bay Area is so difficult. Forcing this expensive and time-consuming process, with no end in sight, for some minor changes is clearly wrong, and your vote significantly contributed to it.

Respectfully submitted,
Edward Patmont
---
Edward Patmont
925-381-2950
Hillside Homes Group, Inc.

Item J.1
Packet Page 291

Mr. Nathan Ogle
12 Charles Hill Circle,
Orinda, CA 94563
Dear Mr. Ogle,
I received your letter to the Orinda Planning Commission dated May 26, 2026. This letter contains numerous factual errors:

MISSTATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. Edward Patmont has been a continually licensed architect (#15458) in the state of CA since March 5th,1985. That's more than 40 years as a licensed architect. This license expired on March 31, 2025. All architectural work on the project was completed well before the expiration date. The city approved the plans on 10/6/2023, and the county issued the building permit on 9/25/24.

2. Hillside Homes Group Inc. has been a continually licensed General Contractor (#678869) in the state of CA since 1990. This license expired on 10/31/2025. Hillside Homes Group Inc., as general contractor, completed all it's contracted work before the expiration date. Biltmore Homes LLC, the property owner, hired licensed subcontractors to perform the remaining work on the project. For your information, both Hillside Homes Group Inc. and Biltmore Homes LLC are owned by me and my wife, an accomplished designer in her own right. This project is the last one we will do as active designers and builders, therefore the 2 licenses are no longer required. If you had bothered to reach out to me, I could have explained that to you.

Item J.1
Packet Page 292

3. Your statement that "There is an extreme lack of candor in all the dealings" is factually incorrect and extremely damaging given the context in which you delivered it.

4. The minor changes we are seeking are just that: minor. Claiming they should be denied "to avoid the complete lack of privacy of downhill neighbors" is ridiculous and mean-spirited, particularly from someone who should know better. All adjacent houses are mostly hidden from view. The immediate downhill neighbor's house is literally over 200 feet away, with dozens of trees in between. Where exactly is the lack of privacy?

5. Mature trees on all sides of the property collectively provide an abundance of screening from adjacent neighbors. Indeed, the two closest houses are nearly 100% screened from view. Additionally, we planted 15 oak trees that will provide more screening in the coming years.

6. Regarding work hours, yes, subcontractors occasionally arrived a little early on Saturdays, but these instances were infrequent. I'm aware of only one Sunday when the stucco contractor worked a couple of hours before being told to leave.

7. Furthermore, the claim that I, or anyone else, used language "to the point of threatening behavior towards neighbors have caused significant nuisance in the neighborhood" is completely false and cannot go unchallenged. Numerous close neighbors have told us how much they appreciated our work - and particularly the workers on site - and I have their signatures to prove it.

Item J.1
Packet Page 293

8. Your final claim that "there is also a problem with their abuse and cutting of mature trees on shared borders" is disingenuous and shows your complete disregard for the facts. Exactly one tree, a mature bay tree, sits on the shared border with our neighbor to the south. I have discussed this with the neighbor for the past year, asking permission to trim the top a small amount because it blocks Mt. Diablo, which is visible from portions of our property. We believe we have the right to do so, however, we have not touched this tree because our neighbor wants to keep it uncut. I respect my neighbor's opinion on this; consequently, we have left it alone.

If you question any of the above, please reach out, I'm more than willing to discuss. Lacking any discussion I demand an immediate retraction of your letter to the Planning Commission. Furthermore, I insist on an apology because you attempted to damage my reputation for no justifiable reason. Your failure to retract and apologize will result in my filing complaints to both the CA Board of Architects and the American Institute of Architects. Again, if you question any of the facts presented above, I encourage you to reach out to discuss them, I'm more than willing to do so.

I have spent the past 45 years designing and building beautiful homes, often on extremely diƯicult sites such as this. My wife and I are close to retiring after a long career. It's sad to be dealing with your lies after so many successful projects, including 3 others in Orinda (46 Crestview Drive, 38 Los Dedos and 210 Canon Drive).

Edward Patmont
President
Item J.1
Packet Page 294
Item J.1
Packet Page 295
Item J.1
Packet Page 296
Item J.1
Packet Page 297
Item J.1
Packet Page 298
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 1 of 18 5.26.2026 Wednesday, May 26, 2026

CITY OF ORINDA

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Armstrong called the Regular Meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Robert Hubner, Marian Jelinek, Michael Merola, Morgan Oblinsky, Vice-Chair Molly DoctorsRajashekhar and Chair Kumani Armstrong COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kevin Schmidt
B. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Hubner and seconded by Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (6-1; Schmidt absent) vote.

C. PUBLIC FORUM
Chair Armstrong opened the floor to any member of the public wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda, and there were no speakers.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Chair Armstrong asked if there were any items for removal and there were none.

D1. Planning Commission Minutes Approval
Recommendation:

Approve Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2026
MOTION by Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar and seconded by Commissioner Merola to approve the Consent Calendar Item D1. Commissioner Hubner and Oblinsky abstained due to absence. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-2-1; Schmidt absent) vote.

Ayes: Armstong, Doctors-Rajashekhar, Jelinek, and Merola Noes: None
Abstain: Hubner and Oblinsky

Absent: Schmidt
Item J.1
Packet Page 299
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 2 of 18 5.26.2026 E. POLICY MATTERS:

E1. 10 Irwin Way, Vista Verde Project Update
Planning Director Lashun Cross presented the background information for the Vista Verde project that was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on July 12, 2022, and the City Council approved this project on August 16, 2022. The Vista Verde project is a proposed 5-story building with 52 units. The current project construction changes were the unit count went from 52 to 53, the parking spaces changed from 32 spaces to 33, the balconies were 4,339 square feet down to 3,912 square feet, and 12 protected trees to be removed.

She explained that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA and included analyses of air quality and impacts to sensitive receptors, such as schools, hospitals, and elderly populations. She noted that while specific facilities may not have been identified by name, the required environmental analyses were completed and documented in the MND. She added copies of the MND were made available for public review. Ms. Cross also addressed concerns regarding noise, noting that the June 2022 MND analyzed project-related noise impacts and found them to be less than significant. She added air quality impacts were identified as significant but could be reduced through mitigation measures.

Ms. Cross stated that the City complied with the noticing requirements of California Government Code Section 65090 and the required notification included mailed notice to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site, publication in a newspaper, and posting of notices at the project site. She noted that the State code requires notice to property owners, not tenants, and concluded that the City met all required noticing obligations for the application. Staff explained that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was properly filed with Contra Costa County following City Council approval, in accordance with CEQA requirements and noted that the filing reduced the statute of limitations for legal challenges from 180 days to 35 days however, the filing was completed in compliance with applicable law.

Ms. Cross explained that pursuant to Resolution 41-22, minor modifications to the approved plans may be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, while major modifications require City Council approval. She noted that changes do not return to the Planning Commission. Ms. Cross stated that the applicant's recent plan revisions included an additional wall connecting to the existing building and changes to the parking spaces and the Interim Planning Director determined that the change was a minor modification because the wall is less than four feet in height and does not require Discretionary review. As a result, the modifications did not require additional public notice or review by the Planning Commission or City Council therefore, notification was not required.

Ms. Cross stated that, after consulting with legal counsel and reviewing the project record, she found no procedural or regulatory errors in the City's processing of the application. She explained that the project has been approved, all applicable statutes of limitations for Item J.1
Packet Page 300
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 3 of 18 5.26.2026 challenging the approval have expired, and no further action is required by the Planning Department. She noted that any remaining disputes would be considered civil matters outside the City's jurisdiction. She added that staff had discussed potential improvements to the public notification process, including encouraging applicants to notify tenants as a courtesy and increasing the size of posted public notices to improve visibility.

Chair Armstrong disclosed that he personally knows Tani Martinez and Nate Burns, as well as several individuals who have children attending TOPS. He stated that these relationships are casual friendships and disclosed them for the record as potential ex parte contacts.

Commissioner Jelinek disclosed that his daughter previously attended and graduated from TOPS Preschool. She noted that while his family is no longer actively involved with the school, they were members of the school community.

Commissioner Hubner disclosed that, to the best of his knowledge, he has no relationship or affiliation with TOPS Preschool, its attendees, or members of the organization.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar stated that to the best of her knowledge, she also has no relationship or affiliation with TOPS Preschool or its attendees or members.

Commissioner Merola stated that to the best of his knowledge, he also has no relationship or affiliation with TOPS Preschool or its attendees or members.

Commissioner Oblinsky disclosed that his first child previously attended TOPS Preschool and has many friends whose children currently attend the school.

Commissioner Jelinek requested to revisit the slide showing changes to the application. She asked about the significance of the increase from 5 to 12 trees and whether such a change had been reviewed by the City Council. She noted that in past cases, tree removal permits and similar modifications were sometimes returned to the Planning Commission and asked whether any recent changes in law or procedure affected that process.

Ms. Cross responded that the change from 5 to 12 trees was included as part of the City Council’s approval and the applicant likely requested the change during that meeting.

Commissioner Jelinek stated that when the project previously came before the Planning Commission, she did not recall discussion of impacts to the church as the primary property owner or to surrounding properties. She noted that the prior review appeared to focus primarily on building aesthetics and that no impacts to the church property or adjacent uses were identified at that time.

Ms. Cross stated that she was aware of comments submitted by neighboring residents regarding the location of the project, including concerns related to views and trees. Ms.

Cross further explained that she had only highlighted two aspects of the Mitigated Negative Declaration during her remarks, but the document also includes an analysis of constructionrelated and other potential project impacts.

Item J.1
Packet Page 301
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 4 of 18 5.26.2026 Commissioner Jelinek asked whether any direct construction impacts to the church or surrounding properties had been identified or discussed when the Planning Commission made its original recommendation. She specifically inquired whether impacts such as road closures or other construction-related disruptions had been highlighted during the original Planning Commission hearing.

Ms. Cross responded that she had not seen any discussion of direct construction impacts to the church or surrounding properties and had reviewed an addendum, which addressed traffic and pedestrian-related impacts.

Commissioner Merola thanked staff for the presentation, stating that it was helpful and addressed the information the Commission had requested at the previous meeting. He then asked about the process for identifying and disclosing the types of tenants occupying a project site and inquired whether the Planning Commission is required to be informed when a site contains a school or another unique use, rather than solely residential uses. He further asked whether the presence of a school had been disclosed during the review of this project, noting his understanding that the school was not mentioned in the project documents.

Ms. Cross responded in this particular case, the Mitigated Negative Declaration did not specifically mention any schools, including Holden or TOPS, despite its proximity to the project site. She explained that the document instead evaluates potential impacts to sensitive receptors, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She stated that sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, children, and playgrounds, as defined by the State, and that the environmental analysis considers potential impacts to those receptors.

Commissioner Merola asked whether the presence of a school within the vicinity of a proposed project would affect the Planning Department’s review or analysis of an application. He inquired whether a project’s potential impact on a nearby school would result in any changes to the Department’s assessment process.

Ms. Cross explained that, when a project is not exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the next step is typically the preparation of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. She stated that, in this case, the initial review determined that the project could have potential impacts requiring further analysis, and therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Ms. Cross further noted that if a project qualifies for a CEQA exemption, nearby schools may not be specifically identified or discussed in the review documents unless staff has particular knowledge of the area or determines that such information is relevant to the project analysis.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked whether the 35-day CEQA review period had been accelerated, noting that a 180-day review period had also been referenced.

Item J.1
Packet Page 302
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 5 of 18 5.26.2026 Ms. Cross explained that if the required notice is not filed within the appropriate timeframe after a City Council decision, the challenge period is 180 days. However, if the filing is completed on time with the Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office, the challenge period is reduced to 35 days.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked whether the use of a Negative Declaration, as opposed to a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), affects the CEQA review process.

Ms. Cross responded there is no difference in those filling timing and explained that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) typically has a 45- to 60-day public review period, a Negative Declaration has a period of approximately 20 days. She noted that the timeline for filing a legal challenge does not change once the document is filed.

Commissioner Jelinek asked when the tree removal was brought back to City Council, was a notice was required to be provided to the property owners.

Ms. Cross responded that each hearing requires separate public notice and explained when an item moves from one hearing body to another, a notice must be provided again in accordance with legal requirements. She noted that noticing includes publication in a newspaper, on-site posting, posting at public locations, and notification to property owners within a 300-foot radius.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked for clarification on whether the required noticing also includes the CEQA public comment period, particularly the filing and publication process through Contra Costa County.

Ms. Cross responded that the noticing described was the CEQA notice and clarified the public hearing notice was not shown but uses the same 300-foot radius mailing list. She explained that the same list of recipients is used to mail out the public hearing notice.

Chair Armstrong asked for clarification regarding the open space for the private balconies, noting that the square footage appeared to have decreased while the overall project square footage increased.

Ms. Cross responded that she did not know why the project applicant chose to add approximately 2,000 square feet per floor rather than reducing balcony and noted this could have been for financial reasons but stated that the specific rationale was not provided. She further explained that reducing balcony area, which is considered open space, while increasing building square footage was a design decision made by the applicant.

Commissioner Jelinek asked how situations are typically handled when significant construction impacts, such as road closures or utility relocations, are not disclosed during the original Planning Commission review but are later identified.

Ms. Cross responded that the Mitigated Negative Declaration includes enforceable mitigation measures addressing construction impacts, including fugitive dust, particulate Item J.1
Packet Page 303
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 6 of 18 5.26.2026 matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants, which are regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Commissioner Jelinek asked whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration also considers impacts such as road closures that could physically limit access to nearby businesses for 30 days.

Ms. Cross replied it was not, but we can be notified of the need of a road closure and ensuring that notice occurs for that.

Commissioner Hubner asked whether standard conditions of approval typically address construction impacts such as traffic control and maintaining access during construction, including requirements like flaggers and other mitigation measures.

Ms. Cross responded that the understanding was correct and explained that construction management plans address these issues, including scheduling of road openings and closures. She further explained are implemented as part of the conditions of approval and stated that both the conditions of approval and mitigation measures are included in the approved project resolution.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar asked for clarification on enforcement of construction mitigation measures included in the conditions of approval and inquired whether concerns about discrepancies between approved plans and actual field conditions fall under Planning Commission authority or Code Enforcement responsibility.

Ms. Cross responded that Code Enforcement is responsible for addressing issues where construction does not align with approved plans and explained that once a project is approved, the Planning Department’s role is to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures.

Chair Armstrong opened the floor for public comment. A summary of the public comments (not verbatim) are as follows:

Lewis Lopez stated that the intent was to understand the timeline following the City Council approval in August 2022. He noted that Planning Department staff indicated the permit had been extended once and that the project later returned to the Planning Commission in July 2025. He requested confirmation of whether proper public notice was provided for that hearing, stating that no notice of a second hearing was received by TOPS.

He asked about Tree 912, a redwood previously identified in the arborist report as not being removed. He stated that during a recent walkthrough, it was indicated that a retaining wall may now impact the tree and that it could be removed. He requested clarification on when this change was made to the permit and whether it was properly reviewed.

Mr. Lopez asked for clarification regarding the retaining wall proposed within the outdoor classroom and inquired whether the wall was included in the original permit. He stated that it Item J.1
Packet Page 304
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 7 of 18 5.26.2026 remains unclear when and how the changes occurred and asked whether such revisions require additional review given the time elapsed since the original approval.

He stated that fire department concerns regarding site access had been raised and noted he had not reviewed the underlying fire department correspondence. He commented that a southern Ramp alternative could improve fire access and reduce vehicle trips near the preschool entrance. He also stated that key stakeholders, including TOPS parents and staff, were not meaningfully included in the process and should have been engaged earlier.

Heather Barrett, a current TOPS parent and former TOPS student, and clarified that her concern is not with the inclusion of affordable senior housing, which she supports, but with the project’s design and approval process and the limited consideration given to the adjacent active preschool.

Ms. Barrett expressed concern that TOPS Preschool, one of the oldest organizations in Orinda had not been sufficiently considered in the project design and approval process and stated that the preschool’s needs appeared to have been overlooked despite its proximity to the project site. She further noted concerns that portions of the approved plans may impact the preschool’s outdoor classroom and that construction would occur in close proximity to areas used daily by young children. She requested clarification on the proximity and design decisions related to the project’s interface with the preschool site.

She raised concerns about privacy and safety during TOPS drop-off and pickup and questioned construction timing to reduce conflicts with school operations. She stated that TOPS was not adequately consulted and that the project does not sufficiently account for impacts to the preschool. She urged the City and related bodies to reconsider the project and work collaboratively to balance housing goals with protection of TOPS.

Brooke Goff, a teacher at TOPS, expressed concerns about the proposed construction adjacent to the nearly 100-year-old preschool and stated the project was not communicated to the school in a timely manner and would significantly impact students, staff, and families.

He raised concerns regarding safety, privacy, and overall well-being due to construction occurring along the property line where young children ages 2 to 5. He also noted potential risks from construction traffic near the school and the loss of teacher parking, which she stated would further affect staff.

He stated that the proposed development could negatively impact TOPS’ outdoor classroom environment, which is a core part of its play-based early childhood program. He expressed concern that increased noise, disruption, reduced privacy, and safety issues could affect enrollment and the school community. He also raised concerns the preschool community may have been overlooked in the planning process and referenced concerns about the use of the site and its impacts on TOPS children, families, and educators.

Renee Linton, parent of a 3-year-old attending TOPS, stated she supports affordable housing and requested that the City ensure the needs of preschool children are protected as the project moves forward. She noted that TOPS serves children as young as two and that Item J.1
Packet Page 305
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 8 of 18 5.26.2026 the project is located near classrooms and outdoor play areas. She raised concerns about noise, construction traffic during drop-off and pickup, privacy, safety, and enforcement of mitigation measures. She also expressed concern that portions of the project could affect existing playground areas used by TOPS and referenced an ongoing dispute regarding leased and used space. She requested that the City take steps to avoid permanent changes to those areas until the dispute is resolved.

Harmony Anderson, a parent of two TOPS students, stated that she supports new housing but is concerned about ensuring that development does not unintentionally impact longstanding community institutions such as TOPS. She noted concerns about construction impacts adjacent to a preschool serving children ages 2 to 5, including noise, dust, safety, disruption, and potential effects on enrollment and long-term viability. She asked how the City will establish stronger standards for engagement with schools, families, and community institutions in future development processes.

Tawny Martinez stated that, from a planning perspective, a key concern is that the proximity of TOPS Preschool to the project site, including its classrooms and outdoor play areas, was not adequately accounted for in the review process. She noted concerns that TOPS may not have been fully included in impact assessments and referenced the absence of view studies from the preschool play yard, while similar studies were conducted for neighboring properties.

She further expressed concern that elements of the project, including retaining walls, sidewalks, and other permanent improvements, appear to have moved closer to TOPS since the original 2022 approval. She stated that some proposed improvements may affect areas currently leased and used by the preschool, raising concerns about process, notice, and safety.

Sean Barnheimer, a current TOPS parent, stated that TOPS Preschool is not a typical adjacent tenant because it serves children as young as two years old. He expressed concern that impacts such as air quality and noise may affect young children more significantly than the general population and should be evaluated accordingly. He stated his concerns of a sensitive childcare facility located adjacent to the construction site were not adequately considered in the evaluation process.

He expressed concern about a proposed wall that he stated may encroach into the TOPS outdoor playground area. He noted that, while it was described as a 4-foot wall, he was concerned about its impact on young children using the space. He stated that he did not believe two years of construction activity adjacent to an outdoor preschool play area would have no impact on the health, and safety of children. He requested consideration of a preschool-specific construction impact mitigation plan or child safety mitigation plan tailored to the needs of young children.

Tina Arantes, a current TOPS parent, expressed concern that construction impacts could affect both indoor and outdoor learning over the next two years. She requested additional consideration before construction begins and changes are implemented. She stated support Item J.1
Packet Page 306
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 9 of 18 5.26.2026 for affordable housing and expressed a desire to balance both goals while minimizing impacts to TOPS.

Annie Gordon, a parent of a 3-year-old at TOPS, requested additional safety measures for vulnerable populations located near the proposed project site, including young children and elderly residents. She referenced proposed air quality monitoring and notification measures and stated concerns about the lack of formal written commitments, including previously mentioned notice provisions. She requested that mitigation measures be clearly documented in writing, including specific thresholds for air quality and noise, and how those standards would be enforced during construction.

She asked how long children may be exposed to elevated levels of contaminants or noise during construction, and whether TOPS would be notified if conditions remain near threshold levels for extended periods. She expressed concern about ongoing exposure during the preschool’s outdoor-based program.

Hearing none and seeing none, the floor is now closed.

Commissioner Jelinek asked if the Commission can respond. Chair Armstrong no, it’s not an action item, and for discussion only. Commissioner Jelinek asked if a motion for additional action. Ms. Cross replied this is a discussion and there's no decision to be made.

Ms. Cross explained that, after consulting with legal counsel, the Planning Department has no enforcement role at this stage because the project has already been approved. She stated that project files are public and available for review by any member of the public.

She further explained that while she may make recommendations or courtesy communications to the applicant, she does not have authority to require additional measures such as air monitoring or air purification systems once a project is approved.

Commissioner Jelinek asked if there have been fundamental changes since the 2022 approval such as information about TOPS not being included in the original review there may be grounds to revisit the decision and asked there is an opportunity to work with the developer to incorporate additional conditions that could help mitigate impacts that may not have been fully addressed in the original approval.

Ms. Cross responded that the applicant is Victoria Smith, the project director, and stated that the entitlement process has been completed. She explained that the Planning Department does not have leverage at this stage and can only provide courtesy communication.

Chair Armstrong asked whether there may still be an opportunity for additional public comment or recourse at the City Council.

Ms. Cross responded that there is an opportunity for public comment at City Council, including participation during public forum. She stated that her role is limited at this stage because the entitlement process is closed. She explained that while she may relay concerns Item J.1
Packet Page 307
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 10 of 18 5.26.2026 to the developer, she does not have authority to add or modify project conditions. She noted that any further consideration of changes would need to occur through the City Council.

Ms. Cross stated that, after discussion with the City Attorney and City Manager, it was determined the matter is civil in nature. She explained that the construction management plan has not yet been reviewed but is required to be submitted and will outline site operations, including access and closures. She further stated that construction hours and mitigation measures are set by the approved conditions and cannot be modified at this stage. She explained that her role is to ensure compliance with the existing conditions and mitigation measures, rather than adding new requirements.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked whether there is a time limit on the use permit for initiating construction.

Ms. Cross explained that the project has a two-year window to submit for a building permit, based on the City’s standard entitlement expiration process and added that she had recently been informed that the project plans are currently under review by Contra Costa County.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked whether the construction management plan is included in the current review process or still needs to be filed, and whether it must be approved prior to the start of construction. Ms. Cross replied yes, that must be approved before it starts.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked whether it is part of that package that's being reviewed by Contra Costa. Ms. Cross responded that the construction management plan is not part of the current review because it falls under her responsibility as part of enforcing the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked how much time remains between the present and the anticipated start of construction. Ms. Cross responded that there is no set timeframe for the start of construction. She explained that construction may begin whenever the applicant returns with final, approved plans and indicates they are ready to proceed.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar acknowledged the concerns raised by speakers and stated that, based on staff’s assessment, the matter is outside the Planning Commission’s purview.

She noted that while she was not on the Commission at the time of the original approval, she understands the project was previously reviewed and approved.

She explained that the Planning Commission’s role is limited at this stage, but identified other avenues for public engagement, including the City Council public comment process.

She also noted that certain issues related to leased property areas may be civil matters between the parties involved and outside of governmental jurisdiction.

Item J.1
Packet Page 308
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 11 of 18 5.26.2026 F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: No report.

G. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS:

G1. 42 Charles Hill Circle – Design Review, Elevated Deck Permit, and Exception Permit (DRA-2026-009, EDP-2026-006, EXC-2026- 009)The project includes modifications from previously approved applicati ons (DRA-2022-022, EDP-2022 010, EXC-2022-017, approved by PC-SOA2023- 002). Modifications include expanded deck, height increase, increase in the number of floors, and multiple door/window changes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt proposed Statement of Official Action approving Design Review, Elevated Deck Permit, and Exception Permit (DRA-2026-009, EDP-2026-006, EXC-2026-009) for 42 Charles Hill Circle, APN 260-080-001, to legalize the 4,789 adjusted square-foot, three-story, single-family residence with a 750 square-foot elevated deck, subject to the conditions of approval included in the Proposed Statement of Official Action PCSOA-2026-002.

Chair Armstrong introduced the project and asked about any ex parte communications.

Commissioners Doctors-Rajashekhar, Hubner, Jelinek, Merola, Oblinsky and Armstrong visited the site and spoke to no one.

Associate Planner Celina Palmer presented the project which includes a request for Design Review, Special Design Review an Elevated Deck, and Exception Permits to legalize a constructed , 4,789 adjusted square-foot (5,919 gross square-foot including proposed 730 square-foot ADU), three-story, single-family residence on a 26,000 square-foot lot within the RL-40 District.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar raised concerns regarding the project plans, noting that the architect of record is listed as a corporation rather than an individual, which she stated may be inappropriate. She further observed that the only licensed individual associated with the firm appeared to have an expired architect’s license at the time of preparation and submittal of the plans. She stated that these issues raised questions about the validity and appropriateness of proceeding with discussion of the application as submitted.

Ms. Palmer responded that there are no current restrictions on who may serve as the applicant for a discretionary permit and added that this may be being confused with requirements under SB9 lot split.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar clarified that her concern was about the project plans, not the applicant. She questioned whether the listed architect can be a corporation rather than an individual and raised concerns about the licensing status of the associated professional at the time the plans were prepared. She suggested continuing the item to allow staff to review these issues before proceeding.

Item J.1
Packet Page 309
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 12 of 18 5.26.2026 Ms. Cross responded that the issue would not necessarily prevent the Planning Department from moving forward with review of the project and explained that questions regarding the validity of licensing could arise later during the building permit stage with county. She further noted that, although the project has a two-year period to proceed to building permit issuance, the applicant could address any licensing issues during that timeframe. She stated that the code does not prohibit processing the application based on these concerns.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar asked for clarification on the current status of the project and whether Contra Costa County has issued a building permit for the structure at any point.

Ms. Palmer replied yes, on September 25th, 2024, Contra Costa County issued the building permit for the approved project.

Commissioner Hubner referenced the presentation showing a comparison between the earlier approved plans and the current submittal with redline changes. He further noted that upon visiting the site, he observed that construction had already been built consistent with the revised drawings and expressed concern that the project appeared to have proceeded based on unapproved revisions and questioned what remedies or actions the City may have available in response to work that may not align with the original approval.

Commissioner Jelinek expressed concern that the project, as presented, appeared significantly different from the plan originally approved in 2023 and noted that the size and scope of the residence were substantial and that the current built condition reflected major changes from what was previously approved. She stated that she did not support approving the project in its current form and expressed concern about setting a precedent for substantial deviations from approved plans.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar stated that, based on her site visit and review of the project, she had concerns about finding grounds for approval. She noted that the public notice sign did not appear to be properly posted during her visit and expressed her opinion that the structure does not comply with the intent of the applicable requirements and substantially increases the degree of the existing nonconformity.

Commissioner Merola asked staff to explain the basis for making a recommendation on a project application and inquired whether a recommendation is based solely on compliance with applicable standards and requirements, or whether staff also considers whether the project is generally consistent with the character and expectations of the City of Orinda.

