ORINDA  22 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563  Staff Changes and Communications Received from the Public  JUNE 18, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFFA ADOIONSANDCHANGES  Agenda Item  Pages 5-8 9-16  Agenda Item F.1- Correction to Page 7 of Minutes 1-4 and Proposed Changes by CM Iverson Agenda F.9- 61 Patrick Lane, Changes to Parcel Agenda Item H.3-A Annual Budget (Crossroads Park): - Supplemental Information  Map and Resolution  TEMH2-INFRASTRUCTURESUBCOMMITEE INITIAL' WORKPROGRAM  Name Andrew Flagg Ruth A. Strauss Glen Young Barbara Nestal Arlene Cohen Patrick Beham  Pages 17 18-26 27 28 29 30    Councilmember Riley asked if it is estimated that the sign costs around $50,000 and there is a pretty decent drawing which everyone is happy with. Mr. Trimble said yes, which he described and said the original concern was that the original conceptual design showed a much smaller sign between the two signal poles right on the corner which Vice Mayor Malkani said if there was a partnership with the Garden Club she asked ifit would replace all existing vegetation. Mr. Biggs said they have been close to having the project completely funded, barring the $200,000 reduction from the Foundation, but now with updated estimates and a higher cost of a sign it might be more. If you add to the $110,000 from the Garden-Club City and the Community Foundation, they would be at $220,000 and that would not fund the entire project approved given updated cost estimates. There is a Master Plan fort the Community Park and total buildout is estimated to be $3 million or sO, and only a small portion of that is funded. So, they are talking about doing it in phases. If the Club was willing to help the City it could be done in fewer phases and they could determine if there were any elements they could remove to Mayor Gee said she thinks it would be helpful when staff returns in June for the Council Vice Mayor Malkani said in the description of the mini park it states PG&E will not allow congregation and no benches, and she asked why. Mr. Biggs explained it is because of Vice Mayor Malkani referred to the new projects added to the CIP and referred to the Glorietta Pedestrian Pathway Phase II. She said the grant award is $90,000, and she asked and confirmed the entire cost is $300,000. She asked ift there may be an additional Mr. Christie said usually the City is lucky to get more than $100,000. The City applied for Vice Mayor Malkani referred to the dog park and pickleball courts' estimates and asked if these were only preliminary engineering work. Mr. Biggs said no, they will do preliminary engineering to develop better numbers. He thinks the contract awarded is $25,000 but the reason they are adding this to the budget is because mid-year the Council added monies towards these projects without any defined cost estimates. So, this is what the Council asked to bring back and staff is incorporating these now in the CIP. Right now, the dollar amounts are budgeted, but once they are done with that staff will bring back the estimated costs, designs for Council review, and they may or may not have enough money budgeted to implement the projects until they do the preliminary Vice Mayor Malkani asked how projects fit in with the Parks Master Plan and asked what the status is. Mr. Biggs said these are not proposed for the Community Park. Pickleball is proposed to go out at Wilder and the dog park is proposed to go at Orinda Oaks.  would inhibit the sites.  reduce costs.  to have a recap, and Mr. Biggs agreed.  exposure to the high voltage transmission lines above.  grant for that or not.  $150,000 and received $90,000.  engineering.  Orinda City Council Minutes  Page 7 of21  05.21.24    Mayor Gee said she recalled that in the ARPA money the City received, they devoted $200,000 of that to technology issues. Mr. Biggs said that would not be in the CIP but in the operating budget. The rules changed with ARPA funding and because Orinda is such a small city, they are able to make up revenue loss. They brought that revenue into the General Fund to make up for operating costs and there are still designations in the Mayor Gee referred to technology and some of the things got implemented such as the new email system and others. When they started talking about the lighting, there is nothing that needs to be replaced more than the City's technology for microphones, equipment, etc. Therefore, she asked if there is any plan for updating and replacing this sort of equipment. Mr. Biggs clarified that the