Ms. Cross responded that staff evaluates whether the required findings can be made and, if so, presents a recommendation to the Planning Commission. She emphasized that the recommendation is advisory in nature and is based on an objective assessment of the applicable findings.

Chair Armstrong stated that he found the situation unusual because the house had already been constructed and expressed concern that the Commission was being asked to approve Item J.1
Packet Page 310
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 13 of 18 5.26.2026 or ratify a project that may not have been built in accordance with the original approved plans.

Commissioner Merola asked what actions would follow if the application is not approved and what options would be available to the applicant. Ms. Cross responded that if the application is denied, the applicant has two options, revise the project to conform to the originally approved plans or appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council.

Commissioner Hubner asked whether the city has any recourse and inquired whether there are any enforcement measures, penalties, or other remedies available when a project is constructed differently from what was approved.

Ms. Cross responded that the City of Orinda does not have a formal modification process for approved applications and explained that changes are processed as a new application rather than a modification.

Chair Armstrong asked how the project was able to advance to construction despite appearing not to conform to the originally approved plans and questioned whether the issue arose during the county building permit process and expressed concern that substantial changes occurred without the Planning Commission being aware of them.

Ms. Palmer explained that the city does not conduct ongoing planning reviews during construction instead, staff performs a final inspection to verify that the completed project matches the approved plans. She explained during the final inspection staff identified significant changes from the approved plans and informed the applicant that the project would need to return for review. She added that, depending on the type of project, the building department may conduct inspections during construction, but such reviews may not have been required in this case.

Commissioner Hubner questioned whether the County building department, which issues building permits, has any obligation to inform the City when plan changes are approved. He stated that construction should not proceed without an approved set of plans and suggested that the permitting process must have included the changes observed in the built structure.

Ms. Palmer explained that the County issued the building permit based on the previously approved plans and that changes were made during construction, but those changes were not reviewed or approved by the County. She added that the applicant would need to return to the County to update the plans, but only after receiving approval from the City.

Commissioner Jelinek asked what the process would be at the city level to address situations where a project is constructed differently than approved and referenced other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, and noted that significant fines may be imposed for similar issues.

Item J.1
Packet Page 311
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 14 of 18 5.26.2026 Ms. Cross responded that Contra Costa County also imposes penalties for similar situations.

She added that she has advocated for updates to the City’s master fee schedule, but noted that doing so would require a nexus study to support any changes.

Ms. Palmer added that, while any new fees or penalties would require a nexus study, establishing a formal modification process would also likely require significant zoning text amendments.

Chair Armstrong invited applicant, Edward Patmont to speak.

Chair Armstrong opened the floor for public comment and there were none.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar stated that changes such as doors and windows are material and not minor revisions and asked for clarification on how the built project ended up differing from the submitted and approved plans.

Edward Patmont stated there is a disconnect between City design review approval and County permitting, and that most of his interactions have been with the County. He said inspections occurred frequently during construction. He explained that he believed the changes made were minor and did not significantly alter the approved project, noting that the structure is not larger and that lower-level space was left unfinished for potential future ADU use. He added that he did not believe the changes were substantial.

Chair Armstrong closed the floor is closed and will bring this item up to the Commission for discussion.

Commissioner Hubner acknowledged that some changes, such as minor window adjustments, were relatively minor in nature. However, he expressed concern about more significant modifications, including converting mechanical space into living space, and questioned why those changes did not trigger additional review or clarification during the approval process. He stated that he was having difficulty supporting the staff recommendation.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked what the appropriate course of action would have been in coordination with Contra Costa County during the building permit process, given the current code. He requested clarification on what the correct procedural steps should have been in this situation.

Ms. Palmer explained that this is a somewhat unique situation and noted that in other projects, the County has issued building permits and later identified minor changes, sending applicants back to the City for restamping.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked whether staff has reviewed any documentation of correspondence between the applicant and Contra Costa County related to the project. Ms.

Palmer responded that she has not reviewed any documentation beyond the County’s issuance in September 2024 but stated she could go back and review the record.

Item J.1
Packet Page 312
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 15 of 18 5.26.2026 Commissioner Oblinsky stated that if the City’s system is not set up to effectively manage this type of situation, he could understand the applicant’s perspective. He expressed interest in better understanding the existing processes and how they function in practice.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar stated that people may disagree on what constitutes a minor versus major change and noted that the project already included approved variances related to aggregate and overall building height, and expressed concern that the current changes appear to further increase nonconformity with those variances. She stated that, while she understood the concerns regarding process, she did not find them relevant to the specific issues presented by the project, given the additional deviations from the approved variances.

Commissioner Jelinek stated that he echoed the prior comments and expressed concern that approving the project as presented would set a precedent that the City would not want to establish.

Commissioner Merola stated that he shared many of the sentiments expressed by other commissioners. He explained that, if the project were being reviewed as a new, standalone application that had not yet been built, he would likely be supportive of the staff recommendation for approval.

He expressed difficulty separating the merits of the project itself from concerns about the applicant’s process and conduct, noting that he struggled with how to appropriately respond given that distinction. He added that his concern centered on the apparent lack of effective recourse within the current process when deviations occur, rather than objections to the underlying project design.

Commissioner Jelinek stated that prior comments focused on massing and that relocating building features can significantly affect overall massing, especially on a ridgeline site and said these impacts would have warranted closer review. She also noted from personal experience that even small height increases can meaningfully affect views and neighborhood character once constructed, and expressed concern that changes described as minor may have greater real-world impacts.

She stated that if the project had been reviewed as a new application, the Commission would have had the opportunity to more fully evaluate massing impacts and consider whether additional design adjustments were warranted.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar responded that the Commission should not base its decision on perceptions of ideal applicant behavior. She stated that, if the project were presented in its current form as a new application, she would have significant concerns and would likely not approve it. She stated that, in her assessment, the updated structure as built and the requested revisions substantially increase the degree of the existing nonconformity.

She noted that this conclusion reflects her objective analysis of the project.

Item J.1
Packet Page 313
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 16 of 18 5.26.2026 Chair Armstrong acknowledged Commissioner Oblinsky’s concerns and noted a potential disconnect in the process, where the Planning Commission approves plans and subsequent construction oversight largely occurs through Contra Costa County and building inspectors.

He expressed concern that Planning staff only became aware of the deviations later, creating a difficult situation in which the City must now address discrepancies between what was built and what was originally approved.

Commissioner Jelinek clarified that County inspections primarily focus on code compliance, not strict adherence to architectural plans or design details. She noted that ensuring alignment with approved architectural plans is typically the responsibility of the architect working with the City and the owner.

Commissioner Oblinsky asked whether Contra Costa County, as the issuing authority for building permits, is approving changes made during construction, including non-ministerial changes such as alterations to egress or room configurations.

Ms. Cross responded that Contra Costa County does not approve those types of design changes and that such matters fall under the City’s jurisdiction. She stated that County staff typically identifies changes and refers them back to the city for review. She added that coordination issues can sometimes arise due to staffing turnover and differing levels of familiarity with Orinda’s processes and noted that she was uncertain why the changes in this case were not initially referred back to the City.

Commissioner Oblinsky stated that the situation reflects a systemic issue and expressed concern that the current process may be broken or insufficient. He noted that while the applicant’s actions may be interpreted in different ways, the underlying system allowed the issue to occur. He questioned how the City plans to address such issues going forward, stating that similar situations are likely to arise again and asking whether there are any planned fixes or procedural reforms to close potential loopholes.

Ms. Cross stated that she regularly communicates with the Contra Costa County building official regarding project issues. She said that, in her experience, County staff typically identifies minor changes and refers them back to the city for review and correction. She added that she has encountered more situations where such changes are caught and returned for City review than instances of significant County error. She added that Contra Costa County has served as a permit reviewer since 1987, and that she regularly meets with them to ensure consistent understanding of exemptions and to confirm which items must be referred back to the City for review.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar stated that the Commission’s focus should remain on the specific project and vote at hand. She noted that changes such as additional rooms, windows, and doors are significant and not merely minor modifications. She expressed that it is not the building department’s role to approve such design changes and that, ideally, any changes should be properly flagged to the City during construction. She stated that in this case, that process may not have occurred.

Item J.1
Packet Page 314
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 17 of 18 5.26.2026 She further stated that the changes were not communicated to the City by the project architect and, in her assessment, they substantially increased the degree of existing nonconformity. She acknowledged the importance of continuing to evaluate process improvements but emphasized the need to base the decision on the facts of the current application.

Commissioner Jelinek stated that the project as built is fundamentally different from what was originally approved and said the key issue is whether the Commission should approve a project that differs from the previously approved plans.

Ms. Palmer stated that the Commission’s role is to evaluate the project based on applicable standards and required findings. She clarified that the decision should focus on how the current proposed project meets those standards, rather than the circumstances under which prior changes were made.

Commissioner Hubner stated that if the project had been presented as a new application in its current form, he would have been able to reach a clearer decision. He noted that his difficulty lies with the process rather than the project’s compliance with applicable standards and requested exceptions. He indicated that his inclination toward a negative vote is driven more by procedural concerns than by the substantive merits of the project under review.

MOTION by Commissioner Hubner and seconded by Commissioner Jelinek to deny the application has submitted. Commissioner Hubner added the significant extent of the exceptions Beyond the design standards, beyond the applicable standards, forced me to vote against this application.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar suggested some modified language to the motion including the structure does not seem to comply with the intent and purpose of the requirements, and does substantially increase the degree of the existing nonconformity.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar asked a procedural question regarding the motion to deny and whether a “yes” vote would indicate agreement with the denial. She noted that this was the reverse of the Commission’s usual voting procedure.

Said motion not carried by tied (3-3-1) vote.

Ayes: Hubner, Doctors-Rajashekhar, Jelinek
Noes: Merola, Oblinsky, Armstrong
Abstain: None

Absent: Schmidt
Ms. Cross sought to confirm that under the Commission’s Rules and Procedures, a tied vote of 3-3 would result in denial.

Item J.1
Packet Page 315
Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 18 of 18 5.26.2026 Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar stated that because the vote resulted in a tie, the motion to deny failed. She clarified that the matter remains open and that another Planning Commissioner may introduce a new motion for consideration.

Commissioner Jelinek asked what would occur in the event of a tie vote if no additional motion is made.

Ms. Cross explained that, in the context of a public hearing on a land use matter, a tie vote results in the motion failing. She clarified that a tie vote is treated as a denial of the project.

Chair Armstrong requested for the record to cite the rule and read it in the record.

Ms. Cross stated in Section 7.4, Voting, a tie vote means that a motion fails, but in the context of a public hearing on a land use matter, which this is, a tie vote means denial of a project.

Commissioner Merola stated that the tie-vote rule assumes a standard motion was made and noted that in this case the Commission had used an inverse motion. He questioned how the tie-vote outcome applies under those circumstances.

Vice-Chair Doctors-Rajashekhar stated that another Commissioner could make a motion to approve the project if desired, which she believed would help clarify the outcome.

MOTION by Commissioner Merola and seconded by Commissioner Oblinsky to approve the project has recommended by staff. Said motion not carried by tied (3-3-1) vote.

Ayes: Merola, Oblinsky, Armstrong
Noes: Hubner, Doctors-Rajashekhar, Jelinek
Abstain: None

Absent: Schmidt
H. OTHER COMMISSION MATTERS
I. PLANNING COMMISSIONER’S REPORT: No report.

J. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: No report.

K. ADJOURNMENT:

A motion was made by Commissioner Merola and seconded by Vice-Chair DoctorsRajashekhar, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The next Planning Commission meeting will be on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, at 7:00 pm in the Library Auditorium located at 26 Orinda Way.

Item J.1
Packet Page 316

!"
# $%&'(
)
*'(+%
$(''(

# ,'%-$(''!
.(
/01
# 2$%'3$.4'
567!86).9!)8:.( ;5&4" 4""<!84" 4"" !8=$4" 4""<> ?%(@..-)'()+.('+(6(-' (6).(';5&4"4 "!84"4"A"!8=$4"4"AB!(6)* $4CD&4"E4"">F
()+.(' .-):))).9!%
%.'!.'%-*(++(('!)- )((G7)(7.% ' H/
I
/

J# ?%(@.''(.)(%(%')(+$%'3$.!(: % )((+7%$%'3$.'.'7%$%'35())3+()5()F ?%''(.)%5,42";5'),(7' 42"!"""'K-+>'.F ?%(
%'6
'((+(:
2LMF?%.6(-'
.6)(6'+((@.(%''N%(76!%
%6)()+.(' 7%.%

))('
567!86).9!)8:.('F ?%(@.K-'8:.(+(*-) %
%!

%
%!) -*(++(('N*.-')('(.*(*@.6'))'!'( '-*@.(CO<F

P
#
C++.()'%
$(''()(((')C(+D++. &.((6 '
567!86).9!)8:.(;5&4 " 4""<!84" 4"" !8=$4" 4""<>+(2$%'3$.!&Q "4"L"4""A! ( R%2!BL<)@-')'K-4+((!%4'(
!'
4+
').7% BS"'K-4+((6)).9!'-*@.(%.()('(+(6.-))% ((')C(+D++.&.($4CD&4" 4""F 1 P

#
?%(@..-)''
567.((
R.('-.)!2!BL< )@-')'K-4+((;S!<A<
('''K-4+((;.-)
((')BE"'K-4+(( &T>>!%4'(
!'
4+
').( !"""'K-4+(((F
UVWXYZ[
\]^_`a\]b`cd
Item J.1
Packet Page 317

!
"

#$%
&'& (
)

*+
, *
,-
$.,$&&& %
& '& (
)/
*+
)
*
)0 $.
)$123 (
)*+
,
*
,$ "

+&4 (
4$.
4

.+*
4
2

+

(

& 2 $ 5
6
7

#)8* 3
#0, 5
6
7

+&4 9:;<=>?@<AABCB=:DEFGBE;HGEAI JKLMN OKPQPNLR(3 $ 4ST #*0

S+ST ,*

U& 0

5# '& 8)-
4 )
VKPNNWXPPKJKLM YZ[\[ U&7
(]#08^_$
8 4
)
JR`aNbLRWXPPKJKLM cZde[ fJghWijkhJlkmhjiknlkoJgpqJghorJfosflpJtu 7 & *7v]#
)
)(1+7
73 3
$ wfiOliWjlmhlxu !&&
2
"
2!
oMyXLz*{L|LXPQ}L~bjL|LfP}QXM~L7
+
2

2 3 +

*

2 3

2&
*

2 3

Item J.1
Packet Page 318

!"#$%& '()*$"(+ ",-,.(+ /0!0*.
123456789:;376 < = >
?2723456789:;376 < @< >
A$%$B*B/(0C!D#.
EF((0G '()*$"(+ ",-,.(+ /0!0*.

HI52JK;I8
LMNOI5P:I5:7IJQ4R27S
@<MNOI5P78T75O
7UR6JR2TI5;8V;Q
LMNOI5P:I5:7IJQ4R27S
@<MNOI5P78T75O
7UR6JR2TI5;8V;Q
>
9R87K;I8 LMN LWN >
XTTI7T;J79R87K;I8 YZN W[N >
\7;IK;I8 LMN ==N]^_ >
`($&a0.EF((0G A!b$B*Bcdd,e(+ ",-,.(+ /0!0*.
fgR48R2T <[N h=ZN]W_ ]
XTTI7T;J7 =MN =iN]W_ ]
9J5IR76 <jM = ]
kl

m

noopqrstuvwxryppzw{r|}L[jWji~ xpprstuvwxryppzw{r /0!0*. 56R2T47]O;PR4QI76R8723752;45J5O
JV72JQJ5g6;28|<ZSZZZ~6g;I7O77J5I
P5I7P;Q;
7;O455I;I7;7U3778R2TJ7
:I58g3J5Oj<ZJRP76J727J:;I374;I7;5O
J745Jj|;UMS<ZZ6jOJjO5IJR6:;I374~
YS[i^;8g6J786g;I7]O77J
|MS^L^TI5666g;I7]O77J~ >

'()*$"(+ /0!0*.
}L[j=ZjM5OJ7OR28R2T6I7gRI76J;JJ787
745:P72J4728VRJJ7
6RJ7;286gII5g28R2T67;I3RJ73JgI;44QR263;47;2835P:;JR47VRJ 6gII5g28R2TI76R872376:I5
R874;2863;:763I772R2T;2876726RJR
7J5
6gII5g28R2TI76R872376j
9g73JJ54;22R2T
5PPR66R528R63I7JR52
;28I7
R7VVRJR2
4RPRJ667JQXXj
,%$%&$.0"$D0'()*$"(B(%0.
76g73J:I5:7IJQR6R2J7\]YZ|\76R872JR;45V726RJQYZSZZZ6g;I7O55J PR2RPgP45J6R7~52R2TR6JIR3Jj7:I5:5678:I573JR6677R2T7U37:JR526O5IJ7 gR48R2T7RTJS;TTI7T;J7gR48R2T7RTJS;282gP7I5O6J5IR76jOJ767;I7TI;2J78S ¡¢
£¤¥¦§¨£¤©§ª«
Item J.1
Packet Page 319

!"###

$%&#

'

&####(

)*$
#
+

,

)*$#
!#
-

.

/

.
/01

2345637859:;:<<=>=39
?

"$

)*@A.

@
/

*
B
"@A.

,

C##
&!.D
.

;5EF=3G

C##

!"###

&+H

'IHH
(

,
+
&J )*$
K

C##

+"H

C#C

)*$

LMNOPQR
STUVWXSTYWZZ
Item J.1
Packet Page 320

!"#
$%

#

&'()(*+,&'(-+./
01234556377 89201:3
;<320=>
45?@7235=A996
463B;0=>
C6977=A996
463B;0=>
=4D
;EB7359F
45?@7235=A996
463B>
GHIJB6A37K1AAI16LA3 HMNOOO GNPQR SNRTR TQUGHV
WX''(XY,ZY[&'()+'/Z+*\]^^_`((/'a,ZX*bcdeZ*/ZY[f+*Z,+Y.+ 01234556377 89201:3
;C69770=> gh1721Fi=A996463B;0=> =4D
jklmnopqrstppltoupq jvwxxx ywz{j x|x}
jvlmnopqrstppltoupq vjwzkx zw~v x|x}
j}lmnopqrstppltoupq zxwxxx yw}y~ x|x}
jlmnopqrstppltoupq yvwxxx jw~}} x|~y
j{lmnopqrstppltoupq ~kwxxx ywk{j x|~}
z~lmnopqrstppltoupq ~zwxxx ywy{ x|~v

Item J.1
Packet Page 321

!"#$%&#%%'()*)!+)!,+
-./01234056 7819/1:;5<..=>=3?4056 5>@
A1;B
C
-.D C
>E3=?;3

C
F3G1?:

C
HIJ7KL?/?=3;?=G1:;:31;BM.=1:;<./9123N?GOP9/3GQ<..=?=3?N?:G5>@19RP<<3GQ=.S/B3T.:/=?T.9/?T.P:/UVP1<G1:;W:9R3X/1.: L3R?=/S3:/=3X.=G9YJB3VP1<G1:;W:9R3X/1.:L3R?=/S3:/X?<XP<?/39:3/<./9123?:G?GOP9/3GQ<..=?=3?G1QQ3=3:/<UQ=.S/B3Z<?::1:; L3R?=/S3:/Y>99PXBN/B3:PSM3=9R=393:/3G1:/B19X.SR?=19.:?=31:/3:G3G/.R=.E1G3?;3:3=?<X.SR?=19.:=?/B3=/B?:?:38?X/ <19/1:;.QE?<P39Y
[\]^_`^abc*+!,d +!"ef g! h()*e'*&'+
ijkjlmnlopqjmrsturttovtlkqwk
xrqyutytzqooq{q|ty}qlkjzoqzjmlqonlo|t~nkqotlkrqzjkqztkrnkjkjz{jzn|| rnu}tljtzjkrskltklq~qzznuj|joqlkj~n|kttkrquzku~kuqzjlkrq lqjmrsturttoxrqyutytzqooq{q|ty}qlkjzoqzjmlqokts|qlojlktkrqqwjzkjlm |nloz~nyqnlolnkun|~tlkqwkyutkq~kloq{q|tyqoujomq|jlqznlorj||zjoqz }njlknjlkrqot}jlnl~qtttoqonlotyqlujomqznlorj||zjoqznloyuqzqu{q zjmljj~nlktulj
qz~qlj~{jzknz
JB3B.P9391/9?<.:;/B39.P/BM.P:G?=U.Q/B3/B191==3;P<?=<U9B?R3G<./ND1/B?XX399/. TB?=<39A1<<T1=X<3R=.E1G3GMU?G=1E3D?UYJB3<.X?/1.:.Q/B3R=.R.93GB.P93S?1:/?1:9 /B3E19P?<B?=S.:U.Q/B3:31;BM.=B..GMUB?E1:;/B3S?99.Q/B3MP1<G1:;<.X?/3GX<.939/ /.TB?=<39A1<<T1=X<3NR=393:/?91:;<39/.=UQ../R=.Q1<3YJB3MP1<G1:;S?/3=1?<9?=3 91S1<?=/./B3S?/3=1?<9.:9P==.P:G1:;R=.R3=/139?:G?=31:B?=S.:UD1/B9P==.P:G1:; 9/=PX/P=39YJB3B.P93?<9.<1S1/9/B3?S.P:/.Q1SR3=E1.P99P=Q?X3?:G=3/?1:1:;D?<<9 :3X399?=UQ.=X.:9/=PX/1.:NMUR.91/1.:1:;/B3B.P93.:/B3Q<?//39/R.=/1.:.Q/B391/3ND1/B

Item J.1
Packet Page 322

!"#$

%%#

$

'

(
'

%

(
)

*

+

'

&
&

)

,-&!

./0123456/781239:.29;8<=3>?8/9;9:@4AB?2=3CD/==A/2E F3C/0;
GB3H3C/0;3=3I3;8C?23>/C1?==JB?2I9;/91CK/;C7?=3L/8B8B3C/M39:8B3 C82178123K?;HN?=?;733;>/29;I3;8?=79;C/H32?8/9;CEO:8B3P29P9C3HH3>3=9PI3;8 /C?;?HH/8/9;9223I9H3=9:?;3Q/C8/;0C82178123K8B33Q/C8/;079;C82178/9;?;H P29P9C3H79;C82178/9;?23>/C1?==JB?2I9;/91CE.?7?H3C?;H3Q832/92L?==CCB?== RSTUVWX
YZ[\]^YZ_]`a
Item J.1
Packet Page 323

!"#

#

$%&

'($$#

!)($
&*(#+"
(, #-
')'$#"
.

!)($
"$'"#
(")
/0
-(#-#
"))'$#
"
-
$
(
#$#*(##1(
#($%
#
-#

"$($!

',.
'
($#

$($%"
"/2# --
&
#
$+$
&3456$%($
7

(($%&"$-'$#,
"
*
),)
-"#")
$%#
)+)&*(#
()"
(($%
)"-
$)
*
)+)

!#

/

!*($
*
"$

&
-

&"$+"
(

!)($
"
#(- )"##+(
")'"

($-&

+(($%+(
")($#

#
"$"
##(-"")/
"

+
")#.

!1#
(

!($(

#
#
'#

+(
+(
")($#

#/
!

&#

($-(
+(
"))."
'
$(

&"
,$
(%$#

-,)
-8.

(+!"#

&"$

+(
"
#(- )"#(
$
$"))
(
/
4)"

!
#
#"##"-9:;<=>?9@ABC"$DEFG:=CHABIJ!

#"()/
K

LMN

OPQ
RQ

S

N

STUSV SW

Y US

[

]^_`abc
defghidejhkl
Item J.1
Packet Page 324

!"

#
$#

&'()*+',-(.
/0-1'023'()*+',-(.43414(5*+61,3414(5'()'04',,06,0-'54760584*509+5904: 584*-54:'()584(4-.8;60866)<

>?
=

@

>A

B

=

=

CDEFGHI
JKLMNOJKPNQR
Item J.1
Packet Page 325

!"#$"!%&'()*+,-(.*/01(2*(3&4+05+65.%&(2(6(,7&,8'(5 -(2(,8'9(04:884'6*04.
;<

>
?

@

A
BCDEFGHDIJKLKMLNOLJPMJKPQIGREQKPMIDSKJCJCDTKQQLKUDVDLKWMXNKUDQKMDLY

A

Z[\]^_`
abcdefabgehi
Item J.1
Packet Page 326

!"
#$$%&'
!%
(!
#$$'
)(%
$!*
'*&$!
%$
%
+
*%
!"
%$&$"'(&,
-
%
%

.(**
'
/
($!"
%
#'$!%
$#
%
$
*0
1
%$
%
&%
$#
%
$%
(!
%
*$&
$#

%
&'$&'%,
%
(&&('!%
.(**
(*

!
'
/
%$
%
#
*%
+%!%
&$**

556

54
75
3

3

3

5

3
3

4553

8/%
$%

*
!$%
(
'
"
!
$%0
9:;<=><=
?
@ABCDEBF
GBHI
JBKLME

NEDOFDKFP

4

3
5

4

&'$&$*
)(%
/R

*
$/(%
(&&'$+
.(%,
ST
#%
(-(,
#'$.
%
/$**%

( 8(/!%
!
"
$'
U%$
%
*$
%V
(!

*
*/'!
#'$.
)
-
#'$.
%(%
!
"
$'

,
+
*%
!"

.(%
'
%'*0

&'$&$*
/R

*
$/(%
(&&'$+
.(%,
WXT
#%
(-(,
#'$.
%
'('

-(
$#
%
!
"
$'
%$
%
(*%Y

!
Z(#(,%%0

/R
-

*/'!
#'$.
%
'
"%
$#

-(,

,
%
$.0
'

*
!$
'*
!/
%$
%
!$'%
$#
%
&'$&'%,0
[
'%'Y
%
+
*%
!"