technology was not for this kind of Mr. Alessio said actually he would consider this technology part of that money and the City Clerk Sheri Smith stated they had microphones they tested out and liked, and she isa awaiting three estimates and are close to getting them in the next couple of meetings. Mr. Alessio confirmed at mid-year they transferred the money to the General Fund and moved that money for the microphones into IT Internal Service Fund where they have budget to facilitate things like this. The Planning Department is looking at new permit processing software and/or a migration to that and to get a service versus a license, as well as other technology tools to improve the way employees do their work. Mr. Biggs stated the City Clerk is also implementing a new records management system which will go live later in the year. They are testing now, and he can ask staff to bring back an update on these key initiatives in June. Also, the need for better lighting came up as to how Councilmembers appear in the telecast. Not having a permanent Council Chambers and having to set up and take down every meeting is very labor intensive, Councilmember Iverson and Malkani asked several questions about the earmark process and any constraints regarding ongoing funds in the CIP allowances. Staff clarified that allocated funds may be spent subject to a $60k limit on line item spending Coumoimember-vesonsepaaadlerdasticatoatsmon-enswedthudgetrsemas-She expressedfnusialionwhenheCaumdhasenesmabriund-Thedogpain amd-piahebal-ae-ne-sasesisampacbow-TPsesanailowance.here-ne projedisare-otye-deineshuadng.eyewtwncome.omai,the-undeare  General Fund for those projects.  technology, and said that comes out of facilities.  City Clerk has a plan.  which takes a toll on the equipment and connection, as well as staff.  and practical constraints of staff time and priorities.  eammaredandtnentheRAo-natalowaRee.  Orinda City Council Minutes  Page 8 of21  05.21.24  2    Whaisheleliehashappepensowramsovers-stHeyhavewi-.ume: e-mioyle,andehegenegHs-wsaahagsanhpenwnuinsmebscause-wAaihe ikeisanamnaskerasuone.nat-Terb.heaeahoNsalicam.popeny eammakindsorundeinasposisteymousHepmaadenaclonabedugReeA Mi-Siggesaidihe-GeuneidssisandeamsaeadpPaekandpiaebal-Tney said-t-would-have-t-be-nsoporaled-Ao-ne-CIP-an8-Re/-OV-ONware-WIP-Sieps ecessayiedotnal-WRenleysawpleemsns.aaidehuyethnose.emeand Mr-Alessio-saldas-fa-astes,uoQAraemsr-lelaahayelyspendmgiha.me Coumil-dpes-mo-hearaharabueepaewe-eysemstower-S80,00.Heis aeliwelyipimgpo-upgadeaideerepsemsaméaichngaenedevepy-sMich-n-teir CoumdimemberMeensampediaserPakawAestnarels medesgnbwute-Counekansibosiaswessa920Achw,seyknowwino-buliane enlietingbwitehouidgaagaamsydesyns-TeymosiemesngWiwes.e bedeneinsdeinenew2mos-ShessadabwayetiseaissaHnatEmegded begauseihecowpleafpedfpodsalelinshsekaendma-alwayewayaheisiolsineyMave te-wait-for-this-evente-move-imo-e-CP-suagt:nG-uR-WCA-me-tney-camnos Mr-Biggesaidheydikpemsmoneyentiepepoed-adny-eeseselecion-Fney -tquskerthey-wousavespenidayagPaP-Se,uaion.ntre budgetafhs-delaramountereepaRAPaMaoSOACIPI-GAEMAgVP ViceMayprMalkanisaldaselehastesmepoePesgeAEioA-Aan.heylommihnarinia budgethneywlsayalodasdrcmtra-wMeranditiesisanstipastealondisa00,000ir -She-saidoncethealocalonismase,thereiseiafimeanea8keAatStneproce8S r--bet-eema-ema-e-be-mpemena 0-#8-GMBRE-te-money-covers Mi-Biggesalditusthasmowihaerwo.cAmE-Sailiesiohepa projedis-moMing-Theyhsiogetaatio.he-PansamdRasasion-Commissoniedo he-steselegionbesausese-eCoumdidanaleasewach-pok-ongerthan eywowihaveled.TsstatdanunNeyHawwACAeleneywere Ceumelmember-ver-versonsald-Fihney9oHO-OK-#gHE.M2yam-peAasa-SH-WEAR-60 dayeeheaskedifiheycouhaweptais2s00oathalugetrelemalbolorenow. Mr-Alessiosaidine-wocapcmsansasemaneyendsafisaues-Hedpesmabeleve heyhave-dl-ne-esowreEede-wN,een.toug-mone-s lecaledforsomethig-tmutgetbassne8intewO.0a6-somwnere:  12months.  pan-spend-money-On-tnem.  serverrpomanc-diaka-PtOFewAg.  spend-funds  with-the-budget  implementation  geing-to-be-at  Orinda City Council Minutes  Page 90 of21  05.21.24  3    MayerGee-aidehethinkeasComaimemberhehemonMenEhwssthatlyoupsiend haisiaifimeisokconskomssansnaywesNom-heguswestoniswhetherine aufherzalion-orihe-moycanlesPe-APANdEESsasyes, MceMayp-Malkanisialendny.iemaneynsMesgatrgedt otmeREPp.eces-fepemingplemowrnohashnaasiugendiesowers80,00  because-the-Couneiauhesized-te-spentand-tean-be-spent:  AmeedelorelumtotneCwokand.E-Alessio-conimes. Mayor Gee opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.  