(! */(&
(!
%'*Y

!"
%
W\
%'*
%$
'.(
!
&'$)

&'
)(/,
*/'!
!"
$#
%

)(%
/R0
]
('"
!
.
'
$#
+
*%
!"
%'*
(!
)"%(%
$!
.(+
.
^*
&'
)(/,
#$'
%

( 8(/!%
!
"
$'*0

_`ab
cde
fghijk
fglj
mn
Item J.1
Packet Page 327

!"#$"$%!&!'!()*!&&!+,-.''/$*0'$+,&!%.#!&(.!-%1#$2)&3)+!/*"#$"!#*.!%4 ! &!+,-.''0!./*!5#)*!&./*$* !"!#.2!*!#$1* ! $2!4 ! $6%!'$+)*.$/)/&!'!()*.$/ $1* !&!+,#!')*.(!*$/!.5 0$#%-.''/$*.2")+** !.#(.!-%4

7$16#* !#*#!!%)#!%')*!&1$##!2$()'1$#* .%"#$3!+*4 !"#!(.$6%"#$3!+*)""#$(!&* ! #!2$()'$1*-$0)8*#!!%1$#+$/%*#6+*.$/$1* !&!+,9* !#!2$()'$1* $%!*#!!%&$/$* )11!+** !%+#!!/./5$1* !"#$3!+*1#$2)&3)+!/*"#$"!#*.!%4 !)""#$:.2)*!'8;<%=6)#!> 1$$*!:")/%.$/$1* !&!+,&.&/$*/!+!%%.*)*!* !#!2$()'$1)/8)&&.*.$/)'*#!!%4?'' !:.%*./5*#!!%% )''#!2)./4
@

!"#$"$%!&!'!()*!&&!+,.%'$+)*!&)""#$:.2)*!'8A<1!!*)-)81#$2* !+'$%!%* )&3)+!/*/!.5 0$#B*$* !%$6* C)/&.%%+#!!/!&1#$2(.!-1#$2* )*/!.5 0$#08!:.%*./5 2)*6#!*#!!%4 !"#$"$%!&&!+,.%'$+)*!&)""#$:.2)*!'8D;<1!!*)-)81#$2* !#!)# EFGHIJK
LMNOPQLMRPST
Item J.1
Packet Page 328

!"#$%&'()*+,-$.,
!/!#012+34+-56(+57*08559(5:*(6(+57*0
:-4;2<=(9,>?*,9+(@
ABCDEFGHEIJJKGHIEGLMLNEBCFCDJCHEGOCPLMGMQFCQRKIEGLMDSGKKCGEBCFTUVWXCJFGOC EBCDRYZCHEJFLJCFE[LNFGQBEDCMZL[CXY[LEBCFJFLJCFEGCDGMEBCOGHGMGE[IMXSGEBGM EBCGXCMEGHIKKIMXRDCXGDEFGHE\YCHIRDCEBCDGEC]DRMG^RCHBIFIHECFGDEGHD\DRHBID IMGFFCQRKIFLFHLMDEFIGMCXDGPC\DBIJCLFELJLQFIJB[\LFKG_GEIEGLMDHFCIECXY[EBC DGEC]DC`GDEGMQXCOCKLJ_CME\KG_GEXCDGQMLJEGLMDIOIGKIYKCELEBCDRYZCHEJFLJCFE[a LFUbWDCFOCMLKIMXRDCJKIMMGMQJRFJLDCRMXCFEBGDEGEKCLFEBCQCMCFIKJKIM YCHIRDCLNEBCIYDCMHCLNIM[MCQIEGOCG_JIHESBIEDLCOCFLMEBCDC_GcFRFIK HBIFIHECFLNdFGMXILFLMEBCJFGOIH[\OGCSDIMXQCMCFIKSCKKcYCGMQLNMCGQBYLFGMQ JFLJCFEGCDIDIFCDRKELNEBCDGPC\DBIJC\KLHIEGLMLFELJLQFIJB[LNEBCDGECe f

h
ijk
l

ABCC`HCJEGLMSGKKFCDRKEGMXCOCKLJ_CMESBGHBDRYDEIMEGIKK[HL_JKGCDSGEBEBC GMECMEIMXJRFJLDCLNEBCFC^RGFC_CMED\GMHKRXGMQXCDGQMFCOGCS\LNEBCKIMXRDC XGDEFGHEGMSBGHBEBCDRYZCHEJFLJCFE[GDKLHIECXe
m

no

p

g

m

s
t

t

uLFIJFLZCHEINNCHEGMQIMC`GDEGMQDEFRHERFCTVeABCC`HCJEGLMXLCDMLE DRYDEIMEGIKK[GMHFCIDCEBCXCQFCCLNIMC`GDEGMQMLMHLMNLF_GE[aIMXbeABC C`HCJEGLMGDMCHCDDIF[ELJFCDCFOCLFCMBIMHCINCIERFCLNEBCC`GDEGMQDEFRHERFC SBGHBGDIFHBGECHERFIKK[LFNRMHEGLMIKK[IJJFLJFGIECe
v
m

s

g

nlw

h
yz{

|o

|}{ l~|lv

h yj{

y{

y l~

yl

f
h y

|{

|l

Item J.1
Packet Page 329

!
"

$
%$%

!
&'()*(+,-.'/0.12-3'2-4(5-1-,6,-.'2-2'(*(22607/.0,8(2-3',.0(16-' +0.+.0,-.'65,.+0(()-2,-'360*8-,(*,9065/(6,90(2.02-,(*.':-,-.'2; <

!
=>?@A@>BAC

D

D

D

F
F

$

!
G@@GHIJ>=@AC
!D

K

L
DF KL MNMO NNM

!D

D

P

QMNMO
F!
D
FK

L
DF KL MNMR NNM
#
D

D

$S MNMM NMMT$D MNMM NNTUF MNMM NV
$!W

MXMNMRD
FK
S

S

D

$S MNMM NMMT$D MNMM NNTUF MNMM NV
Y>Z[\=]^A_C
<
!
`abcdef
ghijklghmkno
Item J.1
Packet Page 330

!"

#$%$&'&($)*)**+,+%-%,$+)( .
/0102/110
,+$3)*)4+(5%
6-%((+(7,)''+##+)( 89:;<=;>;<

?@ABCDEBBEAFBC

CDEGCHIE@BJKCHDEILDMN@ACOCCI
G
@IPJHIQEBBDEGCJPCDRAJNS
HFT
CBEH@
@BPCAFS@BPCAUFEILJOJAEHG@TVJW
X@LYZ[[\]^_``a`b\cd_`e_fe\gh`eadah`\hi\jkkfhl_^\mno\ @ICVJAEF@BBL pCPSI qrstt
CKJHDIANFIEJHJA
JHWCADEJHJO
P@BB
IANFINACD
uvwxyz{
|}~|}
Item J.1
Packet Page 331

!"#
$%&'()*+(,)%-$*-&.
/012345167896:;<1=1=8>91?81@213A87B22:86B784974:1>B:8C1B649=73;671<DB<5;=71<=E;B31 F447
G>34===E;B31F447
896:;<89>23424=1<DH=E;B31F447I70311=743J=89>:1FBA8:J 31=8<196149B=E;B31F447:47K
9 :1?B71<16L
13A878=31E;831<F43701B2234M8AB71:JDG=E;B31F447AB89<16LK/08=8=B9 B2234M8AB71:JG=E;B31F44789631B=189=8C1F34A701231?84;=:JB2234?1<2345167K 9 M6127849
13A878=31E;831<F43701N;8:<89>18>07
23424=1<B2234M8AB71:JHKGF117ABM8A;A B::4@1<DF117231?84;=:JB2234?1<KGF117O>>31>B71N;8:<89>18>07 23424=1<HKGF117
ABM8A;AB::4@1<HGF117231?84;=:JB2234?1<HF117OB9<H;AP134F 74381=
23424=1<H
ABM8A;AB::4@1<KG231?84;=:JB2234?1<K
)QR-S&%.-Q(.T-%&.U(.*QRVWQR-*XQ)*
/0123451678=B71>4386B::J M1A27F34A701234?8=849=4F701B:8F4398B 9?8349A197B:Y;B:87J67

Y89B6643<B961@870ZGHH
1@49=73;678494349?13=8494F
AB::
73;67;31=B=7012345167
@4;:<P1B91@31=8<1961@08608=8<1978F81<891MBA2:1 B4F7011M1A2784989701 Y
[;8<1:891=K
<<87849B::J94914F7011M6127849=747011M1A27849=B=1=7BP:8=01<89ZGHK4F701 Y [;8<1:891=B22:J74708=2345167K
(K\]-^-*Q_S-.+-.`,&SQ$$%&TQR
/0104;=1=87=B:49>701=4;70P4;9<B3J4F701708=8331>;:B3:J=0B21<:47@870B661==740B3:1=8:: 836:1234?8<1<PJB<38?1@BJK/01:46B78494F70123424=1<04;=1AB897B89=701?8=;B:0B3A49J4F701 918>0P43044<PJ0B?89>701AB==4F701P;8:<89>:46B71<6:4=1=7740B3:1=8::836:1231=197B=89>:1 =743JGF447234F8:1K/01P;8:<89>AB7138B:=B31=8A8:B374701AB7138B:=49=;334;9<89>234213781=B9< B31890B3A49J@870=;334;9<89>=73;67;31=K/0104;=1B:=4:8A87=701BA4;974F8A213?84;==;3FB61 B9<317B8989>@B::=9161==B3JF43649=73;67849PJ24=8784989>70104;=149701F:B771=724378494F701 =871@870A89431M6B?B7849F43701F4;9<B7849B:49>70131B34F70104;=1K/01=8C14F701=;P5167:478= =E;B31F117@08608=49701:4@19<F43701918>0P43044<B?13B>14F=E;B31F117K/0131 B3170311234213781=70B7B31=AB::13897018AA1<8B71918>0P43044<K/0123424=1<DB<5;=71< abcdefg
hijklmhinlop
Item J.1
Packet Page 332

!"#
$%&'()*++,()$-.)/0)1+&2.3)'3+4),5)'4)('6)77$%&'()*)),*+(5+&$)$-/,5)-88).-',) /)-653+(5++.9:5);(+;+$).*2++('()'(',-+-$915-05-$'3+4),5)/)-653+(5++.'4)('6)+*9 '/.1+&2.3),5)5-65)$,-/,5)/)-653+(5++.9

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
,&00+$,+/)4)/))(

)/6-/))().$-.-/6'/.0)8)/,3+'(.1+&2.3)
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
:5)2'/.$0';-/6;2'/*(+8,5);()4-+&$2<';;(+4).;(+?)0,5'$3))/-8;2)8)/,).15-05-/02&.)$' EFGHIJK
LMNOPQLMRPST
Item J.1
Packet Page 333

!"#
$%&'()*+,')**--.)(/-0123401'-%1'.*,)+1'50)2'.0'-*)6*'+*1.017*'.*/(%42%18012-7)**1 3+)'%+1-+,'.*2)%6*905,)+$3(/4%76%*9:;.*3)+<*7')*'0%1*2*&%-'%18')**-'.)+(8.+(''.* 3)+3*)'5
)0'.*)'.01'.*033)+6*2='.*504-+)*'0%1*2040)8*')**%1'.*,)+1'+,'.*3)+3*)'5:;.* )*0)+,'.*3)+3*)'5%--'**345-4+3*29.%7.2+*-1+'044+9(-*+,'.*0)*00-0/07>50)29.*)*'.* $0<+)%'5+,'.*')**-9%44)*$0%10123)+6%2*-7)**1%18:;.**&%-'%1810'()04')**-0126*8*'0'%+19%44 044+9'.*3)+3+-*2)*-%2*17*'+/4*12%19%'.'.*-())+(12%181*%8./+).++2:?%6*1'.**&'*1'+,'.* *&%-'%180123)+3+-*26*8*'0'%+1'.*4012-703%18*4*$*1'-0)*033)+3)%0'*,+)'.*-')(7'()*-%'*012 1*%8./+).++2:
;.*3)+<*7'%-%1-(/-'01'%047+$34%017*9%'.'.*%44-%2**-%81?(%2*4%1*-: ;.*/(%42%18,++'3)%1'012,4++)*4*60'%+1-)*-3+12'+'.**&%-'%18'+3+8)03.59%'.'.*$0--)*2(7*2 04+18'.*,)+1'+,'.*.+(-*:(*'+'.*2*3'.+,'.*4+'012'.*-4+3*+,'.*3)+3*)'5'.*0330)*1' $0--.0-/**1)*2(7*2'+'.*,(44*-'*&'*1'3+--%/4*:
;.*-(/<*7'4+'%-1+'0)%28*4%1*4+':
;.*3)+3+-*2*4*60'*22*7>%-4+70'*2033)+&%$0'*45,**'0905,)+$'.*74+-*-'02<07*1'1*%8./+)

'+'.*-+('.012%--7)**1*2,)+$6%*9,)+$'.0'1*%8./+)/5*&%-'%18$0'()*')**-:;.*3)+3+-*2 2*7>%-4+70'*2033)+&%$0'*45@,**'0905,)+$'.*)*0)9044+,'.*1*%8./+)'+'.**0-'%1 0,05*''*:;.*2*7>9%44/*-7)**1*2,)+$'.*)%8.'+,905/5'.*.+$*:;.*)*%-1+)*-%2*17*'+'.* 1+)'.+,'.*3)+3*)'5:A()'.*)'.**&%-'%184012-703*012')**-%174(2%18'.*')**-'+)*$0%1 3)+6%2*3)%6075-7)**1%18+,'.**4*60'*22*7>:40)8*1($/*)+,*&%-'%18')**-0126*8*'0'%+1 $0&%$%B*-3)%6075,+)'.*02<07*1'1*%8./+)-:
;.*3)+3+-*2*4*60'*22*7>9%441+'/4+7>2*-%)*26%*9-,)+$02<07*1'3)+3*)'%*-:;.*2*7>9%44/* %1'*8)0'*2%1'+'.*3*)%$*'*)+,'.*.+$*:;.*.+(-*4+70'%+1012*4*60'%+1+,'.*2*7>)*40'%6*'+ CDEFGHI
JKLMNOJKPNQR
Item J.1
Packet Page 334

!"#
$%&'()*+,-&..$*/&0123//(%&+4&%-,5
*67+/(%+/+%%,2+%,.2/%86*++%0*42.6*+/(&,1+*9%3/5:(%1+%4&*7,1+*9%3/211+*4%8/(%+%0*42.*6 /-*)2;/+%%,6*+3*$,/+73/&*$*6/(%8%3<=/(%+%0*42.*6/(*,%/+%%,8*$*/266%3//(%,3+%%$&$'*6 /(%1+*9%3/6+*028923%$/1+*1%+/&%,5:(%211+*>&02/%.;?,@72+%6**/%>12$,&*$*6/(%8%3<8&8$*/ $%3%,,&/2/%/(%+%0*42.*62$;288&/&*$2./+%%,5..%>&,/&$'/+%%,,(2..+%02&$5 :(%1+*1*,%8%.%42/%88%3<&,.*32/%8211+*>&02/%.;6%%/2-2;6+*0/(%3.*,%,/28923%$/$%&'()*+

/*/(%,*7/(2$8&,,3+%%$%86+*04&%-6+*0/(2/$%&'()*+);%>&,/&$'02/7+%/+%%,5:(%1+*1*,%8 8%3<&,.*32/%8211+*>&02/%.;?6%%/2-2;6+*0/(%+%2+-2..*6/(%$%&'()*+/*/(%%2,/&$ 262;%//%5:(%1+*1*,%88%3<-&..)%,3+%%$%8);%>&,/&$'4%'%/2/&*$2$81*+/&*$,*6/(%$%-(*0% -(&3(-&..(%.1/*,&'$&6&32$/.;+%873%20)&%$/$*&,%2,,*3&2/%8-&/(/(%7,%*6/(%1+*1*,%8%.%42/%8 8%3<5:(%+%&,2(%8'%2//(%,*7/(1+*1%+/;.&$%2$8%>/%$,&4%/+%%3*4%+2'%).*3<&$'/(%1+*1%+/;/* /(%%2,/5%2,*$2).%7,%*6/(%8%3<-&..$*/327,%02/%+&2.&$3+%2,%&$20)&%$/$*&,%5

/+&3/211.&32/&*$*6/(%)7&.8&$'(%&'(/2$82''+%'2/%(%&'(/+%@7&+%0%$/,-*7.8.&0&//(%2)&.&/;6*+ /(%,&/%/*)%8%4%.*1%82,/(%,&/%(2,,/%%1.;,.*1&$'/*1*'+21(; 211+*>&02/%.;A24%+2'%,.*1%
2$82.&0&/%82+%2/*)7&.8*$/(%,&/%5:(%&$3+%2,%&$/(%$70)%+*6,/*+&%,8&8$*/266%3//(%*4%+2.. )7&.8&$'(%&'(/2$8/(%+%6*+%(28$*$%'2/&4%&0123/5 >3%1/&*$,2+%&$/%$8%8/*1+*4&8%28%'+%%*68%,&'$6.%>&)&.&/;&$/(%211.&32/&*$*63%+/2&$ @72$/&/2/&4%+%'7.2/&*$,&$/(&,/&/.%,*/(2/623/*+,*6,&/%8%,&'$2$82+3(&/%3/7+%32$)%288+%,,%85 :&/.%B67+/(%+284&,%,/(2/,/+&3/211.&32/&*$*6C*$&$',/2$82+8,3*7.88%1+&4%212+/&37.2+12+3%.*6 *11*+/7$&/&%,6*+8%,&'$6.%>&)&.&/;-(%+%/(%+%&,$*284%+,%&0123//*)%+%'7.2/%85 $,73(
3&+370,/2$3%,/(%+%&,2)%$%6&//*/(%17).&3/*24*&87$&$/%$8%8+%'7.2/*+;+%,7./,5D/(%+/(2$/(*,% +%'7.2/&*$,6*+-(&3(/(%211.&32$/(2,+%@7%,/%82$ >3%1/&*$ %+0&//(%1+*9%3/3*01.&%,-&/(/(%
&$/%$/2$817+1*,%*6/(%+%@7&+%0%$/,&$3.78&$'8%,&'$+%4&%-*6/(%.2$87,%8&,/+&3/&$-(&3(/(% ,7)9%3/1+*1%+/;&,.*32/%85
EFGHIJK
LMNOPQLMRPST
Item J.1
Packet Page 335

!"#
$ %&'()*+$
',-*)*.,'/0*,'12+,)3'40*51*$6'*63)
(,+(+.'17((,+%*-7)'589:;2'')-7%*-0- 755+<'1=2'')(,'>*+0.587((,+>'1:;2'')?66,'67)'40*51*$6'*63) (,+(+.'19:;2'')
-7%*-0-755+<'19;2'')(,'>*+0.587((,+>'192'')?7$190-@',+2 )+,*'.
(,+(+.'19
-7%*-0-755+<'1:;(,'>*+0.587((,+>'1:A3'.5*63)*$&,'7.'*$40*51*$6'*63)7$166,'67)' '*63)2,+-)3'(,'>*+0.(,+B'&)7((,+>75.7,')+7&&+--+17)'7$0(17)'11'.*6$2'7)0,' )*5'<755
+$)3'2,+$)'5'>7)*+$)3*.2'7)0,'+$58,7*.'.)3'3'*63)+2)3'.),0&)0,'@87((,+%*-7)'582++)75+$6 )3'2,+$)'5'>7)*+$:
A3'*$&,'7.'*$)3'$0-@',+2.)+,*'.1*1$+).*6$*2*&7$)58722'&))3'+>',755@0*51*$63'*63)7$1 )3','2+,'1+'.$+).0@.)7$)*7558*$&,'7.')3'1'6,''+2$+$&+$2+,-*)8:C0,)3',)3')3*,1.)+,8)37)<7. &,'7)'1*.(,+(+.'1)+@'7$&&'..+,8<'55*$6D$*)
D<3*&33'5(.711,'..)3'$''12+,
711*)*+$753+0.*$60$*).:
+)7((5*&7@5':

EFGHIJK
LMNOPQLMRPST
Item J.1
Packet Page 336

!"

#$%&'('#)&'*+,-./)++'+01'%$#&*%
2345678898:;<==9>>9<8<?234;92@<?<A98B7727A4:C67A=44298:<8 DEFGHIGJGH34A4K@755A<L4B2345A<M4;2N>OK@234?<66<P98:L<24Q RSS

R
T
R
U
V
W
XYZ[\]^Z_`^a\bc[]^ d e e e Saffgah`a^_[i[_cjkc[^l]hjc[]^ d e e e S[^][\mjf]\jk d e e e Xjn]\ hcZ]o` e e e e S]hc[jfSj^af[ d e e e Sa^b[\Rpf]\_kg d e e e apj^`Yp\j^ d e e e 9;4A29?@2372234?98B98:>78BB4;9>9<8<?2345678898:;<==9>>9<8 =7B4<8DEFGHIGJGH7A4>42?<A2398239>>2724=482<?<??9;9767;29<8 N><7OqP39;3P7>7B<524BK@2345678898:;<==9>>9<8<8DEFGHIGJGHr )&&$s&t
/uvwxy#z{vv|.}uyy~y1~z{z

1u

Item J.1
Packet Page 337

!"#
$%&'(')(*+,-.')',-/,01223,415 6789:6;<=<>:?@ABCA??:?D9<EE:FF:<?78>8G;ABB><H8F678B><B<F8@B><I896JBK>FKA?6 6<6789<EE:FF:<?LF=:?@:?DFAFF6A68@:?678F6A68E8?6<=<==:9:ACA96:<?J8M7:G:6AJA?@ FKGI8966<678=<CC<N:?D9<?@:6:<?FO
-,)'+$),1225'+1-)/PQ&$-/R(S'))'-T13$UR$/)0,3(R'5.'-T2$3S')1223,415V)&$1R)&,3'W$. 1T$-)X23,2$3)Y,Q-$3'/3$UR'3$.),23'-),-)&$23,Z$+)251-/1+,2Y,0)&$+,-.')',-/($5,Q[155 +,-.')',-/13$/)1-.13.+,-.')',-/,01223,415R-5$//'-.'+1)$.'-')15'+/,3+155$.,R),)&$3Q'/$[ )&$'//R1-+$,012$3S'),31223,415,0251-/1-./2$+'0'+1)',-/ /&155-,)($+,-/)3R$.1/12$3S'),31-1223,415,01-YQ,3\ )&1)4',51)$/)&$,3'-.1SR-'+'215+,.$],S+^[

_
`ab`cbaddefghibjfkealmagnoi`paccqifoolahfgcdqflldekpaccqikealmagnoi`pacfoolahfcabg fgmcqikealmagnolfgdjb`acrbjs`agmf`itaiufgmfoo`btflfgmdqfllki`idobgdaklicb apolipigcfgmofrfllhbdcdfddbhafcimuacqo`iof`fcabgbjcqikealmagnoi`pacfoolahfcabg_ _llmitilbopigcdqfllhbgjb`pcbolfgdo`idigcimfccqi lfggagnbppaddabg
piicagnb`cqipbdc`ihigcti`dabgbgjaliagcqi
lfggagniof`cpigcegliddbcqi`uadi
doihajaimkrhbgmacabgdbjfoo`btflo`btamimagcqadivqakac_ w_
i`xy__bjcqiszo`b{ihcfoo`btflci`pagfcidfhhb`magncbacdci`pdajfgrb`eobg cqiivoa`fcabgbj egliddfkealmagnoi`pacolfgdqftikiig dekpaccimcbcqiacr|begcrjb`olfghqih}b`fkealmagnoi`pacqfdkiigaddeim_~qime`fcabg bjcqifoo`btflpfrkiivcigmimjb`fpfvapepbjbgifmmacabgflrif`krcqibgagn mpagadc`fcb`eobgu`accig`ieidckrcqio`boi`crbugi`fnigcb`foolahfgcjalimuacqagcqi ijjihcatioi`abmbjfoo`btflajcqio`bobdimo`b{ihcfdfoo`btimhbgjb`pdcbcqi`inelfcabgdag ijjihcfccqicapibjcqiivcigdabg_~qi`ieidcdqflldoihajrcqi`ifdbgjb`cqiivcigdabg_ jiihbgdadcigcuacqcqipbdc`ihigclrfmbocimjiidhqimelikrcqiacrbeghalad`iea`imjb` cqio`bhiddagnbjfgivcigdabg_
_zagb`hqfgnidcbcqifoo`btimkealmagnolfg
ddqfllkidek{ihccb`itaiufgmfoo`btflkrcqi

lfggagna`ihcb`o`ab`cbapolipigcfcabg_zf{b`hqfgnidcbcqifoo`btimkealmagnolfg ddqfll
kidek{ihccbfgiumadh`icabgf`r`itaiuo`bhiddb`cbcqi`itaiufgmfoo`btflbjcqi lfggagn
bppaddabg_

Item J.1
Packet Page 338

!"#
$%
&'()*+),+,-,./0()*+),+,1,234&5667895:;<4577<=>?8;;@;4& 75::8:A&65';?&:;5675:
B@''&9C978:A>=87D8:A5:D9@:<;'=9;8@:?5;&'857<A&:&'5;&DB'@?;4&D&?@78;8@:@B&E8<;8:A >=87D8:A<5:DB@''&9C978:AF5<;&?5;&'857<B'@?9@:<;'=9;8@:% '8@';@>=87D8:A6&'?8;B8:57
8:<6&9;8@:;4&5667895:;<4577<=>?8;;@;4&
75::8:A&65';?&:;D@9=?&:;5;8@:;45;;4&
?5;&'857<45G&>&&:'&9C97&D%
%@:<;'=9;8@:57;&'5;8@:D&?@78;8@:A'5D8:A&E95G5;8@:@''&658'59;8G8;C H9@:<;'=9;8@:
59;8G8;8&<H?5C@99='@:7CD='8:A;8?&<<6&98B8&D8:;4&IJKL%M%M5<B@77@F< 5% J@:D5C;4'@=A4N'8D5C9@:<;'=9;8@:59;8G8;8&<?5C@99='>&;F&&:;4& 4@='<@B5%?%5:D6%?%
>% I:
5;='D5C<5:D
=:D5C<9@:<;'=9;8@:59;8G8;8&<?5C@99='>&;F&&:;4&
4@='<@B5%?%5:D$6%?%&E9&6;;45;@:
=:D5C<@:7C5'&<8D&:;@B;4&<8;&5:D@:&
5DD8;8@:576&'<@:?5CF@'O@:;4&<8;&%
9% P<&@B4&5GC9@:<;'=9;8@:&Q=86?&:;8<6'@48>8;&D@:

5;='D5C<5:D
=:D5C<%
D% I:;4&B@77@F8:A4@78D5C<9@:<;'=9;8@:59;8G8;8&<5'&6'@48>8;&D R&FS&5'T<5C
RJ&?@'8575C
R
:D&6&:D&:9&5C
R5>@'5C
RU45:O<A8G8:A5C
R4'8<;?5<5C
@&E9&6;8@:<;@;48<4@78D5C6'@48>8;8@:?5C>&A'5:;&D% L%
'8@';@8<<=5:9&@B5>=87D8:A6&'?8;;4&5667895:;<45776'&65'&5:D@>;58: 75::8:A
&65';?&:;566'@G57@B5 ;45;?8;8A5;&<;&?6@'5'C
;'5BB898?659;<%
5%U4&J
<4577D&;5874@F5:DF4&'&5D&Q=5;&@BB<;'&&;65'O8:AB@'9@:<;'=9;8@: '&75;&D&Q=86?&:;VG&4897&<F877>&7@95;&D<=94;45;'@5D <?587>@E&<D'8G&F5C<5:D
@;4&'6'8G5;&6'@6&';C5'&:@;8?659;&D
8%&%>7@9O&DW
>%U4&J
<4577D&;5874@F5:DF4&'&5D&Q=5;&<;@'5A&B@'9@:<;'=9;8@:'&75;&D ?5;&'857<F877>&7@95;&D<=94;45;'@5D
<?587>@E&<D'8G&F5C<5:D@;4&'6'8G5;&
6'@6&';C5'&:@;8?659;&D
8%&%>7@9O&D@''&<=7;8::=8<5:9&W5:D
9%U4&J
<45778:97=D&5D&Q=5;&6'@G8<8@:<B@';4&9@:<;'=9;8@:9'&F 8%&%6@';5>7&
<5:8;5'CB59878;C%
%U4&<8;&<4577>&6'@6&'7C?58:;58:&DD='8:A9@:<;'=9;8@: 8%&%'&B=<&<4577>&D8<95'D&D
6'@?6;7C9@:<;'=9;8@:?5;&'857<<4577>&:&5;7C<;@'&D5:D;4&6=>789'8A4;@BF5C<4577:@;>& &:9'@594&D=6@:W@;4&'F8<&;4&8;C<45778<<=&5
;@6X@'OI'D&'%
%77'=>>8<45:DD&5DG&A&;5;8@:<4577>&'&?@G&DB'@?;4&<8;&6'8@';@B8:578:<6&9;8@:>C<;5BB% YZ[\]^_
`abcde`afdgh
Item J.1
Packet Page 339