Vice Mayor Malkani thanked staff for the staff report, did not appreciate the numbers were estimates and budget referrals as opposed to actual refined estimates. She thinks itwould be incredible to be able to have a better understanding of how the prioritization occurs. With infrastructure along the lines of road repairs and drains, the Council has gotten the overall presentation on things that have been referred for this year and next year and there is a plan. She thinks it would be helpful to know where things fit into the Councilmember Riley referred to the mini park. If she assumes it is a $300,000 project and the City thinks it has $210,000, they need $90,000. She asked where that would come from and wondered if it would be wise to think about funding the mini park at this mid-cycle review. She asked and confirmed with Mayor Gee it was her top priority when Councilmember Iverson concurred enthusiastically about this and said she has residents Mayor Gee agreed and suggested staff bring back what it would take to deliver the project. It is a focal point of the community, and it would be nice to have it completed. Councimember Miller concurred and said she would also like to see where the additional  Strategic Work Plan in terms of staff's overall plan.  she became Mayor in 2020. asking her about it to get it done.  money is coming from.  Mr. Biggs agreed to return with a menu of potential options for the Council. Mayor Gee recognized Candace Evans arrived and she asked for her report. D.3. Council of Aging Update - Representative Candace Evans  Candace Evans, the City's Representative on the Advisory Council on Aging, gave a PowerPoint presentation and described the Advisory Council's role, legislative and advocation of rights for older adults, their various work groups, focus groups and  programs, and their Master Plan.  Orinda City Council Minutes  Page 10of21  05.21.24    MEMORANDUM  Public Works & Engineering Services  ORINDA  To: The City Council ofThe City Of Orinda  From: Ryan O'Kane Date: June 17, 2024  Re: Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2023-001 Urban Lot Split at 6 Patrick  Lane, Orinda, CA  An Older Parcel Map was mistakenly attached to the City Council StaffReport for Approving 6 Thel highlighted changes were: made to the Owner's Statement for the Preliminary Report Order  Patrick Lane Urban Lot Split Parcel Map."  Number, Title Company, Owner's Name, and Signatory:  OWNER'S STATEMENT 7HE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE ONLY PARTY HAMNG A RECORD TTE INTEREST IN THE LAND DELINEATED AND EMBRACED. WTHIN THE HEAVY BLACK LINES UPON THIS MAP. DOES HEREBY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF THIS MAP AND SUBDIMSION. THIS MAP SHOWS ALL EASEMENTS ON THE PREMISES OR OF RECORD MTHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE HEREN EMBODIED MAP AS SHOWN ON THE PRELMINARY REPORT ORDER NUMBER 23-180738, DATED APRIL 22, 2024, PREPARED BY WFG NATONAL mE INSURANCE COMPANY. THIS SUBDIMSION IS AN URBAN LOT SPUT PURSUANT 70 GOVERNMENT CODE IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE UNDERSIGNED HAS CAUSED THIS STATEMENT mOE BE 63REALTY HOLDINGS, LLG, A WYOMING UIMITED UABIUTY COMPANY  66411.7/58-9 (2021) EXECUTED THIS DAY OF AS OHNER 8Y:  2024  RANDALL D. MILLER MANAGER SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT  Thel highlighted changes were made to the Surveyor's Statement for the Owner's Name:  THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTON AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE MTH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 7HE SUBDMSION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF RANDALL D.MILLER NOVEMBER 13, 2023. 1 HEREBY STATE THAT THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN. HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, IF ANY, AND 7HAT ALL MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED AND THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED.  