!"#
$%%&'()*+,-.'*-/0)*+,,(,1*2(3*%4.,*'*556+6*7+8%.73-+.&*('367.7+* 9: ;65,1*8
2**,,1*5(%%(467<%.73-+.&67<.'*.-6=*,1'*-1(%3-
.$>?@ABCDEFGCH?FIJ-K/.'*5**,
0$LMNFONDPABCDEFGCH?FIJ-K/.'*5**,

Q('9: ;K/.%65867<&'()*+,- .-,R.89/76+6&.%S,6%6,86-,'6+, R9S46%%'*T6*4
,1*%.73-+.&*3(+/2*7,.,6(7&.+U.<*416+12/-,67+%/3*&'()*+,675('2.,6(7V4.,*' *556+6*7,%.73-+.&*4('U-1**,V-(6%2.7.<*2*7,'*&(',V%.73-+.&*6''6<.,6(7.73 <'.367<3*-6<7&%.7-$5,*'%.73-+.&*67-,.%%.,6(7,1*.&&%6+.7,2/-,-/026,. +(2&%*,*3-6<7*3+*',656+.,*(5+(2&%*,6(7.73.--(+6.,*33(+/2*7,.,6(7,( R9S 5('.&&'(T.%$
$Q.6%/'*,(+(2&%846,1.78(5,1*-*(736,6(7-(5&&'(T.%2.8'*-/%,67. ,(&:('U;'3*'
.73W('.'*-+67367<(5&'()*+,.&&'(T.%$
$X1*.&&%6+.7,-1.%%.&&%85('.,'**'*2(T.%&*'26,5(',1*'*2(T.%(5.78&'(,*+,*3,'**$ $
5.&'(,*+,*3,'**&'(&(-*35(''*2(T.%+.70*'*%(+.,*3,1*.&&%6+.7,-1.%%2(T*,1*,'**,( .-/6,.0%*%(+.,6(7(7.-6,*-1(47(7,1*.&&'(T*3&%.7-$ Y$X1*.&&%6+.7,-1.%%</.'.7,**,1*1*.%,1.73T6<('(5*.+1&'(,*+,*3,'**'*K/6'*3,(0* &'*-*'T*33/'67<,1*+(7-,'/+,6(7&'(+*--.735(',4(8*.'-.5,*'+(7-,'/+,6(76-+*',656*3.- +(2&%*,*$
$X1*.&&%6+.7,-1.%%'*&%.+*.&'(,*+,*3,'**,1.,36*-3/'67<,1*</.'.7,**&*'6(367 .++('3.7+*46,1,1*,'**'*&%.+*2*7,&'(T6-6(7-&'(T63*30*%(4(5Z[$(5,1*;9$ .$
'(,*+,*3X'***&%.+*2*7,
6$Q('*.+167+1*-('5'.+,6(7,1*'*(5(5,1*.<<'*<.,*36.2*,*'(5,'**- .&&'(T*35(''*2(T.%,1*.&&%6+.7,-1.%%&%.7,7.,6T*,'**46,1.36.2*,*' 7(%*--,1.7$[J67+1*-$;7*,16'3(5,1*'*&%.+*2*7,,'**'*K/6'*2*7,2.8 0*5/%56%%*308&%.7,67<7.,6T*-1'/0-,1.,2.,/'*.,.1*6<1,7(%*--,1.7J 5**,$X1*.&&%6+.7,2.8-/0-,6,/,*.%.'<*'7/20*'(5-2.%%*','**-('. -2.%%*'7/20*'(5%.'<*','**-65.&&'(T*308,1*
%.7767<6'*+,('0.-*3(7
.567367<,1.,,'**'*&%.+*2*7,46%%0*2('*0*7*56+6.%,(,1*1*.%,1.73 T6<('(5.%%,'**-(7,1*&'(&*',8$
66$
5,1*3*T*%(&2*7,-6,*+.77(,.++(22(3.,*,1*'*&%.+*2*7,,'**-,1* .&&%6+.7,2.846,1,1*4'6,,*7.&&'(T.%(5,1*
%.7767<6'*+,('.73,1*
&'(&*',8(47*'&%.7,,1*'*&%.+*2*7,,'**-(7&/0%6+('&'6T.,*&'(&*',8 %(+.,*367;'673.$%,*'7.,6T*%8,1*.&&%6+.7,2.82.U*.767%6*/&.82*7, (5(7*1/73'*3.73,4*7,856T*3(%%.'-
\J$5('*.+1'*&%.+*2*7,,'**
(,1*'46-*'*K/6'*3$%%67%6*/&.82*7,--1.%%0*/-*35(',1*6,8]- %.73-+.&*'*%.,*3&'()*+,-$
0$.'*(5
'(,*+,*3X'**-
^_`abcd
efghijefkilm
Item J.1
Packet Page 340

!"
#$%&'()&*+,)+#-./(-*+)0/+#(-+1&,223#/,-+*1,33*&/0)&34'&-/&(''&5&)4 2)(+&/+&6+)&&,++1&2)(+&/+&62&)#7&+&)$81&'&-/&*1,33)&7,#- /(-+#-0(0*34#-23,/&'()+1&60),+#(-('9():0-6&)+,:&-#-/(--&/+#(-9#+1 +1&;0#36#-.().),6#-.2&)7#+$81&'&-/&6,)&,7,4-(+;&0*&6,*,*+(),.& ,)&,(),3+&)&6()6#*+0);&6&</&2+,*7,4;&2&)7#++&6;4+1& 3,--#-.
#)&/+()$
##$
'+1&2)(2(*&66&5&3(27&-+()9():&-/)(,/1&*02(-+1&2)(+&/+&6 2&)#7&+&)(',2)(+&/+&6+)&&+1&,223#/,-+*1,33+,:&*2&/#,37&,*0)&*,* ,22)(5&6;4+1&
3,--#-.#)&/+()+(,33(9+)&&)((+*+((;+,#-(<4.&- 9,+&),-6-0+)#&-+*,*-&&6&6$
###$-,0+1()#=&6&</,5,+#(-'#33#-.()/(72,/+#(-('+1&&<#*+#-..)(0-6 *0)',/&9#+1#-+1&2)(+&/+&62&)#7&+&)(',+)&&*1,33;&7#-#7#=&6,-6 *0;>&/++(*0/1)&,*(-,;3&/(-6#+#(-*,*7,4;&#72(*&6;4+1& 3,--#-.
#)&/+()$
#5$(*#.-#'#/,-+/1,-.&#-&<#*+#-..)(0-63&5&37,4;&7,6&9#+1#-+1& 6)#23#-&(',2)(+&/+&6()1&)#+,.&+)&&$
5$(;0)-#-.()0*&('&?0#27&-+9#+1,-(2&-'3,7&7,4(//0)-&,)() 9#+1#-+1&2)(+&/+&62&)#7&+&)$
5#$33;)0*1&,)+1,-66&;)#**1,33;&)&7(5&6#-,7,--&)+1,+2)&5&-+*#->0)4 +(+1&+)&&$
5##$((#3.,*/1&7#/,3()(+1&)*0;*+,-/&+1,+7,4;&1,)7'03+(,+)&&7,4 ;&*+()&6()6072&69#+1#-+1&2)(+&/+&62&)#7&+&)(',2)(+&/+&6+)&&() ,+,-4(+1&)3(/,+#(-(-+1&*#+&')(791#/1*0/1*0;*+,-/&*7#.1+&-+&)+1& 2)(+&/+&62&)#7&+&)(',+)&&$
5###$8)&-/1#-.'()0+#3#+#&**1,33,5(#6#-+&)'&)#-.9#+1)((+*('2)(+&/+&6+)&&* 91&)&5&)2(**#;3&$
'/(723&+&,5(#6,-/&('+1&)((+=(-&#*#72),/+#/,3, +0--&3*1,33;&7,6&;&3(9+1&)((+*$+)&-/1*1,33;&/(-*(3#6,+&6+(*&)5& ,*7,-40-#+*,*2(**#;3&$8)&-/1#-.,-6+0--&3#-.9#+1#-+1&2)(+&/+&6 2&)#7&+&)*1,33;&,5(#6&6+(+1&&<+&-+2(**#;3&,-6*1,33;&6(-&(-34 0-6&)+1&(-*#+&*02&)5#*#(-(',2)('&**#(-,3,);()#*+$ #<$(/(-/)&+&,*21,3+()(+1&)#72&)5#(0*2,5#-.*1,33;&23,/&69#+1#-+1& 2)(+&/+&62&)#7&+&)(',2)(+&/+&6+)&&$(*0223&7&-+,)4#))#.,+#(-*1,33 (//0)9#+1#-+1&2)(+&/+&62&)#7&+&)(',-,+#5&(,:$
$@1&-2&)7#++&6#-+1&20;3#/)#.1+('9,4+1&'(33(9#-.,/+#5#+#&**1,33(-34;&,33(9&66#)&/+34 #-')(-+('+1&*0;>&/+2)(2&)+40-3&**2)#()9)#++&-/(-*&-+('+1&#+4,-6,''&/+&62)(2&)+4 (9-&)
*#*(;+,#-&6$
,$&3#5&)40-3(,6#-.,-6*+,.#-.('/(-*+)0/+#(-7,+&)#,3*,-6&?0#27&-+$ ;$
-*+,33,+#(-(',;(5&()0-6&).)(0-60+#3#+#&*$
ABCDEFG
HIJKLMHINLOP
Item J.1
Packet Page 341

!"#
$%
&'()**)(+,&,-)&./0)+&)12-)$+*+(+2'+&$*3/+&1453(&,(*+6+(2/(,4/0)+&)127+72' /0)+&+&*2('/0)+&,3(-)**$3*820(''9)*2'2($%
/%
&'()**)(+,&,-02()+&+&19)**'6)+*5,:2'$305'%
2%
&'()**)(+,&,-(267,0)0.,07206)&2&(/0+829).'%
-%
&'()**)(+,&,-*)&/'$)7+&1%
1%;,(<2102)(2'(2:(2&(7,''+5*27)0=+&1,-9,0=20'>82<+$*2'% %)6)12(,735*+$0,)/'$)3'2/5.$,&'(03$(+,&,-)77*+$)&(?'70,@2$('<)**52027)+02/(,(<2 ')(+'-)$(+,&,-(<2
35*+$A,0='27)0(62&()((<2)77*+$)&(?'2:72&'270+,0(,-+&)*53+*/+&1 +&'72$(+,&%;<2,9&20'<)**7,'()5,&/(,'2$3027).62&(-,0/)6)12(,)$+(.'(022($)3'2/

5.$,&'(03$(+,&)$(+8+(.+&$,&&2$(+,&9+(<9,0=)3(<,0+B2/5.(<27206+(%;<2 35*+$A,0='
27)0(62&(6).9)+82(<+'02C3+0262&(9<2&(<2$,&'(03$(+,&)$(+8+(.9+**&,(-,02'22)5*. /)6)12(<2'(022(%
D%;<2)77*+$)&('<)**,5()+&)& -0,6(<2
35*+$A,0='27)0(62&(-,0)**
9,0=70,7,'2/(,52$,&'(03$(2/+&(<2735*+$0+1<(,-9).%;<+'7206+('<)**52,5()+&2/70+,0 (,+''3)&$2,-)&.7206+('%
%&)77*+$)&(6).&,(7*)$26)+&()+&,0,720)(2'(22*(0)$=2/10)/+&1,0$,&'(03$(+,& 2C3+762&(9+(<$*2)(',&)735*+$,070+8)(2'(022(9+(<,3(7*)$+&170,(2$(+826)(20+)*52&2)(< (<22C3+762&((,70,(2$((<2'30-)$2,-(<2'(022(%
E%;0)'<'$0)7)&//250+''<)**52'(,02/+&)$,&()+&209+(<)*+/,&(<2$,&'(03$(+,&'+(2% %,720',&'<)**7*)$2,06)+&()+&)$,&()+&20+&(<2735*+$0+1<(,-9).9+(<,3()& &$0,)$<62&(
206+(%
F%,720',&'<)**7*)$2+&'()**,06)+&()+&)7,0()5*2')&+()0.-)$+*+(.,&)$,&'(03$(+,&'+(2 $*,'20(,(<270,720(.*+&2(<)&(<253+*/+&1'2(5)$=*+&2% %;<2+(.6).(267,0)0+*.70,<+5+(,002'(0+$('(,77+&17)0=+&1,0'()&/+&1,-82<+$*2')*,&1) '(022()53((+&1)$,&'(03$(+,&70,@2$(9<202&2$2'')0.-,0735*+$')-2(.%;<202'(0+$(+,&/,2' &,()77*.3&(+*(<2+(.7*)$2')'+1&,06)0=+&1)((<2'+(2%;<2'72$+)*02'(0+$(+,&'<)**52 *+6+(2/(,(<2/30)(+,&,-(<270,@2$(%
%G7,&+''3)&$2,-)&.7206+('-,0(<270,@2$((<2+(.6).02C32'($)07,,*+&1(,)$,&'(03$(+,& '+(2%
%;<2+(.6)./2'+1&)(2)(03$=0,3(2-,0+&102'')&/2102''-0,6(<270,720(./30+&1(<2(206 ,-(<253+*/+&17206+(37,&-+&/+&1'(<)( )%;<2/2'+1&)(+,&,-(<2(03$=0,3(29+**6+&+6+B2(<2+67)$(,-(<2$,&'(03$(+,&'3$<)' &,+'2/3'((0)--+$')-2(.<)B)0/')&/7,(2&(+)*/)6)12(,7)8262&(,&)02'+/2&(+)* '(022(H)&/
5%2'+1&)(+,&,-(<2(03$=0,3(29+**&,(3&02)',&)5*.+67)+0(<2$,&(0)$(,0?')$$2''(, (<2'+(2,0$)3'23&/322$,&,6+$<)0/'<+7%
IJKLMNO
PQRSTUPQVTWW
Item J.1
Packet Page 342

!"#
$%&'()*+&,--.'/0(.',1,22-(3,1)45.,60(-7(185.8.,7(182'.9()45.,9,:5.(92.5;'9'1))5 .'&,6(-(),)')&'+).'')2,;'9'1),-518)&'4.51),8'54)&'2.52'.)*4.59)&''78'54)&'+).'') )5)&'3'1)'.54)&'.(8&)54<,*$
$=&'1.'/0(.'745.
351)(10()*54'>(+)(1830.6,1780))'.?
+).'')7.,(1,8'?5.
@)5
'1+0.'+).03)0.,-+0225.)45.)&''78'54)&'+).'')2,;'9'1))&'()*+&,--.'/0(.')&,),1 ,22-(3,1)45.,60(-7(182'.9()(1+),--,22.52.(,)'.5,7<,*(92.5;'9'1)+)5)&'+,)(+4,3)(5154 )&'()*A+
06-(3=5.B+'2,.)9'1)$
@$))&')(9'5460(-7(182'.9())&',22-(3,1)+&,--6'.'/0(.'7)53592-*<()&)&'.'/0(.'9'1)+ 54CDEF$@GH0(-7(18
'.9()517()(51+I,++03&3517()(51+,22-*)5JD,:5.

92.5;'9'1)+$J%&',22-(3,1)9,*6'.'/0(.'7)5(92.5;')&'4.51),8',-518)&'2.5:'3)+()' <&(3&350-7(13-07'(92.5;'9'1)+)5+(7'<,-B+2,)&+30.6+80))'.+,177.,(1,8'$%&'()* +&,--7')'.9(1')&'+'(92.5;'9'1)+,17(145.9)&',22-(3,1)54)&'+'(92.5;'9'1)+2.(5.)5 60(-7(182'.9()(++0,13'$
$%&'()*+&,--.'/0(.')&,),+).'')'>)'1+(51)5)&'2.52'.)*9''))&',22-(3,6-'3()*.5,7 +),17,.7+')45.)&(1CDEF$@$$%&'()*9,*957(4*)&(++),17,.76,+'7025101(/0' )5258.,2&*)&,)9,B'+30..'1)3()*+),17,.7+(92.,3)(3,-5.(925++(6-'$ F$%&'()*9,*.'/0(.',+,3517()(5154,22.5;,-45.,9,:5.(92.5;'9'1)60(-7(182'.9())&,) )&',22-(3,1),7:0+))&'206-(35.2.(;,)'+).''),-518)&'2.52'.)*4.51),8'+5)&,)()'()&'.
9'')+30..'1)+),17,.7+45.2,;'9'1)<(7)&?5.
9,)3&'+)&'<(7)&54)&''>(+)(18+).'')(1
)&';(3(1()*54)&'2.52'.)*(4<(7'1(18)530..'1)+),17,.7+(+01.',+51,6-'$%&'()*+&,-- (925+')&(+3517()(5102514(17(18)&,)
,$%&''>(+)(18+).'')<(7)&3.',)'+,+,4')*&,K,.745.2'7'+).(,1+,17;'&(3-'+? 6$%&'<(7)&54)&''>(+)(18+).'')4.51)(18)&'+06:'3)2.52'.)*(+(1351+(+)'1)<()&5)&'. +'3)(51+54)&'+).'')(1)&'+,9';(3(1()*?,17
3$7:0+)(18)&'<(7)&54)&'+).'')(+15),101.',+51,6-'60.7'18(;'1)&')5258.,2&* 54)&',.',,17)&'35+)54)&'<5.B$
$8.,7(182'.9()(+.'/0(.'745.,--2.525+'7',.)&<5.B(1'>3'++54F306(3*,.7+5430)5. 306(3*,.7+544(--$ >3,;,)(518.,7(185.351+).03)(51544(--+9,*6'2.5&(6()'76*)&'()* H0(-7(18C44(3(,-70.(18)&'951)&+(1<&(3&()4(17+)&,).,(14,--<(---(B'-*2.'3-07'3592-(,13' <()&)&'+'.'/0(.'9'1)+$++03&158.,7(18+&,--6',--5<'74.59C3)56'.+))&.508&2.(- +)01-'++,7'/0,)''.5+(51351).5-9',+0.'+,.'(12-,3'$8.,7(182-,1,17,1'.5+(51 351).5-2-,1+&,--6',22.5;'76*)&'H0(-7(18
1+2'3)(512.(5.)5(++0,13'5460(-7(182'.9()+(4

2.525+'7',.)&<5.B'>3''7+F306(3*,.7+$%&''.5+(51351).5-2-,1+&,--+2'3(4*H'+) D,1,8'9'1)
.,3)(3'+
HD
+(1)&'45--5<(18+(>3,)'85.('+
,$ .5+(51351).5-
6$0151,17.01544351).5-
3$
'7(9'1)351).5-
7$3)(;').',)9'1)+*+)'9
,+1'3'++,.*
LMNOPQR
STUVWXSTYWZ[
Item J.1
Packet Page 343

!"#
$%&''()*+$,-.-/$,$.+-.(
0%'.)+'1,2-+$1,-.-/$,$.+%
%
0+3$45*6(*./700*8*-6($+$1,*.$)+3-++3$9$1,*++$$3-):*'6-+$('10-*6$(+'0566;-.( -($<5-+$6;*,96$,$.+-.-991':$($1')*'.8'.+1'696-..'/1-(*./)3-66'88515.($1+3$ 9$1,*+01',78+'=$1+31'5/391*6%
>%991':-6'0/1-(*./9$1,*+)=;45*6(*./
.)9$8+*'.)3-66=$)5=?$8++'+3$0'66'2*./-991'91*-+$ 8'.(*+*'.)'11$)$1:-+*'.)1$<5*1$(+'91'+$8+95=6*83$-6+3)-0$+;-.(/$.$1-62$60-1$ -%',96$+*'.'0+3$2'1@2*+3*.-9$1*'(-991':$(=;+3$45*6(*./700*8*-6 =%6$-.*./'0+3$-1$--.(96-.+*./*.-88'1(-.8$2*+3-991':$(96-.) 8%$)*/.-+*'.'0+3$-1$-*.23*832'1@,-;=$('.$
(%$)*/.-+*'.'0+3$)6'9$'0$A8-:-+*'.'10*66*./'1+3$/1-($-.($6$:-+*'.'0 $A8-:-+*'.'10*66*./
$%$-)'.-=6$91':*)*'.)0'18'.+1'66*./$A8$))*:$(5)+ 0%'51)'0'9$1-+*'.
/%
-0$+;91$8-5+*'.)+'/5*($9$($)+1*-.-.(:$3*856-1+1-00*8*.-1'5.(-.(=;+3$ '9$1-+*'.
3%
')+*./'0-/''(-.()500*8*$.+='.(+'-))51$8',96*-.8$2*+3+3$8'.(*+*'.)-.( *%7+3$18'.(*+*'.)($$,$(.$8$))-1;=;+3$45*6(*./700*8*-6-.(=-)$('.-88$9+$( $./*.$$1*./91-8+*8$)%
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
.-991':*./+3$9$1,*++3$*+;,-;*,9')$'.$'1,'1$ 8'.(*+*'.)+3-+-1$1$-)'.-=6;1$6-+$(+'+3$95=6*83$-6+3)-0$+;-.(2$60-1$ *.865(*./=5+.'+6*,*+$(+'1*9-1*-.3-=*+-+1$)+'1-+*'.5.($17DE%(-;6*/3+*./ )+'1,2-+$115.'008'.+1'6)91$8'.)+158+*'.*.)9$8+*'.)-.(9$10'1,-.8$)$851*+;% F%B3$(1-*.-/$9$1,*+-996*8-+*'.)3-66*.865($+3$21*++$.8'.)$.+-.(2-*:$1'06*-=*6*+;/*:$. =;$-839$1)'.3-:*./-.*.+$1$)+*.+3$91'9$1+;23$1$2'1@*)+'=$9$10'1,$( $A865(*./-
)$851*+;*.+$1$)+-.(23',-;=$-00$8+$(=;*+%
GHIJKLM
NOPQRSNOTRUV
Item J.1
Packet Page 344

!"#
$%&'()*+(,+(-./)../001+2.+(-,3)+()-0+4&3'5040(.2)30+(),067).0'3(00,30&)+3./0+.8 2/)993067+30)()&&9+:)(.*'3);7+9,+(-&034+.*'3)4)<'3+4&3'5040(..'4)=0,3)+()-0 +4&3'5040(.2)9'(-./0*3'(.)-0$
>$?/0'@(03A)&&9+:)(.2/'79,:'(279../0&3'<0:.-0'.0:/(+:)90(-+(003.'&3'5+,0-0'.0:/(+:)9 ,02+-()(,:'(2.37:.+'(30:'440(,).+'(2*'3./0:'(2.37:.+'('*)&''9$ $
3+'3.'+227)(:0'*)-3),+(-&034+.*'3)(82+.0@'3=./).@+9930279.+() ./0)&&9+:)(.2/)99&3'5+,005+,0(:0.'./0B7+9,+(-C**+:+)9./).)'.+:0'*

(.0(.*'3:'503)-07(,03./0
.).0'(2.37:.+'(D0(03)9
034+./)2;00(*+90,)(,27;4+.)
:'&8'*./0
.'34@).03
'997.+'(
3050(.+'(
9)(

.'503+*8:'4&9+)(:0@+././0+.8F2
-3),+(-'3,+()(:0$
$ ):/@).03:'73202/)99;04)+(.)+(0,2'./).@).03@+99*9'@),067).098)(,7(+4&0,0, ./3'7-/./0@).03:'7320$(01+2.+(-@).03:'73202/)99;090*.7()9.030,7(9022
+4&3'5040(.+2(0:022)38.'&3'.0:.9+*0/0)9./)(,&3'&03.8G'3 3+&)3+)(302.'3).+'(+2
3067+30,7(,03?+.90'*./0CH$H)+(.0()(:030&)+32)(,(0@:'(2.37:.+'(2/)99;0 )::'4&9+2/0,+()(0(5+3'(40(.)99820(2+.+504)((03)2&3'5+,0,+(?+.90'*./0CH$ $@).03:'7320)9.03).+'(&034+.&03I$J'*./0CH2/)99;0';.)+(0,*3'4./0+.8&3+'3 .'./0+227)(:0'*)(8'./03&034+.2$?/0*'99'@+(-):.2'32+.7).+'(22/)993067+30),3)+()-0 &034+.
)$
4&)+3+4&0,030,+30:.'3'./03@+20)**0:../001+2.+(-*9'@ &034)(0(.'3
+(.034+..0(.'*2.'34@).03'3'./03@).03+()@).03:'7320'3)99'@'(./0&3'&03.8 '3:)720'3&034+../0';2.37:.+'('*./0@).03:'7320G ;$'(2.37:.)9.03'330&)+3)@).03:'7320G
:$ 1:)5).0-3),0'3'./03@+20)9.03./0273*):0'*./09)(,2')2.')**0:../0:)&):+.8 '*)@).03:'7320G
,$02.3'8'32+-(+*+:)(.98)9.0350-0.).+'().'3(0)3)@).03:'7320+(:97,+(-K@+./'7. 9+4+.).+'(K:7..+(-:90)3+(--37;;+(-;73(+(-304'5+(-01:)5).+(-'3-3),+(- 01:0&.)2+2(0:022)38.'4)+(.)+('3302.'30./0/8,3)79+::)&):+.8'*./0@).03:'7320 '3+(:'4&9+)(:0@+./3+&)3+)(302.'3).+'(3067+3040(.27(,03?+.90'*./0CHG 0$
4&)+3./0720'*)(0)2040(.*'3,3)+()-0&73&'202G
*$
(2.)99'3:'(2.37:.)(0@2.37:.730'3+4&3'50'301&)(,)(01+2.+(-2.37:.730@+./+() @).03:'7320$?/0.0342.37:.7302/)99+(:97,0;7.+2('.9+4+.0,.'&+&02:79503.2 ;7+9,+(-22@+44+(-&''92;3+,-02&).+'2&)5+(-*0(:0230.)+(+(-@)992&'902)(, 2+4+9)3+4&3'5040(.2$
J$?/0@).03:'7320)9.03).+'(&034+.)&&9+:).+'(2/)99+(:97,0./0@3+..0(:'(20(.)(,@)+503'* 9+);+9+.8-+50(;80):/&032'(/)5+(-)(+(.0302.+(./0&3'&03.8@/030@'3=+2.';0&03*'340,

01:97,+(-)20:73+.8+(.0302.)(,@/'4)8;0)**0:.0,;8+.$ $?/0)&&9+:)(.2/)99)&&98*'3)&034+../3'7-/B)830)L'+(.67).+:02'73:02 034+.
&&9+:).+'(
L
*'3)(8&3'&'20,,3)+()-04',+*+:).+'(2.';09':).0,@+./+(./0:300= MNOPQRS
TUVWXYTUZX[\
Item J.1
Packet Page 345