DATED THIS. DAYOF MICHAEL E MIANI, PLS NO. 5311  2024  No.! 5311 EXP.12/31/25/ OF CAL  Thank you, TRak Ryan O'Kane  5        FAPCEB-DEEL LECCIDERF RT IRYFE PeCYePTER IPIPIEIE LHITIAR. PPTFE 80T TFATPIRER FG FRAPTT IFF PHORYE LerF FLLFLVEYT #D LAIE 0),10112 2P19LION FGRTEG #D LAIF  35  asefse.9 S.E8n  2.0AION  V1I3001D  7    BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA  In the Matter of: Approving Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2023-001 Urban Lot Split at 6 Patrick Lane, Orinda, CA  ) ) )  Resolution No. 14-24  WHEREAS, an application for a SB9 Urban Lot Split subdivision Tentative Parcel Map of property at 6 Patrick Lane, Orinda California was approved with conditions by  the Orinda Planning Department on September 26, 2023; and  WHEREAS, the owner has not now submitted the Final Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2023-001 and in is process of being signed by all parties required to execute the certificates on the map (owner and surveyor), together with all supplementary, documents and fees, to the Public Works Department for filing in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Orinda Municipal Code and  the tentative map conditions of approval; and  WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has determined that the Parcel Map, all associated documents and fees are satisfactory in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Orinda Municipal Code and the tentative map conditions of  approval; and  WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orinda finds that the Final Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2023-001, substantially confirms with the prevousiy-approved Tentative Parcel Map and must now be approved pursuant to state law.  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda approves the Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2023-001 with all supplementary  documents.  Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on  June 18, 2024.  Resolution 14-24 Page 1of2  8    City Council Staff Report H.3 October 22, 2019  Agenda Item: Date:  ORINDA  Department: Parks and Recreation  AGENDA TITLE: Approval of Conceptual Design for Crossroads Park (Mini Park) as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and Public Works Aesthetic  Review Committee. RECOMMENDATION:  Staff recommends the City Council receive the staff report regarding a proposed design concept for Crossroads Park and provide direction on whether to amend the contract between the City of Orinda and David Gates and Associates to complete the conceptual drawings, provide construction documents, and undertake construction support services and authorize the City Manager to sign Amendment No. 2 of the contract for $38,000 and authorize the City Manager to approve using up to an additional $5,000 in  contingency. BACKGROUND:  The adopted Capital Improvement Plan includes improvements to the Orinda Mini Park/ Crossroads Park (Project #4103). This project was proposed and approved in 2013. In May 2014, the City executed a professional services contract with David Gates and Associates for the conceptual design phase of Crossroads Park. Gates and Associates, along with City staff, presented an initial design for Crossroads Park to the City Council in September 2015. The Council felt the scope and expense of the plan was excessive and instructed staff to return with a scaled down version of the design. In June 2016, the Council approved a conceptual "baseline" design and amended the original design contract to include funding based on the cost to develop construction drawings. Activity on this project was delayed with several transitions in City staffing, along with the Miner Road emergency. In the spring of 2017 the Parks and Recreation Director was approached by the Orinda Community Foundation with an offer of supplementary funding totaling $200,000 and a desire to propose a new conceptual design that was more significant than the baseline. The City worked with the Landscape Architect for the additional design adjustments. To date, the City has paid $34,068 in design costs. The Int the spring of 2019 PG&E informed the City that they would remove the eight redwood trees which provided a visual buffer between Crossroads Park and its adjacent properties. The park is on land owned by PG&E and leased by the City. Removal of the trees was required due to regulations regarding vegetation under transmission lines. This project would reduce the visual impact of the tree removal and replace the planted  City costs have been funded from Park Dedication Fees.  material, irrigation, hardscape, and fountain.  9    Since December 2017, several joint meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Public Works Aesthetic Review Committee have been held, the most recent occurring on September 11, 2019. The Orinda Community Foundation was also represented at most joint meetings, including the September 2019 meeting. The  joint meetings ultimately solidified direction for the modified design.  