!"#
$%&'()*+,-.$(//0.)(&.12.2)034%$'3&.$21&0.5.&%4&1&-% &6%(5'%40&%6(&.12
%65.&7615 &-%(0.7162.(%/(6&5%2&178.$-(249.040.7%65:16/$17 2;.2%%6$< %)&.12/%65.&
(24&-%0%(29(&%6)&
%)&.12
%65.&7615&-%
(286(2).$)1=(:%;.12(09(&%6
>3(0.&:12&610=1(64+?
)12$10.4(&%$7%4%6(0$&(&%(2401)(0/%65.&$(24$.5/0.7.%$&-% /%65.&/61)%$$716(//0.)(2&$/61/1$.2;(2:17&-%[email protected];()&.A.&.%$ (+2:@16*.212161A%6($&6%(5
/%6%22.(0$%($1216.2&%65.&&%2&(24
'+
61B%)&$&-(&(6%21&4.6%)&0:.21612&-%$&6%(5'3&5(:)(3$%.5/()&$ /(6&.)30(60:.2
-.00$.4%(6%($+
C+,-%(//0.)(2&$-(001'&(.2/%65.&$4%%5%42%)%$$(6:&-613;-? /6.16&1.$$3(2)%17(2:
.&:/%65.&$+
+,-%(//0.)(2&716/61B%)&$$3'B%)&&1&-%4%A%01/5%2&6321776%D3.6%5%2&$.2&-%.&:<$ (&.12(0
1003&(2&.$)-(6;% 0.5.2(&.12
:$&%5

%65.&
(E+F+6%;30(&%4/61B%)&G
$-(00$3'5.&(
&165@(&%612&610
0(2

&-(&5%%&$&-%)6.&%6.(.2&-%51$&6%)%2&A%6$.12
17&-%12&6(1$&(0%(29(&%6
61;6(5
&165@(&%6+F+H3.4%'11*
E+FH3.4%'11*G+,-%

$-(00'%$3'5.&&%4($/(6&17&-%.2.&.(0/61B%)&$3'5.&&(0(24$-(00'%(//61A%4':&-%

3'0.)916*$%/(6&5%2&/6.16&1.$$3(2)%17(2:/%65.&$+ +,-%[email protected];$-(00(//0:&1+F6%;30(&%4/61B%)&$ (+ $-(00
/6%/(6%(24$3'5.&(

.2)034.2;7%(&36%$(247().0.&.%$&1%2$36%632177.$&6%(&%4 '%716%0%(A.2;&-%$.&%(24(2%A(03(&.1217&-%7%($.'.0.&:17$&16(;%7160(&%63$%+ +
'+3&1$%6A.)%7().0.&.%$;($$&(&.12$6%$&(36(2&$(2432)1A%6%4/(6*.2;01&$&-(&)6%(&% 1A%6C$D3(6%7%%&17.5/%6A.13$$367()%$-(00/6%/(6%(24$3'5.&(
.2)034.2;
7%(&36%$(247().0.&.%$&1%2$36%632177.$&6%(&%4'%716%0%(A.2;&-%$.&%(24(2 %A(03(&.1217&-%7%($.'.0.&:17$&16(;%7160(&%63$%+ )+ $-(00.2)034%.2&-%

41)35%2&(&.124%512$&6(&.2;)15/0.(2)%@.&--:461514.7.)(&.125(2(;%5%2&': $%0%)&.2;12%177136701@)12&610)15/0.(2)%1/&.12$.2//%24.I17&-%+F H3.4%'11*+9-%6%6%D3.6%4/61B%)&4%$.;2$-(00.2)034%7%(&36%$(247().0.&.%$716 -:461;6(/-514.7.)(&.125(2(;%5%2&
701@)12&610($@%00($$&165@(&%6&6%(&5%2&+
F+

6.16&1.$$3(2)%17/%65.&$716'3.04.2;$.&%.5/61A%5%2&$160(24$)(/.2;&-%/%65.& (//0.)(&.12$-(00'%)12$.$&%2&@.&-&-%(//0.)(2&<$(//61A%4
(24$-(00.2)034%46(@.2;$
(24$/%).7.)(&.12$2%)%$$(6:&1.5/0%5%2&(005%($36%$.2&-%(//61A%4
+,-%/%65.&
(//0.)(&.12$-(00.2)034%()15/0%&%412$&63)&.12
0(2+F-%)*0.$&(24(46(7&J/%6(&.12$
(24K(.2&%2(2)%
0(2($4%$)6.'%4.2&-%+FH3.4%'11*+
+6(@.2;$$3'5.&&%4@.&-&-%

(24H6(4.2;
%65.&//0.)(&.12
.2)034.2;$&63)&36(0
5%)-(2.)(0(6)-.&%)&36(0;6(4.2;46(.2(;%$.&%0(24$)(/%(241&-%646(@.2;$$-(00$-1@ 46(.2(;%5(2(;%5%2&(6%($($@%00($&-%4%&(.0$(245%&-14$17)12$&63)&.12716/%6A.13$ LMNOPQR
STUVWXSTYWZ[
Item J.1
Packet Page 346

!"
#$%&'&()**&+,-&)$.(.(/$-&$**&+,)-&$).(/$-&$*$-&$*0-$.(.(/)1*&+,-&)$.(.(/$-&$* )-&$)'&()$(0,+1231()-1+,$3.+.).&*#&-'$(&()*14-3&31()-1+56 *$(01)7&-,&$)4-&*)7$)
31()-1+*)1-'2$)&-,+12$(0#1)&().$+*)1-'2$)&-#1++4)$()*8 98
-.1-)1:4.+0.(/#&-'.),.($+$(0.**4$(3&1,$&-).,.3$)&1,;334#$(3<)7&$##+.3$()*7$++ *4:'.)$,.($+;#&-$).1(*$(06$.()&($(3&
;=6
+$($(0&>&34)&$(<$/-&&'&()*.0&().,.&0
.()7&

)7$)#&-)$.()1)7&)-$(*,&-1,12(&-*7.#$(0?1-+1(/)&-''$.()&($(3&1, *)1-'2$)&-)-&$)'&()1-7<0-1/-$#7'10.,.3$).1(56
*
;#&-$).1($(06$.()&($(3&
/-&&'&()*=*&)38
8
.(3+40.(/0&)$37&0*.(/+&,$'.+<71'&#-1@&3)**7$++.(3+40&1(&1-'1-&1,)7&,1++12.(/ $8.-&3)-11,-4(1,,.()13.*)&-(*1--$.(:$--&+*,1--&4*&A :8.-&3)-11,-4(1,,1()1%&/&)$)&0$-&$*A
38.-&3)-4(1,,,-1'*.0&2$+B*2$+B2$<*$(0?1-#$).1*1()1%&/&)$)&0$-&$*A 08.-&3)-4(1,,,-1'0-.%&2$<*$(0?1-4(31%&-&0#$-B.(/+1)*1()1%&/&)$)&0$-&$*A &81(*)-43)*.0&2$+B*2$+B2$<*$(0?1-#$).1*2.)7#&-'&$:+&*4-,$3&*A1- ,81(*)-43):.B&+$(&*0-.%&2$<*$(04(31%&-&0#$-B.(/+1)*2.)7#&-'&$:+&*4-,$3&*8 C8D7&$##+.3$()*7$++*4:'.))7&34--&()
-1@&3)$)$E1-'.(3+40&0.()7&
)1-'2$)&-8F
G4.0&:11B8
8
-.1-)1.**4$(3&1,:4.+0.(/#&-'.)*)7&$##+.3$()*7$++*4:'.))7&#-1@&3)#+$(*)1)7& 61-$/$;-.(0$E.-&.*)-.3).,-&H4.-&0:<)7&54.+0.(/;,,.3.$+8 IJKLMNO
PQRSTUPQVTWX
Item J.1
Packet Page 347

!"
#
!$% &"

'() *+,-.' /0
1+2

"$

'() *+,
3/
+4* 567891:3
8;<3=>?506;>79 83 .4*3@16A;>@7A 36 A; 01B)':*+,
1/8.*,+CD )A5?':058?7E>?1=F97E2A5?16; .*,:)-G(CH>10;>8;?/163;A16; I1EJ>A5/;5K>7?;.'-LG(C8=0F;65K>?567;>.* 01MF=7A98J@;7J@?.-DNC,OH;1>?;A E1?758 ABIF=7A98J>;?F13P>>79;B169;1>?Q),NC+O>79;B169H;3PIQ)*NC+O>79;B169<;>?Q')NC+OK658?B169>5=?@Q)'NC+O6;1 B 9<;>?Q-NCRO S /TUVW568UXYZ[\ 1VW] 1^13? 1_TU`^a_3ZbVc?bZ19 1[Zd9 aV1K 1YTeZKaV`fZWKbT[1A=0 1bUXaVX1859 1VTWagZF>0? Fd`ZXZV^FB89 FZhTVWF5? FT^X37/ 3d`^7V/bd_Z3@8A 3fdVZb3i 3TV^[biaV^3AJ 3ZabVc3A6 3bZd[30= 3TV_[Z^0d`TV[h= a^35A 3TbUXV350/63TXj[Z`aYbZ358 TV_[Z^358? 3TV^aUT`3/? 3d[jZ^3? 3Z[dXa_?abZ3?B9 3TU[^hdW9FA 9TUYbZ9;05 9ZXTba`fT[9ZXTba^TV971 9adXZ^Z[970 9aXZV`aT970> 9aXZV`aT98 9TkV96 9T[9<J 9[dkaVc;1 ;d_f;i ;ljdV`aTia^;A ;bZed^aTV;A 3 ;bZ_^[adb;A E ;bZed^T[ ;bZed^aTV;/90 ;^fhbZV/[TjhbZV9aV0C3bd`H6TmaVcI;n ;oUdb;M7>? ;la`^Vc;M/i?;ljdV`aTia^;M? ;l^Z[aTK9 KbT[9daVT[KaZ9 jd[^XZVK;3 Ka[Z;l^aVcU`fZ[3dYaVZ^K7M? Kal^U[ZKA6 KbT[K0 KabZW0Z^dbK5 Kd_Z5mK89 KTUVWd^aTV J1 JdUcZ J1AE JdbedVagZW J<F Jhj`UX<dbFTd[W@3 @Tbk3 [Z @0 @Tbk0Z^db@/ @acf/TaV^@6 @TU[@E13 @Zd^aVc:EZV^abdVc:1 W a[3TVWa^TV c76J<F7Xjd_^6Z`a^dVJhj`UX<dbFTd[W7A5 7VAaZU5m78>=A 7V`Ubd^ZWT[7V`Ubd^aTV78? 7V^Z[aTA5 ATk 01M 0dlaXUX 05 0d`TV[h5jZVac 0;3@ 0Z_fdVa b 0;0F60ZXY[dVZ 078 0aVaXUX 06J<0Ta`^U[ZC6 `a^dVJhj<dbFTd[W 0?A 0Z^db873 8T^7V3T^[d_85 8UXYZ[850 8TXaVdb 53 5V3ZV^[ 5@ 5jjT`a^Z@dVW 5p 5UV_Z/3 /[ZC3d`^TV_[Z^/A=0F/bUXYaVc/AB9 /bhkTW/? /[Z`U ? d^W/8? /daV^T[/daV^ZW/E3 /TbheaVb3fT[aWZ6F UYZ[63/ 6Zmb_^W3 abVc/bdV69 6Tm9[daV6;n9 6ZoUa[W60 6TX>70 >aXabd[>/;3 >jZ_amW56>jZ_amd^TV>/P >j[aVqbZ[T >jZdq[> ?A >^daVbZ`>^Zb>?3 >TUVW?[dV`Xa aTV3 Zma_ZV^>?A >^Zb>?6=3>^[U_ ZT>^U_ db?\J ?TVcUZ1VWJ[TeZ?;A ?ZbjfTVZ?A ?TabZ^?5 ?Tj5m?53 ?Tj5m3TV_[Z^?5> ?Tj5m>^Zb?/9 ?TabZ^/djZ[9a`jZV [?(9 ?ZbjfTVZ(9d^?B/ ?hja_db=85 =VbZ`8T^ZW5^fZ[ka`=(> =VWZ[`aE7K EZ[amh7VKaZbWE/ Ea`TV/dZb /65i;3?78K5601?758
/65i;3?976;3?56B r
@7A>9;@50;>J65=/:7832'+51P>@76;/A13;1A 05:31R4'sH4D+I'*RCD4s @7A>9;@50;>J65=/:7832'+51P>@76;/A13;1A 05:31R4'sHR*'I-D)C*R'+ t u
19E 83;98J7 ;67J-D)<1A8=?FAE92S*+F6;8?<559:31R4')-HR*'I4+C-)R u
?;6 1K7601;8J7; 678J-s)+A58;?6 <1BS)-18?753@:31R4'+HR*'I4-sC + u u

13;8J7; 678J 324'A1>J1A781>E;2S)+4s>186 K ;A:31R4+-H4)'I*RC)
$" uvt><;;?>= ?178 FA;>5A=?758>A7>1<;;?H')+I,R-C,4 1F 6;E71?58>
E738?B01/
)2358?613?565E;67KB35897?58>189 70;8>758 1? @;>7?;:F678J1 B7358>7?;837>?5@;1? ;8 7585K?@;163@7?;3 F;K56;/653; 978J<7?@<56P2*29585?>31A;961<78J>2<67? ;8970;8>758 @1AJ5E;685E;6/A18> 9;A E1?758>2A16J;>31A;961<78J>>@1AJ5E;685E;6>01A>31A;961<78J>2-21A 970;8>758 ?5K13;5K>?=98A;> 5?@;6<7>;85?;924235569781?;M13?A531?7585K1A ; 3?671AK7M?=6;>1895=?A; ><7?@163@7?;3 78K;A92'235569781?;M13?A531?7585K0;3@1873 A;n=7/0;8?:9=3?>:J67A;>:6;J7>?;6>:KA=;>189E;8?><7?@163@7?;3 =61A961<78J>2,278>?1A 01?;671A>:;n=7/0;8?:189K7M?=6;>78358K5601?758<7?@ ;6 n=76;0;8?>1896;3500;891?758>5K?@;018=K13?=6; 2s2/65E79;1A 8;3 > 16BFA53P78J:F13P78J:189K61078JK56.A7J@?K7M =6;>:A 3?671A=87?>:/A=0F78JK7M?=6;>:F1?@655013 ;> 567;>:@;1?78J;n=7/0;8?:31>;<56P:189 A5?@;67?;0>6;n=768J>=/ 56?2D2358?613?567>6; /58>7FA;K56A531?78J1 9/65?;3?78J1A;M7>?8J58C>7?;= 7A ;>9=678J358>?6=3?7582R218Bn=;>?758>6;J16978J?@;78?; 6;A1?;95@;A1B5=?5K?@;8 <<56P>@1AF; 65=J@?5@;1? ;8 7585K?@;163@7?;3 /6756?5/653; 978J<7?@18B <56P2)+21A <56P>@1AF;958;78>?673 1 569183;<7?@195/?;9 7?58>5K?@;=F3:F :189 A 5?@;6F=7A98J359;>3=6 ;8?AB;8K563;9FBA531A=?@567?;>2)21A K76;/ E 8?758<56P?5F;958;7813 569183;<7?@ ;*+)R31A7K56871K6;359;1896;K 6 83 ?58K/1)-9<7?@;1E >/678PA;6>/;605K92)*2?@7>50;7>A531?;978?@;<7A9 1897?;6K13;K76;1 2?@; 50;>@1A350/AB<7?@36 -sC7JJ8?7586;>7?18 358?6=3?758285?;.?@;<5599;3P78J>@5<80=>?350/AB<7?@36 -s2)-21A 7J@?K7M =6;>78?@; =F189>@5<;6?5F;A1F;A 9>=7?1FA;K56910/A531?758>2 >fZ^Aa`
>fZ^8dXZ
>fZ^
8UXYZ[ >fZ^7`UZ9d^
35E;6>@; ? 1+2 D(*+->7?;/A18 1)2+ D(*+-=/ ;6A E A 1)2 D(*+-A5<;6A;E A 1)2* D(*+-F1>;0;8?A;E A(19= 1)2- +'() *,655K/A18 1)24 D(*+-;1>?\<;>?;A E1?758> 1*2) D(*+-856?@\>5=?@;A E1?758> 1*2 D(*+-F=7A98J>;3?758> 1-2+ D(*+-163@7?;3 =1A9;?17A> 142+ D(*+-358>?6=3?7580J0?/A18 3)2- D(*+-A189>31/;A18 A)2 D(*+-?6; /65?;3?758/A18 A)2* D(*+--9/;6>/;3?7E;\01?;671A> p)2* D(*+- 1> ; 56 /163;A01/
K16.4sDR(*,)-Q+2)D-H 2-LI6;E7> 9K16Q+2*)H 2LI19i=>?;9KA55616; .=/ ;6A E AQ ),'+>KA5<;6A;E AQ *'+>K?5?1A7E8J16; . 4)'+>K J161J;Q ,+ >KHJ161J;A;> IQ C4+>K>;32)s,-16; Q 4-R>K19 ?AK55616; Q s-+>K?5?1AK55616; . ')R>K w
x
&y # v
p5878J?B/;.6C4+(39C) 533=/183B.6-H>K6I,/16P78J>/13;>. -J161J;)=835E;6 9
358>?6=3?7583A1> .EK76;>/678PA;6>B ?;0.B;>3->?560<1?;6358?65A.5/?7584F756;? 8 758K137A?B J;8;61A85?;>
>B0F5A>
>=Fi;3?/65/;6?B
K76;85?;>.)21A K76;/ E 8?758<56P?5F;958;7813 569183;<7?@ ;*+)R31A7K56871K6;359;1896;K 6 83 ?58K/1)-9<7?@;1E >/678PA;6>/;605K92*2?@7>50;7>A531?;978?@;<7A9 1897?;6K13;K76;1 2?@; 50;>@1A350/AB<7?@36 -sC7JJ8?7586;>7?18 358?6=3?758285?;.?@;<5599;3P78J>@5<8 0=>?350/AB<7?@36 -s2-218 A?;681?;01?;671A>/ A731?58>@1AF;1/ 65E;9?@1 9 6;> 1E 7A F ;K76;KA5<1?@;>7?;.@;6 n=76;9K76;KA5<K56?@; 50;7>Ds'J/02?@;1E 7A F ;K5<7>-)4J/02?@;1/ A731?588931?;>@;>/678PA;6>B ?;0<7AF;=/J619; ?5/65E79;1->/678PA;6@B961=A739;>7J8:189?@;19 7?585KK76;>/678PA;6>78?@;F1?@6550>:3A5>;?>189 ? 73>/13;>z1 <;A1> /678P;6>1? A ;1E >2 {|}

~
{|}

{|}

-1`FUab^6Zea`TV4(* +,

Item J.1
Packet Page 348

" "

"
!
#

"
!
#

$

%
!

!$

%
&

#!"
"

"

"
"

# #

%! !

"

$

$

!

$

"!

(

" %

#
"
"

"
"

)

! !

"
*

!!
"
$
"+
"
,'

!!
"
$
"+

,'
"
"
$
"+

,'

"
"
$
"+

*

%

"

!
'
!
!

!

"

!
!
'

!

!
!

!

"

!
'
!
!

! "
(

!

$

"
&-

!#.

#
#

!!

"

$

$

$

% "'

% " '

% " '

% "'

%! !

!

$

$

"!
/0123405 6017

.
"
#

-
%

.

"
!

#
*

!

#
+
,
##

"%

"
$ #
8 "$

"+"
"
$ ",

!%

#

!

#

!

#

#

* 9
:;<!=>?
4@ABCDAEC

DFAGHIJK
61LMN OP45ND2Q ROS
TUO6V4M012SR6L2
6R WOXL6YZTU[
Y\TN] ^Z
4M2 5
* 9
*
' !
%
4052SR6P
Z\LM61R24M0R
L01 R2
*
!

8
1C_`aJH4@bCcdB
1C_`aJH
PdeKCF 1C_`aJHDCa@F`fEJH
1C_`aJH
DAEC
gh:=;<i:gj?*
klmnopq
rstuvwrsxvyz Item J.1
Packet Page 349

!"
#$

%
&'

!"
#$

( )

(

)

+ *
&,

%
%
-
%
-

(
,

./
,

(

%

%

00
&&0

/,

.&
%

1"

"! $#

%

+ 1

!"
#$

&

&
(
&
%
0

*
*
&
2+,

.
&
2*
, +
&/

/

/ & ,
/

*

/
*
%*
&
*2
& ,

&
+3
&&

/
*

%

"! #
$
+
* &

/
*

(
(%

*&
*2

2
+* /
&
&3
/&0
,
.
/

,
& 4
+
5 6)
,*
4 0,*%
6)
&0
+&
/
2 2
&0
*
* 2
&,
./,
0
/ 4
+&+
& 2&
2
&+
.
&4
( 7
&
**&0
7&
* .*
8%%
%
(
+&+
&3
+&+
&0

,

*, +.
&

)%
0

* /
,
09&0

*2
& +&+3

&
/*&
09&0
+.
&% /
& *
*&
&0
.
7& /
&

%
&
%/
&3*
&
/
.:

&& *
&7%
0&,
*
& *&0%
*&
+&
*,
+.

00

.
*
2+
.
+.
* &0
*
&

)(%
00&
3
4 0
0

.
*
2+
.

+.
* &0

. &
& /

/

&&0

.0.0
*
+&

&
*
&&0

+.&2
0
*
4

)6 &
.5
%;

%+.

* &0

.

&&

.
:

:&
*/

0
*
+ &

&

*&&0

)6 &
.5
%

;
%
/
&0
.&0

'

"! #
$

(
%

*
&

2+,
.
.

/
*

(

/
. .0
%
00&

&
/
*

*2
0
&0

)

(

)
(

&5(
&.0.
&;

/

+&+
.&0

2 +&+:
/4
&&0
+

0

<=>?@A>B@
AC>DEFGH
IJKL
M NO<P

MAQR SNT
UV
NIW<LXJQ
TSIKQ
IS YNZ
KI[\UV]
[^UM_ `\
<LQ P

6(
a

6

3
*
%
bT QJ
S R S
\^
KLIJSQ<
LXS
KXJ SQ
6

*

( &:

6(
a

c '
!
J@defGE
<=g@hi?
J@defGE
OijH@C J@defGE
A@f=CekBGE
J@defGE
A>B@ 1

#

!#1$(6

lmno
pqr
stuvwx
styw
z{ Item J.1
Packet Page 350

! $#"

"#$
&
'

&

(

&

)

&

)* *
+&
'

&

,
+

)-
&

#./

! #"
$

&+

) %
)
-)+

'*+%0

-+
'
)'+'

1+
20

)+'
+,

&)0
%+

(
%+'
%

3)
%+'
%
',)
'

&)0

&)0 %+

+

(4
-0
,)5+,

*+'

) %+'
%3

'

-&)+
,)5+,
%+

&+
-

& '

& +,

6+&
-
+

(
'(

-+)

'+*%0
&+
'

%
'
'
)'+,
&,0
7

+,
2

&,0
7

+,
2

&,0

7

+,2

)'0
)

)

(

%)

&,0

7

+,2

&,0

7

+,2

4

%
')+'
'
'

89:;<=:><
=?:@ABCD
EFGH
I JK8L
I=MN OJP
QR
JES8HTFM
POEGM
EO UJV

GEWXQRY
WZQI[ \X
8HM L

]
^
]
3 4
&

OJ_MF
OMN O
XZ
GHEFOM8
HTO
GTF OM
]

+'2

]
^ )#` a
)!
F<bcdCA
89e<fg;
F<bcdCA
KghD<? F<bcdCA
=<d9?ci>CA
F<bcdCA
=:><

!"
#$]
jklm
nop
qrstuv
qrwu
xy Item J.1
Packet Page 351

!
"#$

"
%"
&'()*+(,*
+-(./012
3456 7 89&: 7+;< =8>
?@ 83A&6B4; >=35;
3= C8D 53EF?@G
EH?7I JF
&6; :

K

L M

N

O3&;C;9: =;< =P3+Q
FH 5634=;& 6B=
5B4 =;

L
N
"R
4*STU1/ &'V*WX)
4*STU1/
9XY2*- 4*STU1/ +*U'-TZ,1/
4*STU1/
+(,*

K

[\]^]_`
]ab
cdef ghi
jklmno jkpn qr Item J.1
Packet Page 352

"

#

$

#

&'(

)

*

%

$

(

"
$+&,
"

#,

"

"

)

)

# *

&
%
%

(

(
('
'(-
'(

('
'(
'(&

%'"
$

%

.

$

$

/01234153
461789:;
<=>?@ AB/C@4DE FAG
HIA<J/?K=DGF<>D
<F LAM><NOHIP
NQH@R SO
/?D C
T
UVWXYZ[W
&
% &

=AA\GF<B
OQ>?<=FD/?KF
>K= FD
&
%

%
$

]
'(
^_`YV

%]
'( %
Xab[c^dVTb^aZ[YU`

%]
'(
`YTeUVfYb[ZYU`
=3ghi:8/0j3kl2
=3ghi:8
Blm;36 =3ghi:843i06hn5:8
=3ghi:8
4153
opqrstu
vwxyz{vw|z} Item J.1
Packet Page 353

!"
!#$
!%"

!
&
'
()$

*
+%
, $!$
+ #-
-./
!&$
!$
+"
$
+%
!

/

!
!%1

#
!
2

$
+
%
)
! $!

$
+!'

+

!+%
!&! !$
+

$

3 +

+

+&$& +
++
!

4

%

$
+

$
+

$3

"
! &
/
$
"

! $
+
$ +$& &
45

$/ )

! (

#!
- &

3
!&
!
!$
+
!&
!
!$
+

##$
#
&
3

% #$
#
&

+ !

!

#
!

2

2

!#$

6
)
!
,$!
+ +

$
+ #

)!

!
/
(
!

!
!%
!#$

!
&
'
)$

*
+%

!
!&
!
!$
+(

!$ +%
!&
!
!$
+(

!$ +% +

+
!(
$!$
+
&

%3

+&$&+
$ $
+
++
!
5

4 +&$&+
$ $
+
++
7 ,

, $
# !$
+

#/$
#$
#!
)$&

#!$

#
/

#$
#
8
! 67
+&$+&

!

#
!

!

!
9:;<=>;?=
>@;ABCDE
FGHIJ KL9MJ>NO PKQ
RSKFT9IUGNQPFHN
FP VKWHFXYRSZ
X[RJ\ ]Y
9IN M

-2^

-

4
(2

NF9M_`N9MNP OFMUKL9
Y[HIFGPN9IUP
HUG PN
-

4

2 $

-2^

a

bc

-2^

# a

bc
G=defDB9:g=hi<
G=defDB
LijE=@ G=defDB>=f:@ek?DB
G=defDB
>;?=

a
lb
bac2-
4 mnopqrs
tuvwxytuzx{| Item J.1
Packet Page 354

!"
#
$
%
&
'

(!#

&$
% (
%(%
#%

"*
%

+
%
&
'

$
(

&$
% (
%(%
#%

%'
#
&#
%
#+
!
%'
%
#+
!
+
%&%
'%# ')

! %$ !
#

% &

#
%'
#
#&#

,-&# .
#
!

%$
!# !+
#%/'& #%$
&

#2

%# ! !# !

!#

3
%

&

4!

#

&$
% )%(%
#%

)!"
"*
%
+

4

$#

# 5

4 #

#
#
'%

&
%

#+
!
!
4

$#
# 5
4 #
# #
'%

&$
% )
%(%
#%

)!"
"*

%
+

$
&
!
)#

,&%$
.