DISCUSSION:  Ift the City proceeds with the preparation of Construction documents, the process will provide additional opportunities for City Council approval, such as the authorization to Based on preliminary construction cost estimates, including contingency, the project cost is estimated to exceed appropriated funding by approximately $70,000. Certain design features, such as the water feature, are not included in this cost estimate. However, optional elements could be identified as bid alternates or could be included at a later date if funds are identified. For preliminary cost estimates two options are presented: 1) A water feature; OR 2) a pad for Public Art display. Ifadditional funds are necessary for the main project, or for bid alternates, the Orinda Community Foundation has expressed a willingness to increase its original $200,000 donation by as much as $75,000 if the City will offer a matching amount. As design moves forward and costs become more definitive, staff may need to present to the City Council a revised funding proposal for construction and/or a change in elements included in the final project. The total appropriation included in the adopted CIP is $250,000, funded by $50,000 from Park Dedication Fees for Project design and $200,000 from the Orinda Community Foundation for the construction of improvements. Based on the latest information the following is a more detailed breakdown of the preliminary project cost estimate.  solicit bids and the award of the construction agreement.  Preliminary Project Cost Estimate October 2019 Design/Projecti Management Design/ / Construction Documents Construction. Admin/Inspection Sub-total Design/ I Admin/l Inspection $73,000 Base Project Construction Estimate Concrete and landscape demo Concrete Landscape Irrigation Entry Sign Utilities Contingency (20%) Subtotal Base Construction PROJECTTOTAL (Without Optional Items) Optional Elements (Only one would be selected) Water Feature Art Pad Subtotal Optional Elements  $43,000 $30,000 $39,000 $46,900 $47,500 $23,000 $30,000 $20,000 $41,280 $247,680 $320,000 $50,000 $10,000 $10,000-$50,000  GRAND TOTAL (With Options) $330,000-5 $370,000  ID    Gates and Associates has provided master plan design and development services to the City under its contract since 2014 for Crossroads Park. The original contract was for up to $35,000 in services. Therefore, in order to continue utilizing the services of Gates and Associates it is necessary to amend the services contract. The additional costs for the services mentioned above are estimated to be $43,000, including contingency. The pursuit of this project will also require a renewal of the lease with PG&E. The City Attorney is prepared to pursue the lease renewal and staff has remained in regular contact with PG&E before, during and after the removal of the redwood trees. PG&E has agreed to provide a Letter of Non-Objection to allow the park renovation to occur. However, PG&E will require the lease to be officially renewed prior to the installation of At this time, Staff is requesting direction from the City Council regarding the conceptual design and approval to proceed with a contract amendment with Gates and Associates that will: 1) complete the conceptual design revision; 2) develop construction drawings for bidding purposes; and 3) allow for construction support services for Crossroads Park  the entry sign.  upon award of a construction agreement by the City Council.  NEXT STEPS:  Depending on City Council direction, staff will prepare Contract Amendment No.2 with  Gates and Associates for the City Manager's approval.  FISCAL IMPACT:  The original contract amount for master plan design and development services was $35,000. The amount of the proposed Amendment No. 2 is approximately $43,000, including a contingency. The amended total contract amount will be approximately $78,000. The costs charged by Gates and Associates will be charged directly to Capital Improvement Plan Project #4103 utilizing Park Dedication Funds and will not increase General Fund appropriations. The current Year Budget appropriated $50,000 in Park  Dedication Funds sO no adjustment to the budget will be required.  ATTACHMENTS: B. Fountain Detail  A. Conceptual Layout and Landscape Character for Design Concept  Respectfully Submitted by: Todd Trimble Director of Parks and Recreation  Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk  Approved by:    Steve SALOMOA Steve Salomon, City Manager  10/17/2019  12    ORINDA MINI PARK  Orinda, California  GATES +ASSOCIATES  13    conceptual design  Transmission pole Small evergreen screent trees  Screening shrubs Art piece or Low fiowf fountain Existing concrete to remain Stones for relocated plaques New.concrete paving Orindag gateway signage Lowa accent planting  S  A  Landscaped berm Optional low concrete wall  1   GATES +ASSOCIATES  25  14    landscape character  GATES +ASSOCIATES  31  15    DRAIN WATERF FEATURE SCALE 12-1r  [lo    From: Sent: To: Subject:  FLAGG  Wednesday, June 12, 2024 11:13 AM  Sheri Smith  private roads question -- NO. ADDED CITY RESPONSIBILITY  l'attended the subcommittee meeting on infrastructure, June 4, 2024.  Many ofi the speakers advocated for city responsibility for private road maintenance.  My question is the following:  How is it "FAIR" that someone who MADE A DECISION to purchase a house with an attendant financial obligation to maintain their road be relieved of the obligation using principally tax dollars of those who chose to buy a house without those obligations? No owner of a house on a private road was forced to buy that particular house-- they chose to and with full knowledge of what they were Why is this even an issue in 2024? Private road owners should fulfill their obligations, even as they  doing.  enjoy the benefits.. Thank you, Andrew Flagg Ardor Drive  1  17    Ruth A.. Strauss, Esq. Ardor Drive Orinda, CA 94563  June 12,2024 VIAI EMAIL Orinda City Council: nley@ctydforinda.org Dear Councilmembers:  agee@ctyotorinda.org: malanectyolomindaor imiler@ctyolorindaorg: wersonerclyplonndaors  This letter recommends that the City Council tamp down quickly on unrealistic efforts to have the City acquire Private Roads (defined below), which may place the City at serious financial riski fort the benefit of a select group of private individuals. This letter recommends that the City Council refocus efforts on assisting truly needy residents in a mannert that is financially feasible, does noti impose: serious financial and legal risk on the City, and is fair and equitable to City residents as a whole. Additionally, the City should publicly identify and firmly reject myths and inaccuracies (generally to the effect that people who live on Private Roads are being treated unfairly), which unfortunately have achieved a following  over the years. A.  Background and Introduction.  Every few years, a vocals subset of those Orinda residents who access the City's public roads through shared driveways or roads maintained by an HOA ("Private Roads") attempts to convince the City to accept their Private Roads into the City's public system ofr roads and take on responsibility for maintenance, insurance, and other expenses fort the Private Roads. Rarely, ife ever, do they offer  compensation to the City for assuming such obligations.  Successive City Councils consider the issue, consult with the City Attorney, Director of Public Works, City Finance Director, and other relevant experts, and then invariably determine that the vast majority of such acquisitions are not int the best interests of the City. Under commonly recognized standards, most such acquisitions would represent an improper use of public funds for private benefit, would not bet fair and beneficial to the City as a whole, and would place the City at substantial financial  risk.  The issue has reappeared once again, this time, with the apparent goal of developing pretexts under which acquisitions of various Private Roads could be marketed tot the City as being in the public interest, and streamlining the process fors such acquisitions. However, unless the City truly requiresa property, and will receive cash or property adequate to compensate it fort the enormous obligations it would assume, most such acquisitions could more properly be viewed as an improper give-away of City  assets at taxpayer expense.  Public road maintenance in Orinda has always been difficult and expensive, duei to Orinda's hilly topography, intense winter rainfall, periodic earthquakes, geological "creep," and dense vegetation. In the immediate future, El Toyonal, for example, will require substantial, expensive work. Climate change, with increased fire activity, flooding, and accompanying land movement, will only increase such costs.  Page 1of9  18    Insurance costs will also continue toi increase. As a perceived "deep pocket," Orinda periodically faces lawsuits over public road and drainage issues which private owners are less likely toi face. Settlements of lawsuits (such as one related to Candlestick Road) have at times created large negative impacts on Some City residents who access public roads through Private Roads have found their properties more expensive to maintain than they expected. Natural aging, weather events, and geological conditions make maintaining al long shared driveway costly. Some find it difficult to obtain quality contractors to perform maintenance and repairs. There are many ways the City can assist these individuals without acquiring the undesirable parts oft their properties (i.e. the Private Roads) and taking  Orinda's relatively small budget.  