& # # $#
$ ##'

--

!!# !

&
"

&$
%
%(%
#%

4
!# !

4
!# ! &

#
&

'$ !# !

'$ !# !
6789:;8<:
;=8>?@AB
CDEFG HI6JG;KL MHN
OPHCQ6FRDKNMCEK
CM SHTECUVOPW

UXOGY ZV
6FK J

"-[

"

\
(-]&

IHDJF^6H_JFKM LCJRHI6
VXEFCDMK6FRM
ERD MK
"

\
%

- # 5%

"-[

0
`

a0b

"-[

0c
`

a0b
D:defA?67g:hi9
D:defA?
IijB:= D:defA?;:f7=ek<A?
D:defA?
;8<:
l'ca
al0b-"
\
mnopqrs
tuvwxytuzx{| Item J.1
Packet Page 355

!
"

!
#!
$
%
$&!' "! $"
($"
($
)$

!
$ !*!
!$+) %$
!
#!"+)
!

,-
$! *
-.

-/
0 (
!1
% %$
!
!1
% %$
!
!
%! $
#
(
($
)$

2!$(
$
!(
% &!$ (
%
$!
%&+$ ! $)" &'"$

$)"$!3!)!$ &

&
($( $!
4!1
%5
!

$
(
$&!

!&($
4!1
%5

!$+)

(
%6$!
% &!$

!
$) %
$
%
$
& &

&
$
( %
$
%
!"!
#$

!7& !$
&!$ ( "!"#$
!

$ (
0

!
$)$ !

!3!
$ &

$!
!
%

%$%! %!!

$3!&)
$
!$(
-8
&!$ ( "!"#$
! &73!$ &'"!"#$
!%$%!#

%$%!!3
!

$)#!
$"!3
!1
% %$
!
#(
%

#!
!
($!!

-
$&!
!

,-
$! *
-
.
-/-(
($!*$
%
($"
!

#

*! !2($

(
3 9:;<=
>;?=
>@;AB
CDE
;@:FG?=: H
EIG<>=@H
>=J <DK=@
LMD;N9FG@=K<O
;< PDQ:;RSLT

RULHV WS

'2/

'

-
*28"

9 DBG?:=9X BG><GIE

<<GF9=<@;F:US
=<:@G:
'

-

2
+

'2/

Y
Z[\]^\
Z
Y\ [

'2/

Y
Z[\]^\![
_Z

'2/

Y
Z[\]^\%^

'2/

2 Y
Z[\]^\
Z[ ^$`
akjiahg9fecdcba@
fecdcba@
fecpocngda>fecdcba@ na lm jB
fecdcba@
apq>
-
'' [2 ZrZ $
Z]#r
stuvwxy
z{|}~z{~ Item J.1
Packet Page 356
Item J.1
Packet Page 357

Item J.1
Packet Page 358

Item J.1
Packet Page 359

Item J.1
Packet Page 360

Item J.1
Packet Page 361

Item J.1
Packet Page 362

Item J.1
Packet Page 363
Item J.1
Packet Page 364

Item J.1
Packet Page 365

Item J.1
Packet Page 366

Item J.1
Packet Page 367

Item J.1
Packet Page 368

Item J.1
Packet Page 369

Item J.1
Packet Page 370

Item J.1
Packet Page 371

Item J.1
Packet Page 372

Item J.1
Packet Page 373

Item J.1
Packet Page 374

Item J.1
Packet Page 375

Item J.1
Packet Page 376

Item J.1
Packet Page 377

Item J.1
Packet Page 378

Item J.1
Packet Page 379

Item J.1
Packet Page 380

Item J.1
Packet Page 381

Item J.1
Packet Page 382

Item J.1
Packet Page 383

Item J.1
Packet Page 384

Item J.1
Packet Page 385

Item J.1
Packet Page 386
22 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563

LATE CORRESPONDENCE

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
LATE CORRESPONDENCE –
MAY 26, 2026
Name Page
Lashun Cross 2-95
Nathan Ogle 96-97
Item J.1
Packet Page 387
OVERVIEW & REVIEW: 10 IRWIN WAY

VISTA VERDE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT

PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 26, 2026
2 Item J.1
Packet Page 388
10 Irwin Way Background
Project Description & Approval Dates
• The Vista Verde project in
Downtown Orinda proposed a 5-
story building with 51 affordable
senior apartments and one
caretaker unit.
• Located on a 1.4-acre site, the
complex features a second-level
garage, pedestrian crosswalk, and
required zoning amendments and
density bonus concessions.
2 Project Approval Dates
Planning Commission: July 12, 2022
City Council: August 16, 2022
3 Item J.1
Packet Page 389
10 Irwin Way
Current Project Construction Changes
3 Approved Project
Entitlements Current Project Construction Plans
Unit Count 52
53 Max. allowed: 74 units total [Max. allowed density: 38 du/acre, per OMC Section 17.4.33, SH-Overlay plus 35% density bonus for affordable housing, on a 1.442-acre site] Parking 32 spaces 33 spaces
Open Space: Private
Balconies
Total: 4,339 sf
Area: 83 sf/unit
Total: 3,912 sf
Average: 74 sf/unit
Floor-to-Area Ratio
(FAR) 1.2 1.26
Total Square Feet 72,593 sf 78,762 sf
(Approx. 2,000 sf additional per each of the five building floors; overall height remains same) Tree Removal 5 protected trees with 69”
aggregate diameter
12 protected trees with 190” aggregate diameter
Project will be subject to additional tree replacement requirements, per OMC 17.21.5 4 Item J.1
Packet Page 390
Mitigated Negative Declaration Pages
Air Quality
4 5
Item J.1
Packet Page 391
Mitigated Negative Declaration Pages
Noise
5 6
Item J.1
Packet Page 392
Site Location & Noticing For Project
Newspaper Ad & 300-ft list
6 Site Location & Notified Property Owners CC Notice 300-ft list Newspaper Notice 7 Item J.1
Packet Page 393
Noticing For CEQA
Mitigated Negative Declaration
7 8
Item J.1
Packet Page 394
Site Plan
8 9
Item J.1
Packet Page 395
Elevations
Front Building
9 10
Item J.1
Packet Page 396
Elevations
Left Building
10 11
Item J.1
Packet Page 397
Elevations
Rear Building
11 12
Item J.1
Packet Page 398
Elevations
Right Building
12 13
Item J.1
Packet Page 399
Conditions of Approval
Vista Verde project
13 Minor changes to the approved building
plan(s) shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Director prior to
implementation. Major changes to the
approved building plan(s) shall be subject
to the review and approval of the City
Council.
14 Item J.1
Packet Page 400
Building Permit Plans (Minor Changes)
Modified Wall Portions Highlighted
14 15
Item J.1
Packet Page 401
Interim Planning Director Approval
10 Irwin Way Minor Changes
15 16
Item J.1
Packet Page 402

IRWIN WAY IS AN

APPROVED PROJECT THAT

DOES NOT REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL ACTION.

POST ENTITLEMENT,

PLANNING STAFF HAS

OVERVIEW OF THE

MITIGATION MEASURES

AND CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL.
17 Item J.1
Packet Page 403
18 Item J.1
Packet Page 404
19 Item J.1
Packet Page 405
20 Item J.1
Packet Page 406
21 Item J.1
Packet Page 407
22 Item J.1
Packet Page 408
23 Item J.1
Packet Page 409
24 Item J.1
Packet Page 410
25 Item J.1
Packet Page 411
26 Item J.1
Packet Page 412
27 Item J.1
Packet Page 413
28 Item J.1
Packet Page 414
29 Item J.1
Packet Page 415
30 Item J.1
Packet Page 416
31 Item J.1
Packet Page 417
32 Item J.1
Packet Page 418
33 Item J.1
Packet Page 419
34 Item J.1
Packet Page 420
35 Item J.1
Packet Page 421
36 Item J.1
Packet Page 422
37 Item J.1
Packet Page 423
38 Item J.1
Packet Page 424
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Vista Verde Community Housing Project
10 Irwin Way, Orinda
June 2022
PREPARED BY:

City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
39 Item J.1
Packet Page 425

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Purpose of Environmental Review .....................................................................................1 Background .........................................................................................................................2 Introduction .........................................................................................................................3 Project Summary .................................................................................................................4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................................11 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................12 Environmental Impact Assessment Checklist .....................................................................14 List of Figures
Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map ...........................................................................................8 Figure 2 Project Location Map ........................................................................................9 Figure 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................10 Appendices
Appendix A: EnGeo Geotechnical Feasibility Report (4/9/2019) Appendix B: McNeil Arboriculture Consultants Arborist’s Report (11/17/2021) Appendix C: Apex Engineering Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan (11/23/2021) Appendix D: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Local Traffic Analysis (LTA) (3/7/2022) Appendix E: Project Plans (3/22/22)
40 Item J.1
Packet Page 426
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 1

PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to identify potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from a lot split, amendment of the General Plan land use and zoning designation, the establishment of a senior housing overlay zone, a Design Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and Elevated Deck Permit, and the construction and operation of a 100% affordable senior housing project on the 1.4-acre (60,000 SF) project site at 10 Irwin Way, Orinda, CA 94563 (project or proposed project). An application for Density Bonus will be considered to allow for a concession to private open space requirements, height and story limits, and a waiver of the floor area ratio.

This IS will also identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce any such impacts to a level considered less than significant. The General Plan and zoning must be amended from Public, Semipublic and Utility District to Residential Medium Density (with a Senior Housing Overlay Zone) to allow 38 units per acre for senior housing.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, based upon the information presented in this Initial Study, which determined that the proposed project would not have any significant impacts or that such impacts can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. If it is determined that the proposed project would have one or more significant impacts that cannot adequately be mitigated, the lead agency (City) will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Environmental Procedures
This IS has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), (Public Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq.), and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000, et seq.) This report complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the City of Orinda.

Lead Agency/Contact Persons
In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Orinda has been designated the "lead agency" which is defined as the "public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” The Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (OSHF) is the project sponsor.

Lead Agency: City of Orinda. Drummond Buckley, Director of Planning, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563. (925) 253-4240
Project Sponsors: OSHF (John Wyro, Project Manager), 40 Valley Drive, Orinda, CA 94563.

Responsible/Trustee Agencies: Responsible agencies are those, which have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with development of the proposed project site. Trustee agencies are state agencies having discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over material resources affected by the project. There are no responsible or trustee agencies for this project. 41 Item J.1
Packet Page 427
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 2

BACKGROUND
The Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (OSHF), which owns the existing Orinda Senior Village at the top of Irwin Way, is proposing to construct a new senior housing project (Vista Verde) to the northwest of their existing facility, on property currently owned by Orinda Community Church.

Location
The proposed project’s location is at the end of Irwin Way, northeast of Orinda Community Church, south of Mira Loma Road, north of Orinda Senior Village, and west of the Watchwood neighborhood. As proposed, the site is ideal for the target user demographics with the Orinda Senior Village and recently completed Monte Verde (another senior housing development) also located off of Irwin Way. It is also adjacent to the Orinda Community Park, Orinda Library, the Orinda Community Center with its many classes for seniors, the Post Office, and near retail shops and services including a grocery store, two pharmacies, and a bookstore, clothing store and numerous cafes.

Technical Studies
Traffic, geological and soils, stormwater and arborist reports were prepared for the proposed project and have been utilized in the preparation of this Initial Study. See the attached appendices for these reports.
42 Item J.1
Packet Page 428
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 3

INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15000 et seq.), as amended December 28, 2018.

An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the lead agency to determine whether an EIR or Negative Declaration must be prepared and to identify the significant effects to be analyzed in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15365).

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”
The Initial Study for the proposed project will serve to focus on effects determined to be potentially significant. This document has been prepared as an objective, full-disclosure document to inform agency decision-makers and the general public of the direct and indirect physical environmental effects of the proposed action and any measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts.

The environmental checklist, approved by the City and consistent with CEQA Guidelines, is used to focus this study on physical, social, and economic factors that may be further impacted by the proposed project. The checklist indicates one of the following determinations for each specified potential impact under each category of impact included on the checklist:
"potentially significant impact"
"potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated" "less than significant impact"
"no impact"
After completing the checklist and pursuant to Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared. According to Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(a) The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects, but:
1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant impact on the environment. 43 Item J.1
Packet Page 429
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 4

PROJECT SUMMARY

1. Project title: Vista Verde Community Housing, 10 Irwin Way.

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Orinda, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563

3. Contact person and phone number: Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
City of Orinda
(925) 253-4240

4. Project location: 10 Irwin Way, Orinda, CA 94563. (See Figure 1, Vicinity Map, and Figure 2 for the project location
within Orinda.)

5. Project sponsor's name and address: Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (OSHF), 40 Valley Drive, Orinda CA 94563
Existing Proposed

6. General Plan land use
designation
Public, Semipublic, and
Utility
Residential

7. Zoning Public, Semipublic, and
Utility
Residential Medium Density
with a Senior HousingOverlay (SH-O)

8. Description of Proposed Project: The proposed project involves construction of a new affordable senior housing development consisting of
52 rental apartments (including one caretaker’s unit)
for very low to moderate-income seniors. The
proposed project consists of a lot split, General Plan
Amendment from Public, Semipublic, and Utility to
Residential, Rezoning from Public, Semipublic, and
Utility to Residential Medium Density with a Senior
Housing-Overlay (SH-O), Design Review Permit,
Tree Removal Permit, and Elevated Deck Permit.

Additionally, an application for Density Bonus will
be considered to allow for a concession to the to the
private open space requirement, height and story
limits as well a waiver of the floor area ratio for the 100% affordable housing project. The analysis also
considers the construction and operation of the senior
housing project.

The land use amendments and Density Bonus
concession/waiver will allow OSHF to develop Vista
44 Item J.1
Packet Page 430
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 5 Verde, a 100% affordable senior housing project on
the 10 Irwin Way site with a density no more than 38
dwelling units per acre, including the state density
bonus, at a maximum height of 53 feet and five
stories, and with a parking ratio of approximately 0.5
stalls per unit.

The project will have fifty-one (51) affordable senior
rental apartments and one (1) two bedroom Caretaker
Unit for a total of fifty-two (52) units on an
approximately 1.4 +/- acres site located at 10 Irwin
Way near downtown Orinda. The proposed senior
development will consist of thirty-two (32) onebedroom and twenty (20) two-bedroom apartment homes ranging from 700 – 958 SF (gross), targeting
very low to moderate-income seniors. The plan is to
provide 25% of units at a moderate income (13 total),
59% units at low-income (30 total) and 16% units at
very low-income tenants (8 total). There are no
market rate units proposed. Other than the Caretaker
Unit, all units will be affordable and available solely to seniors. According to the the project description
provided by the applicant, OSHF’s average senior
resident is single, in their 70’s, and lives on a fixed income. The development will also include amenities
such as an on-site Community Room, a Community
Garden, Roof Deck(s), two (2) Offices, Crafts &
Computer Room, Bike Storage, secured resident
Parking Garage with a security gate at garage entry,
Maintenance Shop and landscaped open areas.

The project requires the following permits:
• Design Review DRA-2021-023
• Elevated Deck Permit EDP-2021-019
• Tree Removal Permit TRP-2021-025
• Minor Subdivision MNS-2021-001
• General Plan Amendment GPA-2021-001
• Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2021-001
The above-referenced permits will be subject to a
recommendation by the Planning Commission and
final action by the City Council at noticed public
hearings.
45 Item J.1
Packet Page 431
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 6

9. Setting and surrounding land uses: The proposed project will replace an existing, twostory caretaker unit located northeast of the church and north of the parking lot, a garden, and a 22-space
parking lot. The site plan has been designed to
provide easy, convenient access for residents and
visitors, while also providing a safe and secure living environment. The building is anchored on two
distinct existing pads as it steps up the grade. The
garage is located at the upper, larger level via an
existing roadway alignment accessed from the
existing parking lot. The design has been developed
taking into account the visual impacts on our
neighbors.

The proposed project is at the end of Irwin Way,
northeast of Orinda Community Church, south of
Mira Loma Road, north of Orinda Senior Village,
and west of the Watch Wood neighborhood. As
proposed, the site and proposed project is compatible
with the adjacent Orinda Senior Village and recently
completed Monteverde Senior Apartments, also
located off of Irwin Way. It is also adjacent to the
Orinda Community Park, Orinda Library, the Orinda
Community Center with its many classes for seniors,
the Post Office, and near retail shops and services
including a grocery store, two pharmacies, and a
bookstore, clothing store and numerous cafes.

County Connection bus lines travel routes along
Orinda Way and the Orinda BART Station is just ½
mile from the site. The existing conditions allow the
site to be easily connected to downtown Orinda while
also being secure, quiet and among similar housing
types. Some of the nearby residents indicated a desire
to retain an informal trail through the Orinda Woods
open space and Orinda Community Church site
connecting the Mira Loma neighborhood with Irwin
Way and the downtown, which has been
incorporated into the proposed project. The project
will include pedestrian improvements such as a
crosswalk connecting the north and south side of
Irwin Way to create a connection to a continuous
sidewalk to Orinda Way.
46 Item J.1
Packet Page 432
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 7

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The project has been reviewed and been issued a preliminary approval by the Moraga-Orinda
Fire District (MOFD). A final approval at the
Building Permit stage, confirming compliance with
the Fire Code, will also be necessary from MOFD.

Contra Costa County, on behalf of the City of
Orinda, will be required to issue a Building Permit.

In addition the applicant will be required to obtain
service approvals from the Contra Costa County
Central Sanitary District for sanitary service and East Bay Municipal Utility District for water service.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so,
has consultation begun?
On April 7, 2022, the City mailed formal notification
letters to 16 Native America tribes with a proposed
project description and offer to request a consultation with the lead agency. On May 3, 2022, the City
received one consultation request from Wilton
Rancheria. On May 26, 2022, the City met via Zoom
teleconference with one member of the Wilton
Rancheria tribe.

Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. 47 Item J.1
Packet Page 433
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 8 Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
The project would be located adjacent to the Orinda Community Church and in close proximity to both of Orinda’s existing senior housing communities. It would also be adjacent to single family neighborhoods on La Plaza Drive and Mira Loma Road in the RL-20 District as well as homes in on Watchwood in the Orindawoods Planned Unit Development PD zone.
48 Item J.1
Packet Page 434
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 9 Figure 2 – Project Location Map
The subject property abuts a high transmission power line (red line on aerial) located between the project site and Orindawoods.
49 Item J.1
Packet Page 435
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 10 Figure 3 - Site Plan
Bottom floor level – Full set of Project Plans attached as Appendix E 50 Item J.1
Packet Page 436
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 11

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Mitigation measures have been provided for each significant impact, reducing all to a less-than-significant level.

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
51 Item J.1
Packet Page 437
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 52 Item J.1
Packet Page 438
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 13 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
53 Item J.1
Packet Page 439
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 14

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
X
c) If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
a) The General Plan and EIR do not identify any scenic vistas within the city’s boundaries. The General Plan EIR description of “visual character” includes steep slopes, wooded and grassy ridges, and undeveloped watershed lands. The project site is improved with an existing two-story caretaker unit and a parking lot and is surrounded by existing multi-story structures including the Orinda Community Church, Monteverde Senior Housing, and the Orinda Senior Village. Furthermore, the will be reviewed for compliance with Orinda Municipal Code Section 17.30.11 - Senior housing facility, multifamily housing, and high density design review. The project must be found to be in conformance with design review standards contained in OMC Section 17.30.11.A(1) and

17.30.11.A(5), both of which pertain to views as defined in OMC Section 17.24.4. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. b) As stated above, the project will not have an adverse effect on an existing visual character or scenic resources. The site is not visible from a state scenic highway. Highway 24 is the closest state scenic highway and is located 4,000-feet to the southeast. Furthermore, the project must be found to be in compliance with the design review standard contained in OMC Section 17.30.11.A(3), which requires that the “visible mass of the building is minimized and facades highly visible from off-site vantage points are designed to reduce the blocky or massive features of building surfaces and provide articulation and visual interest” and OMC Section 17.30.11.A(5), which requires the project to be “designed to relate to the natural and man-made context of the site.” Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on scenic resources.
c) Section 17.22.4-Definitions, which is referenced in the required Senior Housing Design Review standards, provides the following definition for a view. "View" means a scene from the primary living area of a residence or the active use area of a nonresidential building. The term "view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is generally medium or long range in nature, as opposed to short range. View includes but is not limited to distinctive geologic features, hillside terrains, wooded canyons, ridges, and bodies of water. Some examples are:

1. Mt. Diablo;
54 Item J.1
Packet Page 440
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 15

2. Prominent features of the East Bay Hills, such as Round Top, Huckleberry Preserve and Tilden Park;

3. Briones Reservoir;

4. Briones Agricultural Preserve.

The project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on an advisory basis and acted upon by the City Council to ensure compliance with all applicable sections of the Orinda Municipal Code, including OMC Section 17.30.11- Senior housing, and high density design review. . Therefore, the project will not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and will have a less than significant impact.
d) The project site is mostly vacant and does not produce substantial light or glare to the adjacent properties. However, the site is located in an area with adjacent development and vehicular traffic that are existing sources of light and glare. The proposed project would add new sources of light and glare associated with the residential units, such as exterior building lighting, windows, vehicle headlights, and outdoor landscape lighting. To minimize the creation of light and glare, the project would adhere to the lighting standards contained in Chapter 17.16 of the Orinda Municipal Code.

These standards require lighting in parking areas to be no greater than 16 feet above grade, create no cone of direct illumination greater than 60 degrees from light sources higher than 6 feet, to not directly shine onto an adjacent street and to not exceed 0.5 footcandles at ground level. In addition, the proposed standards for senior housing require that night and security lighting be shielded to prevent glare and outdoor light fixtures more than three feet above grade to be shielded to prevent direct illumination off-site. Furthermore, the project is required to operate in compliance with section

15.12.050-Public nuisance lighting of the Orinda Municipal Code which requires that all lighting fixtures be installed, controlled and directed so that the light will not glare or be blinding to pedestrians or vehicular traffic or on adjoining property. In addition, the project is subject to compliance with OMC Section 17.4.33, Senior Housing Overlay District(SH-Overlay) development standards, including subsection E: “ Lighting and Security. Night and security lighting and security measures shall be provided as necessary to ensure safe and convenient access and use of senior housing development. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded to prevent glare and outdoor light fixtures more than three feet above the ground shall be shielded to prevent direct illumination offsite.” Therefore, the project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare and will have a less than significant impact.
55 Item J.1
Packet Page 441
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 16 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) According to the Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site and surrounding areas are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.

Therefore, the project will not Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. Therefore, there will be no impact. b) The existing project site zoning is Public, Semipublic, and Utility which will be changed to Residential Medium Density with a Senior Housing Overlay as required to construct the project.

Therefore, the project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there will be no impact.
c) The existing project site zoning is Public, Semipublic, and Utility which will be changed to 56 Item J.1
Packet Page 442
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 17 Residential Medium Density with a Senior Housing Overlay as required to construct the project.

Therefore, the project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. Therefore, there will be no impact.
d) The 1.4-acre project site currently supports an existing, two-story caretaker unit located northeast of the church and north of the parking lot, and a parking lot. The existing project site zoning is Public, Semipublic, and Utility which will be changed to Residential Medium Density with a Senior Housing Overlay as required to construct the project. Therefore, the project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there will be no impact. e) The project site is not located within or within proximity to farmland or forest land and therefore could not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land. Therefore, there will be no impact.

III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
a) Development of the project site will be completed in compliance with Bay Area Air Quality District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring the federal and State ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP defines an integrated, multipollutant control strategy to reduce emissions of particulate matter, TACs, ozone precursors, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The proposed control strategy is designed to complement efforts to improve air quality and protect the climate that are being implemented by partner agencies at the State, regional, and local scale. The control strategy encompasses 85 individual control measures that describe specific actions to reduce emissions of air and climate pollutants from the full range of emission sources and is based on the following four key priorities:
• Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and TACs from all key sources; • Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases; 57 Item J.1
Packet Page 443
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 18 • Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas); and • Decarbonize our energy system.

Determining consistency with the 2017 CAP involves assessing whether applicable control measures in the 2017 CAP are implemented. The control measures include:
• Providing bicycle and pedestrian access and facilities; • Supporting implementation of Plan Bay Area, current climate action plans, and other local best practices;
• Implementing green building and energy efficient practices; • Reduce water consumption;
• Tree preservation and replanting
The proposed project is the development of affordable senior housing in an area already served by infrastructure. The project is incorporating pedestrian and bicycle connections to the existing network, is implementing green building/energy efficiency/resource conserving practices, and is preserving as many trees as possible on site given the proposed building envelope and the City’s in lieu mitigation fee will apply for trees that cannot be preserved/replaced on-site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan and the impact would be less than significant.
b) Development of the site with senior affordable housing will result in the demolition of an existing two-story caretaker unit located northeast of the church and north of the parking lot, and a parking lot.

Demolition of buildings is subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). Regulation 11, Rule 2 is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during demolition. All asbestos-containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, including specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos. By complying with the BAAQMD’s rule, demolition activity would not result in a significant impact to air quality.

In addition to the demolition activity described above, construction of the project would generate temporary construction emissions (direct emissions) and long-term operational emissions (indirect emissions). Project construction generated temporary air pollutant emissions are associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles. Long-term emissions associated with project operation would include emissions from vehicle trips (mobile sources); natural gas and electricity use (energy sources); and landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and other building materials associated with on-site development (area sources).

The BAAQMD’s 2017 Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes provide thresholds for determining if a land use project is required to complete further pollutant analyses.

The screening levels for a mid-rise apartment building are – 494-units (operational screening), 240-units (construction screening), and 87-units (GHG screening). The proposed project will construct fifty-one (51) senior rental apartments and one (1) two-bedroom Caretaker Unit for a total of fifty-two (52) units on an approximately 1.4 +/- acres site. Therefore, the BAAQMD screening levels for operational, construction, and greenhouse gas emissions will not be exceeded. The proposed project would therefore result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to air quality from any criteria air pollutant.

However, while the project does not reach the criteria to require further pollutant analysis, it is recognized that construction emissions can produce undesirable short term and temporary impacts. The proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading and excavations, 58 Item J.1
Packet Page 444
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 19 paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, the movement of construction equipment, and architectural coatings. Off-road construction equipment is often diesel powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.

Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions. Fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. BAAQMD states that implementation of its Basic Construction Mitigation Measures is necessary to reduce fugitive dust emissions to less than significant levels. These requirements are included as MM-AQ-1:

MM-AQ-1: Fugitive dust control.

To adequately control dust, the project applicant shall ensure construction contracts contain requirements for implementing the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures from BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered as deemed necessary for controlling dust during varying weather conditions to conserve water while California is in a drought.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).

4. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)

5. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

6. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

7. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

8. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

9. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

10. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

With the implementation of MM-AQ-1, impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. c) Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Per the BAAQMD Guidelines, sensitive receptors are defined as population groups that are more susceptible to exposure to pollutants and examples include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, residential areas, and other places where people reside for long periods of time.
59 Item J.1
Packet Page 445
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 20 Fine particulate matter (“PM10”) is the pollutant of greatest concern with respect to construction activities. PM10 emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust.

Construction-related emissions can cause substantial increases in localized concentrations of PM10.

Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects as well as nuisance concerns such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces.

Construction emissions of PM10 can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions and other factors.

Despite this variability in emissions, experience has shown that there are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PM10 emissions from construction activity. BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM10 control measures for construction activities on sites greater than 4 acres. While the project site at 10 Irwin Way is less than 4 acres, it is possible that grading activities on the site will be disruptive to sensitive receptors within proximity of the project site, including the Orinda Preschool, Holden High School, Orinda Senior Village, and the Community Park.

With the implementation of MM-AQ-1, impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.

MM-AQ-2: Minimize Emissions
The project applicant shall select equipment during construction to minimize emissions, including:
1) All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent.
2) All equipment shall include California Air Resources Board (CARB)-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filters or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel). 3) All equipment shall use added exhaust muffling and filtering devices.

With implementation of MM-AQ-2, impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. d) According to the BAAQMD Guidelines, examples of land uses that have the potential to generate considerable odors include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants (BAAQMD 2017a). Due to the nature of the project (i.e., a senior residential community), it would not generate objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people because odors would be comparable to those generated by existing surrounding residential land uses. During construction, oil or diesel fuel odors may be emitted by heavy equipment. However, these odors would be temporary and only experienced during equipment use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

Note: McNeil Arboriculture report (Appendix B) used as a resource for this section.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
X
60 Item J.1
Packet Page 446
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 21 the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

X
a) Habitats on and adjacent to the project site, including native oak trees, may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The removal of vegetation and/or trees during construction activities would result in noise, dust, human disturbance, and other direct/indirect impacts to nesting birds on or in the vicinity of the project site. Potential nest abandonment and mortality to individuals would be a potentially significant impact. To reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant, Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 would be required:

MM-BIO-1: Pre-Tree Removal or Pruning Raptor Survey.

Prior to the removal or significant pruning of any trees during any season, a qualified biologist shall inspect the trees for the presence of raptor nests. If a suspected raptor nest is discovered, the biologist shall notify the CDFW. Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, raptor nests, whether or not they are occupied, may not be removed until approval is granted by the CDFW. If no raptor nests are detected, no further measures are needed for work to occur outside the nesting bird season (February 1–August 31). For work to occur during the nesting season, additional preconstruction surveys are required as outlined in MM-BIO-2.

MM-BIO-2: Nesting Bird Preconstruction Surveys.
61 Item J.1
Packet Page 447
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 22 If clearing and/or construction activities will occur during the raptor or migratory bird nesting season (February 1–August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting birds up to 14 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall survey the construction zone and a 250-foot buffer surrounding the construction zone to determine whether construction has the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds. Raptor nests will be identified within 250 feet and passerine nests within 50 feet of the construction limits.

Surveys shall be repeated if project activities are suspended or delayed for more than 15 days during the nesting season.

If active nest(s) are identified during the preconstruction survey, the biologist shall make a determination as to whether construction activities are likely to disrupt reproductive behavior. If it is determined that construction is unlikely to disrupt behavior, construction may proceed. If construction will disrupt breeding, the biologist will establish a no-activity setback for migratory bird nests and a 250-foot setback for raptor nests. The ultimate size of the buffer zone may be adjusted by the biologist based on the species involved, topography, sight lines between the work area and the nest, physical barriers, and the ambient level of human activity, but must be made in consultation with the CDFW. No ground disturbance shall occur within the no-activity setback until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist.

With the implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, the impacts to species will be less than significant.
b) c) and d) The project site is an infill site in an urbanized area that is currently improved with an existing two-story caretaker unit, a parking lot, and landscaped areas with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs. The site is not on or near any migratory wildlife corridors nor would construction impede access to any native wildlife nursery sites since there are none near the site. The sites are not within a Habitat Conservation Plan area. A natural drainage course traverses the southern side of the Orinda Senior Village site nearby and the project site does not contain any natural drainage courses or wetlands.

Development on the 10 Irwin Way site is not near any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by any state or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the project will have no impact on habitats or wetlands or interfere with migratory fish or wildlife.
e) The City of Orinda requires a survey and construction protection/management plan for trees described as Protected in the Orinda Municipal Code 17.21 on or adjacent to construction sites. As such, an Arborist’s Report was prepared by McNeil Arboriculture Consultants on 11/17/2021 (Appendix B), which concluded that 72 trees were surveyed, 66 of which were located solely on the lot, and six on neighboring lots. Of the 72 trees, 44 will be removed. Of the 44 removals, five are protected under the Orinda Municipal Code and will require a Tree Removal Permit for removal. A total of 69 diameter inches of protected trees are proposed for removal. The project applicant would be required to comply with the protected tree replacement requirements as stated in OMC Section 17.21.5, which requires that for each 6 inches or fraction thereof of the aggregate diameter of the trees approved for removal, the applicant must plant one native tree with a diameter no less than 0.75 inches. The project will be required to meet the regulations of this ordinance. The project application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit.

To protect the trees being retained on site, the recommendations contained in the arborist’s report will be included as Mitigation Measure BIO-3, as follows:

MM-BIO-3: Tree Protection.
62 Item J.1
Packet Page 448
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 23

1. To prevent intrusion into root zones by material storage or construction equipment around trees to remain on site, temporary protective fencing will be required. Location of the fencing will provide sufficient room for construction activity while protecting root zones, and will define the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). All such fencing will protect trees on neighboring properties. An exhibit showing the precise location of the Tree Protection Zone shall be approved by the Project Arborist prior to installation on site.

2. There must be no disposal of waste or equipment washout that could drain off site into the protected zone.

3. The fencing should be minimum five foot chain link securely fastened to the ground or on driven posts, to prevent casual displacement by site workers who may not understand its purpose.

4. The location shown on the drawing should be reviewed on-site to the satisfaction of both the arborist and the general contractor or site supervisor.

5. Each fence section must have 8 ½ by 11 inch plasticized signs fastened every 50 feet, reading, “THIS FENCE MAY BE MOVED ONLY WITH PERMISSION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST”.

6. Fencing to protect retained trees should be in place as shown before any grading, construction or other site work begins.

7. Fencing should remain in place during the entire demolition, grading or construction phases and should not be moved by any subcontractor for any reason, without approval of the project arborist.

8. Fencing and other protection measures for retained trees must be in place as shown before any demolition, grading, construction or other site work past layout begins.

9. The project arborist will meet on-site with the contractor prior to commencement of site layout to confirm location of temporary tree protection measures to contractor and project arborist satisfaction.

10. The project arborist will meet with the contractor or any sub-contractors if the temporary fencing is to be moved or removed for any reason during the project. This includes meeting with the landscape contractor during plant or irrigation installation.

11. The project arborist will site for critical inspection events, such as trenching around trees #866 through #868, #897 through #900, #903, #908, #909, #912, and #916 through #918 and any other construction and demolition within Tree Protection Zones.

12. Carpenters may make pruning cuts up to two inches in diameter if essential for clearance.

Final pruning will be done at project completion by an ISA Certified Arborist4 or Certified Treeworker under Project Arborist supervision.

13. The project arborist shall be notified of any pruning required for contractor access.

14. The project arborist shall notified immediately of any plan changes, regardless of potential for impact to trees.

15. The project arborist shall be notified immediately of any damages to trees on-site, or adjacent, during construction, in which case I will make recommendations to minimize impact due to injury.

16. All landscape plantings and irrigation installation shall be abandoned within a 10 foot radius of the stems of trees #866 through #868, #897 through #900, #903, #908 and #909.

There are several protected trees that will have grading and construction completed within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) area, which can be damaging to the health of the tree if measures are not taken to minimize disturbance and impacts. All demolition and construction work within the CRZ of trees to be retained shall be performed under Project Arborist supervision. Specific actions required for the preservation of specific trees are identified in the Arborist’s Report, and are incorporated into MM-BIO4 by reference. 63 Item J.1
Packet Page 449
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 24 MM-BIO-4: Tree Protection for Individual Trees.

1. Valley Oaks #866 and #867 and Coast Live Oak #868. Adhere to tree protection guidelines identified in Arborist’s Report (Appendix B - pages 6-7).

2. Coast Live Oaks #897-900 and Valley Oak #903. Adhere to tree protection guidelines identified in Arborist’s Report (Appendix B - pages 7-8).

3. Coast Live Oak #908, Valley Oak #909, and Coast Redwood #912. Adhere to tree protection guidelines identified in Arborist’s Report (Appendix B - page 8).

4. Monterey Pine #916, Coast Live Oak #917, and Red Ironbark Eucalyptus #918. Adhere to tree protection guidelines identified in Arborist’s Report (Appendix B - page 9).

With adherence to MM-BIO-3 and MM-BIO-4, impacts to trees on the project site will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
f) The General Plan EIR states that development adjacent to open space and watershed lands on the edge of the city would have the most impact on the biotic environment, and provides the following guiding policies in the Conservation Element:
 (4.1.1.) protect and preserve wildlife habitats and oak woodlands, and  (4.1.2.) require an environmental habitat assessment for any project determined to be in an environmentally sensitive area.

Because this project site is located in a developed area surrounded by similar uses and is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area, the project will not conflict with any approved plans and will have no impacts.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
X
a) As stated in the General Plan EIR, the City of Orinda’s Planning Area contains two sites eligible for listing by the National Register of Historic Places – 1) the Joaquin Moraga Adobe and, 2) the Orinda Theater/American Trust Bank) and these 11 sites that are listed with the California Inventory of Historic Resources:
1) California and Nevada Railroad Terminus;
2) Canary Cottage;
3) De Laveaga Home, Bien Venida Road;
4) Hampton's Grave, Near Briones Reservoir, off Bear Creek Road; 5) Old Moraga School, 200 block Moraga Way;
64 Item J.1
Packet Page 450
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 25 6) Joaquin Moraga Adobe, 24 Adobe Lane;
7) Orinda Park, San Pablo Dam Road;
8) Orinda Park Hotel site, Bear Creek Road and San Pablo Dam Road; 9) Orinda Park School, Wildcat Canyon and Bear Creek Road; 10) Santa Maria Church, Miner Road and Camino Pablo;
11) Sullivan Ranch and home, 607 El Toyonal.

Other than the Moraga Adobe, the Orinda Theater, the de Laveaga Home, and Sullivan Ranch and Home, none of the above sites and include historic structures. The proposed project will demolish an existing, two-story caretaker unit and a parking lot, neither of which are a historic resource.

Therefore, there will be no impacts.
b) As stated in the General Plan EIR, only a unique archaeological resource potentially affected by a proposed development qualifies for special protection. Non-unique resources need be given no further consideration beyond recording their existence. There are four recorded prehistoric sites and one historic archaeological site listed with the California Archaeological Inventory. The proposed project site is not one of the sites listed with the California Archaeological Inventory, nor has the site been identified as being historically significant by a historical resource survey meeting the requirements laid out in section 5020.1. However, project construction would involve grounddisturbing activities that could result in unanticipated or accidental discovery of archaeological or paleontological deposits, or human remains. This would be a significant impact, and mitigation measure MM-CUL-1 would be required to reduce the impact to less than significant..

MM-CUL-1: Treatment of Previously Unidentified Archaeological Deposits.

During project construction, if any archaeological or paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found, the project applicant and/or its contractor shall cease all work within 25 feet of the discovery and notify the City of Orinda Planning Department immediately. The project applicant and/or its contractor shall retain a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures for the inadvertently discovered archaeological or paleontological resources. The City shall approve the applicant’s archaeologist or paleontologist. The City and the project applicant shall consider the mitigation recommendations and agree on implementation of the measure(s) that are feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, or other appropriate measures. c) The 1.4-acre development site is zoned Public, Semipublic, and Utility and has been improved with an existing two-story caretaker unit, a parking lot, and landscaped areas with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs. The development site is not recognized near, adjacent to, or within a unique archeological feature (as defined by the Orinda City General Plan). Furthermore, the Project site is not located within a sub-area (or other similarly defined planning area) where unearthed human remains have been known to occur. These include those human remains that were interred outside of formal cemeteries, have been identified or located; or a site that contains any existing religious or sacred uses. State code requires that if a unique archeological resource or site or human remains are found during excavation during any grading or earth-moving activities, all work will be suspended until the area has been thoroughly examined by a qualified archeologist. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant with implementation of MM-CUL-2:

MM-CUL-2: Discovery of Human Remains.

Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, 65 Item J.1
Packet Page 451
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 26 or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native America or has reason to believe that they are Native American, the coroner shall contact by telephone within 24-hours of the Native American Heritage Commission to determine the Most Likely Descendent (MLD).

VI. ENERGY -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
a) The development will be Green Point rated. The green / sustainable features will include a variety of strategies. These include recycling of demolition and construction waste, as well as planning for on-going recycling of disposables from the residents; interior material selection which includes recyclable materials and those which improve indoor air quality. The exterior envelope will focus on providing shading for windows to minimize heat gain, as well as providing a well-insulated building with thicker walls and roof insulation. The development will have central boilers for efficient water heating. This will provide the opportunity to pre-plumb and wire for pre-heating through solar hot water panels. The common electric meter will be pre-wired and planned for photovoltaic panels so that they can be incorporated if the budget or additional funding is provided. Provision will be made for charging electric vehicles. Many other green/sustainable features will be defined and assured during the design and funding processes. Therefore, impacts to energy resources are expected to be less than significant. b) California State Senate Bill 100 mandates one hundred percent clean electricity for California by 2045. Because the project would be powered by the existing electricity grid, the project would eventually be powered by renewable energy mandated by SB 100 and would not conflict with this statewide plan.

Additionally, the project would be subject to energy efficiency standards pursuant to CCR Title 24 requirements. Therefore, the project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and there will be no impact.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
(Responses to this section were obtained from the Geotechnical Feasibility Report provided by EnGeo on 4/9/2019 - Appendix A)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
66 Item J.1
Packet Page 452
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 27 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
a-i) The site is not located in a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone, and there are no known active faults passing though the property (Field, E.H., 2013; and WGEP, 2015). Therefore, seismic surface rupture is unlikely at the site. (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be no impact. a-ii) An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, all structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the 2019California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead-and-live loads. The code-prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake.

Therefore, structures should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a well-designed and well-constructed structure will not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake (SEAOC, 1996). (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be less than significant impact.
67 Item J.1
Packet Page 453
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 28 a-iii) Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, loose or medium dense, cohesionless soil is subject to a temporary, but essentially total, loss of shear strength because of pore pressure build-up under the reversing cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquakes. Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone, commonly associated with liquefaction, which causes the overlying soil mass to move towards a free face or down a gentle slope. Ground lurching can occur in soft, saturated clay and silts that are subjected to strong ground shaking during earthquakes.

As described in the geotechnical report, borings at the site generally encountered stiff to very stiff clay overlying bedrock. The results of laboratory testing on samples of the soil collected from our test borings indicate the clay has Plasticity Index of 37. Based on Engeo’s analysis, the potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and ground lurching at the site is low. (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be no impact.
a-iv) The geologist did not observe indications of previous deep-seated landsliding during the field exploration at the site and did not observe any features indicative of deep-seated slope instability in historical aerial photographs of the site. Therefore, based on observations in the field, and due to the consistency of material encountered during subsurface exploration, the potential for deep-seated earthquake-induced landsliding is low. (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be no impact. b) The existing slope located at the easternmost portion of the site could be subject to shallow landslides, sloughing, and surficial erosion related to natural soil and groundwater conditions. As stated above, with the exception of shallow sloughing and surficial earth flows, no evidence for large landslides were encountered during the field exploration of the site. The stability of graded slopes is also affected by construction methods such as slope inclination, fill compaction and the adequacy of subsurface drainage systems. (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact.
c) As stated above, lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone, commonly associated with liquefaction, which causes the overlying soil mass to move towards a free face or down a gentle slope. Ground lurching can occur in soft, saturated clay and silts that are subjected to strong ground shaking during earthquakes. As described in the Engeo’s report, borings at the site generally encountered stiff to very stiff clay overlying bedrock. The results of Engeo’s laboratory testing on samples of the soil collected from our test borings indicate the clay has Plasticity Index of

37. Based on Engeo’s analysis, the potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and ground lurching at the site is low. (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be no impact. d) A significant geotechnical consideration is the expansive nature of the existing fill, native soil and bedrock across the proposed development area. The clayey soil and claystone units within the bedrock in this region has moderate to high plasticity and moderate to high expansion potential.

Laboratory testing indicated that the existing fill has a high shrink/swell potential and the bedrock exhibits a low to moderate shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. The existing fill and native soil should be considered highly expansive. Expansive soil changes in volume with changes in moisture. It can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave of expansive soil, (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e., by using deep footings or drilled piers, and/or (3) using mat or footings at normal shallow depths but bottomed on a layer of select fill having a low expansion potential. (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be no impact.
68 Item J.1
Packet Page 454
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 29 e) According to the project Tentative Map and utility plans, the site will be fully connected to all utilities, including sanitary/sewer in compliance with CCCSD specifications and standards. There will be no impact from soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there will be no impact. f) Active construction and grading activities for the Orinda Community Church, existing caretaker’s house, and the parking lot located upslope are evident within the current project site in the May 15, 1965, aerial photo included in Engeo’s report. The relatively level parking lot cut and fill pad on the northeastern portion of the site, upslope from the caretaker’s residence, was constructed most likely sometime around 1965. This swale/gully was filled during these previous grading activities.

The project site was previously graded, supports existing improvements, is zoned Public, Semi Public, and Utility, and is not recognized as a unique paleontological or a unique geologic feature.

However, per the City of Orinda General Plan, if a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature are found during excavation, all work will be suspended until the area has been thoroughly examined. (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be no impact.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
a) Development of the project site will be completed in compliance with Bay Area Air Quality District’s (BAAQMD) Air Quality Guidelines. The Guidelines contain instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate air quality impacts generated from land development construction and operation activities. The Guidelines focus on criteria air pollutant, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, toxic air contaminants, and odor emissions generated from plans or projects.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017 Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes provide screening criteria for determining if a land use project is required to complete a GHG analysis. The thresholds for a mid-rise apartment building are – 494- units (operational screening), 240-units (construction screening), and 87-units (GHG screening).

The proposed project will construct fifty-one (51) senior rental apartments and one (1) two-bedroom Caretaker Unit for a total of fifty-two (52) units on an approximately 1.4 +/- acres site. Therefore, the BAAQMD screening criteria are not exceeded, and no further analysis is required. Therefore, there will be no impact.
b) Development of the project will be completed in compliance with Bay Area Air Quality District’s (BAAQMD) Air Quality Guidelines due to the fact that the project is under the screening criteria threshold and no further analysis is required. Therefore, there will be no impact. 69 Item J.1
Packet Page 455
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 30 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
X
a) and b) The proposed project is a new, five story, age-restricted, 100% affordable multi-family building in an existing parking area on an approximately 213,000 square-foot parcel that will involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in very small quantities consistent with residential uses once in operation. A household hazardous waste program is available to City residents, so therefore the long-term impacts associated with handling, storing, and dispensing of hazardous materials from project operations would be less than significant Project construction would include refueling and minor maintenance of construction equipment onsite, which could lead to minor fuel and oil spills. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including 70 Item J.1
Packet Page 456
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 31 California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) requirements. All construction activities would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process that requires the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, which would be reviewed and approved by the RWQCB. With compliance with existing regulations, the project would have a less than significant impact from construction. c) The Orinda Preschool is located within one-quarter mile of the project site, however as stated above, the use and handling of hazardous materials during construction would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) requirements. Therefore, there will be no impact. d) An EnviroStor search at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control confirmed that the there are no hazardous materials sites on the site or within proximity of the site. The closest hazardous waste site is located at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at 1 Cyclotron Rd, Berkeley, CA 94720, approximately nine miles west of the project site. The project site is not located on a site that has been identified as a hazardous material site. Therefore, there will be no impact. e) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is the Buchanan Field Airport in Concord, CA approximately 10-miles northeast of the project site. Therefore, there will be no impact.
f) The project site design has been prepared by registered architects and engineers and will be reviewed and approved by city departments to ensure compliance with all building codes, health and safety requirements, applicable design guidelines and development standards. All project plans and design details will be submitted for approval to the Moraga-Orinda Fire District. Therefore, the proposed 52 senior affordable residences would not physically interfere with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, there will be no impact. g) A search of the fire hazard severity zones viewer at CalFire confirmed that the project site is not located within, or within close proximity to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The closest VHFHSZ is located in the Siesta Valley Recreation Area, approximately 2,000-feet southwest of the project site. However, the site and structures will be constructed in compliance with applicable fire codes and standards, therefore impacts will be less than significant.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:

The responses to this section were obtained from FEMA, and the Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan prepared by APEX Engineering on 7/23/21. (Appendix C)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would:
71 Item J.1
Packet Page 457
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 32 i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
a) The Orinda Senior Housing Foundation project will create a multi-level residential building (including a parking garage on the second level) on a 1.44-acre site. Total relief on the site is approximately 60 feet, in the south direction. The property is currently bordered by a church building on the west, homes to the north and east, and a parking lot and Irwin Way to the south. The site is currently covered by a cottage building, garden terrace, a large asphalt parking area, sparse landscaping and concrete walkways and stairways.

The proposed development will create 52 Residential Units and other amenities in a multi-level residential building, all of which will be accessed by vehicle on the east side in through the second level parking garage. Associated landscaping will also be created. The project’s constraints include impermeable soils (NRCS hydrologic soil group D) and a high intensity land use with concrete, rooftop and minimal landscaping. As a result, this leaves minimal area, if any, for landscaping and incorporating storm water quality low-impact design facilities into the design to treat storm runoff.

Therefore, the site layout was designed to incorporate bio-retention areas, which would be located at the front of the building and to have a 100% Low Impact Development (LID) compliant design. The bio-retention areas will create an aesthetic landscape buffer between the parking lot below and the proposed building and in the landscape area outside the garage as well as provide treatment for storm water runoff from the site.

The City of Orinda and 20 other Contra Costa County co-permittees are subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board. The permit requires permittees to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent feasible. The City’s storm water management plan contains specific best management practices required for all new development designed to help reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and potential discharge of pollutants into water systems including the following:
“During construction activities, the project sponsor shall reduce or prevent to the maximum extent feasible, the direct or indirect discharge or any pollutant into the onsite stream and the storm drain system utilizing best management practices contained in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities.” The project will use a 100% Low Impact Development (LID) compliant design and will obtain an NPDES permit. Therefore, the project will not substantially degrade surface or ground water quality and will have a less than significant impact.
72 Item J.1
Packet Page 458
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 33 b) Groundwater supplies will not be impacted by the project. While the project site and much of Orinda are in the San Pablo Reservoir watershed, neither the project site nor the City of Orinda is located over any significant groundwater basin as identified by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Potable water service would be provided by EBMUD. Groundwater resources in the EBMUD service area do not supply significant amounts of water to meet or augment water demands.

Further, the project would not directly draw on groundwater supplies. Therefore, there will be no impact.
c) i) The Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan includes bio-retention Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) to remove pollutants primarily by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil.

Routine maintenance is needed to ensure that flow is unobstructed, that erosion is prevented, and that soils are held together by plant roots and are biologically active. Typical routine maintenance consists of the following:
 Inspect inlets for channels, exposure of soils, or other evidence of erosion. Clear any obstructions and remove any accumulation of sediment. Examine rock or other material used as a splash pad and replenish if necessary.
 Inspect outlets for erosion or plugging.
 Inspect evidence of instability or erosion and correct as necessary.  Observe soil at the bottom of the flow-through planter for uniform percolation throughout. If portions of the flow-through planter do not drain within 48 hours after the end of a storm, the soil should be tilled and replanted. Remove any debris or accumulations of sediment.  Examine the vegetation to ensure that it is healthy and dense enough to provide filtering and to protect soils from erosion. Replenish mulch as necessary, remove fallen leaves and debris, prune large shrubs or trees, and mow turf areas. Confirm that irrigation is adequate and not excessive.

Replace dead plants and remove invasive vegetation. When mowing, remove no more than 1/3 height of grasses.

Furthermore, no stream or rivers exist near the site whose courses could be altered by alterations to the drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, compliance with the recommended IMPs will ensure that the project will not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area which would result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact. c) ii) Total relief on the site is approximately 60 feet, in the south direction. The project area is characterized as NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group “D” by poorly draining soils, moderate relief, and generally drains in a southerly direction and eventually into San Pablo Creek.

The grading and drainage plan has been designed to capture runoff from roof areas and walkways and direct it to the bio-retention areas for treatment. The roof areas will drain to the bio-retention areas by gravity via a downspout system. The awning type roof areas will drain directly to ground level which will be made up of landscape areas or walkways. This design will allow drainage to flow through and out of the IMPs by gravity flow. Overflows within the bioretention areas will drain to landscape areas adjacent to the existing parking lot at the front of the building. The bio-retention IMPs have adequate hydraulic head to allow drainage into, and overflow away from the IMPs without the need for pumps. Therefore, the project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and there will be no impact.
c) iii) As stated above, the project will use a 100% Low Impact Development (LID) compliant design, will include bio-retention Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) to control runoff and remove 73 Item J.1
Packet Page 459
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 34 pollutants, and will obtain an NPDES permit. Therefore, the project will not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and there will be no impact. c) iv) According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located in flood zone X, described as areas outside of the 2% annual chance floodplain. The closest flood zone AE, described as hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood, is located approximately 1,000-feet downslope from the project site. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and none of the structures or buildings surrounding the site are within a 100-year flood hazard. Therefore, the project will not impede or redirect flood flows and there will be no impact.
d) Lake Cascade is the closest reservoir to the project site and is located approximately 2,400-feet away.

Should the dam at Lake Cascade fail, the project site would not be subject to flooding because of the sites’ elevated location above the flow line below the dam. Seiche activity at the Lake Cascade will not affect the project site due to distance from the reservoir. Tsunami activity is not considered a potential hazard for Orinda. Therefore, there will be no impacts. e) As stated above, the project will be constructed in compliance with all applicable water quality control plans, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, and corresponding Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Integrated Management Practices (IMPs). Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
a) The proposed Senior Community’s location is at the end of Irwin Way, northeast of Orinda Community Church, south of Mira Loma Road, north of Orinda Senior Village, and west of the Watch Wood neighborhood. As proposed, the site is ideal for the target user demographics with the Orinda Senior Village & recently completed Monte Verde also located off of Irwin Way. It is also adjacent to the Orinda Community Park, Orinda Library, the Orinda Community Center with its many classes for seniors, the Post Office, and near retail shops and services including a grocery store, two pharmacies, and a bookstore, clothing store and numerous cafes. County Connection bus lines travel routes along Orinda Way and the Orinda Bart Station is just ½ mile from the site. The existing conditions allow the site to be easily connected to downtown Orinda while also being secure, quiet and among similar housing types. Some of the nearby residents indicated a desire to retain an informal trail through the Orinda Woods open space and Orinda Community Church site connecting the Mira Loma neighborhood with Irwin Way and the downtown. The plan provides for this connection to continue.
74 Item J.1
Packet Page 460
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 35 The project has been designed in full compliance with all applicable design guidelines and development standards to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding land uses and will include linkages to adjacent uses. Therefore, the project will not physically divide an established community and there will be no impact.
b) The discretionary approvals required to build the 52-unit 100% affordable senior housing project include the following:
 Lot split;
 General Plan Amendment from Public, Semipublic, and Utility to Residential  Rezoning from Public, Semipublic, and Utility to Residential Medium Density with a Senior Housing-Overlay (SH-O)
 Design Review Permit,
 Tree Removal Permit, and
 Elevated Deck Permit.

Additionally, State Density Bonus law will allow for a concession to the height and story limits and a waiver of the floor area ratio for the 100% affordable housing project.

Approval of the applications will enable the applicant to construct a well-designed public benefit project that will fulfill several goals, policies, and actions of the 2015 General Plan Housing Element update, including the following.

GOAL 1: NEW HOUSING

PRODUCTION
Encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, which will be assisted through appropriate zoning and development standards.

Policy 1.1: Housing Diversity Provide for a diversity of housing types to meet current and future needs of all residents without compromising the semi-rural character of Orinda’s single-family neighborhoods.

Policy 1.2: Design Quality Apply high standards of quality and design to all housing development in the city. Where multifamily or mixed-use housing is constructed, it should respect the context of the site and its surroundings and make a positive contribution to the character of Orinda.

Policy 1.4: Context-Appropriate
Programs
Participate in those housing assistance programs that are most appropriate to Orinda’s setting and demographics, with an emphasis on programs that benefit local seniors and those who live or work in Orinda.

Policy 1.8: Density Bonuses Continue to provide density bonuses for housing that includes dedicated affordable units or units set aside for seniors, consistent with state law.

ACTION 1.F: AFFORDABLE

HOUSING INCENTIVE

PROGRAM
Continue to implement the City’s affordable housing incentive program (density bonus ordinance), which grants up to a 35 percent increase in the number of permitted units for developments which set aside 20 percent or more of their units as affordable, as defined by state law.

ACTION 1.G: TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE TO

ORGANIZATIONS THAT

CAN DEVELOP
Provide outreach and assistance to nonprofit organizations and builders whose expertise can inure to the benefit of low- and moderate-income Orinda residents, particularly seniors and those with special needs.
75 Item J.1
Packet Page 461
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 36 OR PRESERVE LOWERCOST HOUSING
GOAL 3: HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY SITES
Provide additional housing opportunities and sites to meet the needs of Orinda’s low-, very low-, and moderate-income
households.

Policy 3.1: Adequate Sites Maintain an adequate number and variety of sites to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Policy 3.2: Multi-Family Sites Meet Orinda’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates through a combination of second units and rezoning of adequate land area at the default density.

Policy 3.3: Mixed-Income
Housing
Encourage larger-scale residential developments to include a mix of unit types, including smaller units and units that are affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.

ACTION 3.B: ADJUSTMENT

OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO

IMPROVE

AFFORDABILITY
Implement the City’s Affordable Housing Incentive Program to reduce production costs in projects containing affordable units such as adjusting design standards on a case-by-case basis, which could include adjusting standards for setbacks, lot coverage, street width, unit size, and parking, for all affordable housing projects.

Policy 4. 4: Development
Flexibility
Consider flexibility in development standards, such as reduced parking requirements for senior housing, in order to accommodate additional affordable units and reduce housing costs.

Policy 5.2: Housing for Seniors
and Disabled Residents
Encourage the development of housing designed to meet the unique needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. The City endorses the concept of universal design, wherein all new construction and renovations are designed to recognize the varying levels of mobility in the population.

Therefore, the project will not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a land use plan or policy, but will fulfill several goals, policies, and actions of the 2015 General Plan. Therefore, there will be no impact.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
a) b) The General Plan states that the City of Orinda Planning Area contains two areas that may be designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as resource sectors for construction aggregate, and neither of the two areas are located within proximity of the project site. The General Plan also states that pursuant to State Law, following formal designation by the State Mining and Geology 76 Item J.1
Packet Page 462
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 37 a) According to the General Plan Noise Element, the day/night average noise level (Ldn) describes 24- hour average noise level is measured in decibels (dBA) taking account of increased sensitivity to noise during nighttime hours. Sound levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. are penalized 10 decibels (dB). The dB scale is logarithmic; a 3 dB difference is normally discernible and a 10 dB increase is subjectively heard as a doubling in loudness.

The General Plan Noise Element includes the following applicable implementing policy – 4.3.2.B.

Review all multi-family development proposals within the projected 60 Ldn contour for compliance with noise standards (45 Ldn in any habitable room) as required by State law.

The Orinda Zoning Code, Chapter 17.39 is the Noise Control Ordinance. Section 17.39.2 of the Ordinance states - No person shall cause or permit noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise in the control of that person which exceeds sixty (60) decibels as measured at a listening point on any other property, with the following exceptions: A. Specified Activities. Construction, yard maintenance and golf course maintenance activities which occur during the times specified in this chapter are exempt from the sixty- (60) decibel limit. The Noise Control Ordinance includes the following specific sections to regulate noise levels: 17.39.3 – Construction, 17.39.4 - Yard maintenance, 17.39.9 - Permanent mechanical equipment, and 17.39.10 - Enforcement.

During construction, project noise levels could exceed the 60 dBA standard established in the Municipal Code for residential land uses. However, construction-related noise that occurs during the times specified in the Municipal Code is exempt under OMC Chapter 17.39.2. Project construction Board of an area as a resource sector, the affected city is required to prepare policies allowing a recovery of such resources. However, the City of Orinda has officially protested the possible designation of these sites as significant regional mineral resources, and the General Plan policies prohibit mineral resource extraction. Therefore, the project will have no impact on mineral resources.

XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
X
77 Item J.1
Packet Page 463
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 38 would be limited to these hours. Further, construction-related noise is intermittent in nature and would not generate continuous noise levels above OMC standards. The high noise-generating activities would also be only a portion of the construction time frame. Due to their short-term nature and the exemption of construction noise in OMC Chapter 17.39.2, impacts would be less than significant. The project will be constructed and operated in compliance with the Orinda Zoning Code, Chapter 17.39 Noise Control Ordinance, and will not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
b) Policies of the General Plan require acoustical studies and any necessary mitigation where development is proposed along Highway 24 and where projected noise contours are 60 Ldn or more (1M 4.3.2.A and B). In addition, 1M 4.3.2.B requires multi-family development in the 60 Ldn noise contour to comply with the 45 Ldn limit in any habitable room. The project site is not along Highway 24 and is not within the projected 60 Ldn noise contour (Figure 9, Orinda General Plan).

Temporary construction noise will have less than significant noise and vibration impacts. The Orinda Municipal Code restricts construction hours on Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 6 PM and on Saturday and Sunday from 10 AM to 5 PM. On Sundays, construction is limited to the property owner and one additional person. Compliance with the noise regulations of the municipal code will result in less than significant noise and vibration impacts from construction activities. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
c) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is the Buchanan Field Airport in Concord, CA approximately 10-miles north-east of the project site. Therefore, the project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and there will be no impact.
a) The 2015 General Plan Housing Element update states the following.  The City has experienced limited growth in recent years. Population increased by just 0.3 percent between 2000 and 2010 compared to 5.8 percent between 1990 and 2000.  More recent data from the Department of Finance (DOF) showed a population of 18,089 as of 2014.

According to DOF estimates, the increase is attributable to a slight increase in the average number XIV. Population/Housing -- Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
78 Item J.1
Packet Page 464
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 39 of persons per household and some new housing development. Even with the slight increase since 2010, the annual growth rate is still less than 1 percent a year.  In its 2013 projections, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) forecast continued slow population growth in Orinda. ABAG projects a population of 20,200 in the city in 2040, equivalent to an increase of approximately 0.5 percent per year in the 30-year period from 2010 to 2040.

The proposed project will include fifty-one (51) senior rental apartments and one (1) two-bedroom Caretaker Unit for a total of fifty-two (52) units and will consist of thirty-two (32) one and twenty (20) two-bedroom apartment homes ranging from 700 – 958 SF (gross). All units will be affordable and available solely to seniors. OSHF’s average senior resident is single, in their 70’s, and lives on a fixed income. Therefore, the expected population growth will be 32 residents for the one-bedroom units, plus 40 residents for the two-bedroom units, plus three residents for the caretaker unit, for a total of 75 new residents. Therefore, then project will not induce substantial unplanned population growth and there will be no impact.
b) The 0.6-acre project site currently supports an existing, two-story caretaker unit and a parking lot. The site will be redeveloped with fifty-one (51) senior rental apartments and one (1) two-bedroom Caretaker Unit for a total of fifty-two (52) units and will not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing. Therefore, there will be no impact.

Fire Protection
The Orinda Fire Protection District is the primary fire protection agency in Orinda although small areas near the eastern boundary of the city are within the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District or the Moraga Fire Protection District. The Orinda Fire Protection District operates three stations:
1) Downtown on Orinda Way where the crew is four to six fire fighters, and equipment includes a pumper, a four-wheel drive wildland fire truck, and a medical rescue unit; 2) Orchard Road and Moraga Way with two fire fighters, a pumper and a wildland fire truck; XV. Public Services -- Would the project result in:
(Note: Responses to this section were obtained from the City of Orinda General Plan EIR, Public Services and Utilities section.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other Public Facilities? X
79 Item J.1
Packet Page 465
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 40 3) Honey Hill Road and Via Las Cruces with two fire fighters, a pumper and a wildland fire truck.

The Orinda Fire Protection District is responsible, with other fire departments, for fighting fires in the Tilden Park area.

The District's annual budget for Orinda is approximately $2 million, funded from 25 percent of the 1 percent property tax rate. Current crews and equipment are adequate although many areas are beyond a response time of six to eight minutes, and fires often commit all eight to 10 fire fighters on duty.

Orinda is within the area of Critical Fire Weather Class II, with one to 9.5 days a year of critical fire weather.

Also contributing to the wildfire hazards are steep slopes and combustible vegetation. Most of the undeveloped slopes in Orinda would be "High Hazard" as defined by the Fire Hazard Severity Scale in the Contra Costa County Safety Element.

The project site is not located within, or within close proximity to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The closest VHFHSZ is in the Siesta Valley Recreation Area, approximately 2,000-feet southwest of the project site. Furthermore, the project plans will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable fire codes, and the site will be constructed in compliance with applicable fire district design guidelines, including landscaping standards which include low ground cover up to 30 feet around a residential structure with fire-resistant planting up to 100 feet from the structure, and a minimum 100-foot buffer area on slopes. Therefore, there will be no impact.

Police Protection
Under the terms of a contract between Orinda and Contra Costa County, the City's Police Department has a 10 person staff and a police manager. The Department has two beats with two officers on duty 24 hours a day in two cars. Police services represent about 30 percent of the City's budget.

The General Plan EIR states that based on the 5 percent population increase and 18.5 percent increase in housing projected by the General Plan, it can be assumed that population-related and property-related calls for service would increase in the same proportions, however additional development would not justify or support the cost of adding a third beat in Orinda.

As stated in the Population / Housing section above, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) forecast continued slow population growth in Orinda. ABAG projects a population of 20,200 in the city in 2040, equivalent to an increase of approximately 0.5 percent per year in the 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. Furthermore, the 52 new affordable units will be occupied by approximately 75 new senior citizen residents who are single and in their 70’s. It is expected that this number of new residents in this age cohort will not have an increase in demand for police services. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant.

Schools
Orinda Union School District's (OUSD) overall enrollment has been declining since the 1965-66 school year. While this trend continues, enrollment at Sleepy Hollow School in north Orinda is increasing but Del Rey School is experiencing continual declines. All schools other than Sleepy Hollow appear to have adequate capacity to accommodate students from future development. Although there will be new residents generated by the proposed project, the demographics of the future residents will result in very few (if any) school-aged children enrolling in any OUSD schools. Therefore, the impacts of the project on schools will be less than significant.

Parks, and Other Public Facilities
80 Item J.1
Packet Page 466
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 41 The project site has been designed to include a courtyard and other on-site open space and communal amenities for the residents’ use. Adjacent to the project site is the Orinda Community Park, Orinda Library, the Orinda Community Center with its many classes for seniors, the Post Office, and nearby retail shops and services including a grocery store, two pharmacies, and a bookstore, clothing store and numerous cafes.

No new or expanded facilities will be required as a result of the construction of this project. Additionally, the project developers will pay impact fees at the time of permit issuance that will further support the maintenance of existing facilities. Therefore, impacts of the project on public facilities will be less than significant.
a)-b) The project site has been designed to include a courtyard and other on-site open space communal amenities for the residents’ use. Adjacent to the project site is the Orinda Community Park which the new residents may utilize for passive and active recreational use. Given the size of the expected project population, it is anticipated that the use of existing parks and other recreational facilities would not substantially increase, and no new or expanded facilities would be required. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts.

XVI. Recreation.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
XVII. Transportation/Traffic -- Would the project result in:
(Note: Responses to this section were obtained from the Local Traffic Analysis report prepared by Kimley Horn on 3/7/2022 - Appendix D)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
X
81 Item J.1
Packet Page 467
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 42 a) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. was retained by Orinda Senior Housing Foundation (OSHF) to conduct a local traffic analysis (LTA) for the project. The LTA consists of a trip generation analysis, vehicle operation analysis, multimodal operations analysis, and site plan review.

Multimodal Operation
The Project's site plan was reviewed to evaluate the Project's connection with nearby transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. In addition, a review was conducted to determine if the Project would conflict with any existing pedestrian, bicycle, transit plans.

Transit
Employees or visitors of the site may utilize transit services provided by County Connection or BART.

County Connection
County Connection provide bus routes throughout Contra Costa County. Bus routes 6 and 606 service the surrounding project area. Bus route 6 stops at the Orinda BART station which may allow passengers to connect to BART. Residents, employees, and visitors may access these routes at these bus stop at the intersection of Orinda Way and Irwin Way (#2), approximately 625 feet from the Project site.

BART
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a heavy elevated rail and subway public transportation system that connects the San Francisco Peninsula with cities in the Bay Area such as Oakland, Fremont, Walnut Creek, and Dublin. The closest BART station is the Orinda station which is approximately 0.5 miles from the Project site. Overall, the Project will not cause any transit-related deficiencies. Based on the US Census, approximately 22% of Orinda residents commute using public transit. The LTA analysis concluded that the proposed project would result in approximately 3 BART trips during each peak period, which would not greatly increase the demand on the existing transit system.

Pedestrian
There are currently sidewalks along Irwin Way, Orinda Way, and surrounding roadways which connects to transit stops and other uses. There are also marked crosswalks at each of the study intersections. It should be noted that there is a steep grade along Irwin Way, which may be difficult for some residents of the proposed project to transverse.

Given the existing infrastructure and the connection the project will make to the existing network, the Project will not cause any pedestrian-related deficiencies. The Project will extend the existing sidewalk on the north side of Irwin Way. In addition, the Project does not conflict with the City's Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan.

Bicycle
There are currently limited bicycle facilities on the surrounding roadway network. Bicyclists may access the Project through the existing bike route located on Camino Pablo. Overall, the Project will not cause any bicycle-related deficiencies and will not conflict with the City's Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan.

Trip Generation
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
82 Item J.1
Packet Page 468
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 43 Trip generation for the Project was determined based on average rates from Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, 11th Edition. ITE Land Use Code 252 Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily was used to estimate project trip generation. The proposed project will generate 175 daily trips, with 11 trips in the AM peak hour and 13 trips in the PM peak hour.

The Growth Management Element of the General Plan establishes policies and standards for traffic levels of service (LOS) and other performance metrics to ensure that public facilities continue to meet the needs of the community. The GME was developed to comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program, which was approved and implemented at the county-wide level. The GME contains traffic performance (LOS) standards as well as implementing policies and programs that identify when and how the transportation impacts of new projects are assessed. GME Policy 5.3.4.A notes that if a development project is expected to generate over 50 peak-hour vehicle trips, a Traffic Impact Study needs to be completed. Furthermore, GME Policy 5.3.4.B notes that if a development project is expected to generate over 100 peak-hour vehicle trips, the City will need to make Findings of Consistency with the Level of Service Standards adopted in the GME.

Because the project is expected to generate 11 AM peak-hour trips and 13 PM peak hour trips, neither of the above peak-hour trip thresholds are met, and no additional LOS analysis is required by the GME.

However, the Project Applicant provided a Local Traffic Analysis that included a LOS and queuing analysis, so the results are included here for reference. The analysis concludes that the levels of service at each study intersection would continue to remain the same with the additional traffic generated by the project (Baseline + Project) as they would be without the project (Baseline).

The level of service (LOS) and queuing analysis concludes that the Project would not cause any vehicle operational deficiencies on the transportation network. The multimodal operation analysis found that the Project will not conflict with the City's Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan or existing transit facilities. The site plan review determined that the Project provides adequate parking spaces to meet the City's vehicular and bicycle parking requirements for a senior housing project. The Project also provides adequate on-site circulation. Therefore, there will be no impact. b) As of July 1, 2020, the State of California has fully adopted a change in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significant impact methodology for transportation impacts to use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as opposed to level of service (LOS) via State Bill 743 (SB 743). To address this change, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has developed guidelines for application in evaluating the effect of development on VMT. The City of Orinda has not yet adopted guidelines for SB 743, therefore VMT screening criteria from Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines, dated June 2020, were used.

A project may be exempt from performing CEQA analysis if the project meets at least one screening criteria based on:
 Transit Priority Areas (TPA)
 Affordable Housing
 Small Project
 Locally Serving Public Facility
 Neighborhood-Serving Retail Project
Results of the VMT Screening are both the Transit Priority Areas (TPA) and Affordable Housing meet the screening criteria for exemption. Based on the current Project information given for this analysis, a presumption of less than significance can be made and no VMT analysis is required. 83 Item J.1
Packet Page 469
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 44 Conclusion
A VMT screening analysis was conducted and found that a presumption of less than significant can be made due to the Project's proximity to major transit stop and being comprised of 100 percent affordable housing. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact. c) Site Plan Review
A site plan review was conducted to evaluate on-site vehicular access/egress, site circulation, and parking.

On-Site Circulation
Vehicle Circulation. It is anticipated that most of the vehicle traffic will consist of passenger cars with some truck traffic for delivery or garbage collections. As shown on the sit the driveway entrance for the project site is located north of the Orinda Community Church and the entrance to the garage is located on the southeastern side of project building. Between the entrance and the garage is a 26-foot drive aisle which allow two-way traffic. If needed, vehicles may turn around towards the eastern section of the site.

Pedestrian Circulation. The main entrance is located on the first floor and an additional entrance on the second floor. There are sloped sidewalks and stairs that connect the building entrances with the existing parking lot. In addition, there is a walkway around the perimeter of the site for fire access.

Parking
Vehicle Parking. Chapter 17.16 of the City's Municipal Code presents requirements related to off-street parking and was used to review parking for the Project. Based on Table 17.16.4A of the City's Municipal Code, Multifamily Senior Housing Facility must provide 0.5 covered parking spaces per senior occupied unit, 1 covered parking space per on-site manager unit, and 1 guest parking space per 10 units. Therefore, the Project must provide 32 parking spaces. The Project is providing 32 vehicle parking spaces which satisfies City's requirements.

Bicycle Parking. The Project will provide a bicycle storage located on the first floor of the building.

Based on requirements in Chapter 17.16.6 of the City's Municipal Code, there are no requirements for bicycle parking for senior housing residential uses. There is bicycle storage is accessible through the lobby on the first floor.

Conclusion
The site plan review determined that the Project provides adequate parking spaces to meet the City's vehicular and bicycle parking requirements. The Project also provides adequate on-site circulation.

Therefore, there will be no impacts.
d) The project plans have been reviewed by the Fire District for emergency access and have been found to be sufficient. Therefore, there are no impacts.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is 84 Item J.1
Packet Page 470
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 45 a-i) As stated in detail in the Cultural Resources section of this EIR, the project site does not include any of the City’s Historic Landmark Designations. The closest Historic Landmark Designation is located on the Orinda Senior Village property at 20 Irwin Way, which the project will not impact. Therefore, the project will not impact a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.

a-ii) The legislature added the new requirements regarding tribal cultural resources in Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, 2014). By requiring consideration of tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available early in the project planning process to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process.

In compliance with the legislative intent of AB 52, the City as CEQA lead agency delivered consultation letters to 16 tribes who have previously requested consultation in the City. (Appendix F) The 30-day consultation period began on March 18, 2022 and concluded on May 9, 2022. During the consultation period, one request for consultation was received from the Cultural Preservation Department-Wilton Rancheria, on May 3, 2022. On May 26, 2022, the lead agency attended a videoconference with Lee Ann Brown-Executive Director of Housing at the Wilton Rancheria, and it was determined that there are no known tribal cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site. Further consultation with Lou Griffin-Director of Cultural Preservation was requested by the lead agency, however no further consultation occurred.

Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2 in the Cultural Resources section will ensure that proper protocols are followed in the event Native American human remains are discovered during construction.

Compliance with this mitigation measure will ensure that impacts to tribal cultural resources will be reduced to a less than significant level.
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.

X
85 Item J.1
Packet Page 471
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 46 a)-c) The increase in demand for utilities from development of the 52-unit senior housing project will be minimal. The project site will connect to existing utilities for water, sewer, electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, and storm water drainage services. As stated on the project plans, all services will be installed in compliance with all applicable EBMUD and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) specifications and standards. The project will also be required to pay all applicable impact fees to the EBMUD and CCCSD associated with the connections to services and utilities. Therefore, there will be no impact.
d)-e) During project construction, disposal of construction debris would be accomplished in compliance with City regulations. Further, the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority has a household hazardous materials service in place, and the project site would be serviced by current solid waste disposal purveyors.

As such, the project would comply with all applicable solid waste regulations for both project construction and operation and would have no impact.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems -- Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
86 Item J.1
Packet Page 472
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 47 a)-c) The project site is not located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The closest VHFHSZ is in the EBMUD Siesta Valley Recreation Area, approximately 2,000-feet southwest of the project site. However, the project is located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), as designated by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD). As such, the proposed project will be subject to heightened building code requirements that reduce fire risk. Furthermore, the project plans have been found by MOFD to be in in compliance with applicable fire codes, including fire-resistant landscaping standards and fire district access standards. Therefore, there will be no impact. d) According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located in flood zone X, described as areas outside of the 2% annual chance floodplain. The closest flood zone AE, described as hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood, is located approximately 1,000- feet downslope from the project site. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and none of the structures or buildings surrounding the site are within a 100-year flood hazard.

Therefore, the project will not impede or redirect flood flows and there will be no impact.

The geologist did not observe indications of previous deep-seated landsliding during the field exploration at the site and did not observe any features indicative of deep-seated slope instability in historical aerial photographs of the site. Therefore, based on observations in the field, and due to the consistency of material encountered during subsurface exploration, the potential for deep-seated earthquake-induced landsliding is low. (EnGeo Report, 4/9/2019) Therefore, there will be no impacts.

XX. Wildfire – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
87 Item J.1
Packet Page 473
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 48 a) The project site is an infill site in an urbanized area that is currently improved with an existing twostory caretaker unit, a parking lot, and landscaped areas with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs. The site is not on or near any migratory wildlife corridors nor would construction impede access to any native wildlife nursery sites since there are none near the site. The sites are not within a habitat conservation plan area. A natural drainage course traverses the southern side of the Orinda Senior Village site and the projectsite does not contain any natural drainage courses or wetlands. Development on the 10 Irwin Way site is not near any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by any state or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

However, as concluded in the Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources subsections, the project has the potential to impact some resources. Therefore, the following mitigation measures would be required:

MM-AQ-1: Fugitive Dust Control.

MM-AQ-2: Minimize Emissions.

MM-BIO-1: Pre-Tree Removal or Pruning Raptor Survey.

MM-BIO-2: Nesting Bird Preconstruction Surveys.

MM-BIO-3: Tree Protection.

MM-BIO-4: Tree Protection for Individual Trees.

MM-CUL-1: Treatment of Previously Unidentified Archaeological Deposits.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
88 Item J.1
Packet Page 474
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Vista Verde Community Housing - 10 Irwin Way, Orinda Page 49 MM- CUL-2: Discovery of Human Remains.

With these mitigation measures incorporated, the project would result in less than significant impacts involving the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory.
b) None of the standards for mandatory findings of significance are met. The project would not result in any potentially significant impacts; therefore, the potential for project cumulative effects in combination with other planned or anticipated improvements is low. In general, individual greenhouse gas emissions do not have a large impact on climate change. However, once added with all other GHG emissions in the past and present, they combine to create a perceptible change to climate. Because of the extended length of time that GHGs remain in the atmosphere, any amount of GHG emissions can be reasonably expected to contribute to future climate change impacts. The amount of project CO2 emissions would be minor. On a global scale, the project would contribute a negligible amount to global cumulative effects to climate change. Therefore, the project’s contribution to GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and this would be a less than significant impact.

Therefore, overall, development of the senior affordable housing project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Likewise, the project would not result in any incremental effects that would be cumulatively considerable when viewed in combination with past and probably future projects. Thus, the cumulative impacts of this project are less than significant. c) Based on the findings of this Initial Study, the project could have potentially significant impacts in regard to construction period air quality on humans near the construction activities. However, mitigation measure MM-AQ-1 would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level and therefore the project is not expected to have substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
89 Item J.1
Packet Page 475
ADDENDUM to the

CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) VISTA VERDE COMMUNITY HOUSING PROJECT AT 10 IRWIN WAY

ORINDA, CALIFORNIA
On June 22, 2022, the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published with the Contra Costa County Clerk and the Vista Verde Community Housing Project IS/MND was released for public review.

On July 12, 2022, the Orinda Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the Vista Verde project. Both written and oral public comments were provided on the project and the IS/MND. One of the commenters raised a concern about pedestrian safety at the intersection of Irwin Way and Orinda Way and suggested that the assessment of traffic impacts on pedestrian safety in the IS/MND Appendix D (Local Traffic Analysis) is deficient. Furthermore, the commenter suggested that drivers descending Irwin Way toward Orinda Way tend to look into the vehicle lanes for traffic but often fail to see pedestrians at the sidewalk, creating an unsafe environment.

In response to the concern raised, the Applicant hired a traffic engineer (Kimley-Horn, the same consultants that prepared the Local Traffic Analysis) to look into the issues raised by the commenter. The traffic engineer conducted a site visit to observe field conditions and assess the relative safety of the intersection as it exists today. No safety deficiencies were found in the existing conditions, and the proposed project will not result in vehicular traffic that will result in a deterioration of the existing conditions to create an unsafe environment. Kimley-Horn’s memorandum on the field observations is attached.

Appendix D to the IS/MND notes that “there is a steep grade along Irwin Way, which may be difficult for some residents of the project to traverse”. This statement suggests that future residents of the Vista Verde Community Housing Project may find it difficult to comfortably descend the Irwin Way hill, perhaps due to more limited mobility for some senior citizens.

However, this statement is not evidence that there is an unsafe pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the project. The conclusion to be drawn by the Kimley-Horn memorandum is that the existing IS/MND does not need to be modified to address the pedestrian safety concern raised at the July 12, 2022 Planning Commission public hearing and in the follow-up email dated July 13, 2022. The existing conditions at the Irwin Way/Orinda Way intersection are safe for pedestrians and there is no evidence to suggest that additional stop controls or pedestrian crossing enhancements are warranted.

Since there are no changes suggested to the IS/MND, none of the conditions requiring recirculation of the IS/MND or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND are present.

This Addendum serves to document this fact in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Attachment:

August 3, 2022 Kimley-Horn memorandum
90 Item J.1
Packet Page 476

Page 1 ends

Orinda City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

Orinda City Council
August 18, 2026