ont their private obligations and risks fori free.  There are at few cases where the City may require (1) a thoroughfare or fire road maintained to a standard better than is practical for the current Private Road: stakeholders to maintain, or (2) a common drainage system to avoid liability for public road property or spillover onto private property. In such cases, the Citys should first examine non-ownershipi ways of achieving the goal (such as contributing toward maintenance), but could consider road acquisition if benefits outweigh risks. The City should apply exacting standards to ensure fair allocation of responsibility and funding between the City and  Private Road: stakeholders.  Some persons who use Private Roads to access public roads primarily seek relief from taxes and HOA fees that they agreed to pay when they purchased their residences (and may have been paying for some time). Fort these individuals, the proper remedy would bei for them to sellt their property and buy another property (perhaps a smaller property in al less exclusive development) that better meets their budget. The remedy is not to offload their obligations onto their neighbors (i.e. City taxpayers), many of  whom were more careful andi frugal int their original purchases.  Part B ofthis letter analyzes and discredits myths and inaccuracies that repeatedly appear in the discussions of Private Roads. Part Ci identifies special considerations relevant to City decisions regarding Private Roads. Part D identifies actions involving lower risk than road acquisition. Part Eis the  Conclusion. B. Myth VS. Reality.  1. Myth 1 -Since road maintenance is a public function, acquisition of Private Roads Reality Maintenance of property that primarily benefits private individuals is not a public function. Acquisition of Private Roads can: seriously impair City finances and increase litigation and casualty risk-it merits more scrutiny than an average City acquisition, not less. In accepting a road, the Cityi is relieving a private property owner of, and itself undertaking, significant ongoing financial and legal costs for so long as the City owns the road, including (a) recurring payments to third parties for maintenance and insurance, (b) annual City staff costs for administration, (c) annual reserve deposits to cover unusual, but anticipated, weather and geological events, and (d) annual reserve deposits to cover litigation. Litigation may involve allegations of negligence, trespass, inverse condemnation, or even: strict owner liability (for damage from accidents where poor road maintenance is alleged, or occurrences such as landslides, lateral support failures, and drainage issues damaging nearby properties).  shouldn't be subject to the usual rules-the rules should be streamlined.  Page 2 of9  6_12_2024: Straussl Ltrt to Council  19    The present value off future obligations assumed for even a single Private Road acquisition is substantial. Unless there is an overwhelming public benefit associated with a particular acquisition that equals or exceeds that value, it would seem imprudent (frankly, a give-away of City assets) for the City to  acquire al Private Road. (Less risky options are discussed in Part D.)  Financial considerations and litigation risk are particularly relevant fora a City with Orinda's characteristics. Orinda receives an allocation of only 6% of property taxes. Orinda already has many public roads (such as EIT Toyonal) that require significant ongoing maintenance. Orinda is located in a highly litigious State. Litigants are more likely to sue perceived "deep pockets" than private individuals, and some bases for liability (such as inverse condemnation) apply only to public entities and not private  individuals.  The City of Orinda has previously made substantial payouts to settle litigation regarding roads that it already owns. For example, in 2008, Orinda settled with the owner of property downstream from Candlestick Road (a public road) whose property was damaged by water running from a catch basin (publicly owned) through a drainage pipe that was partially publicly owned and partially privately owned. This followed a California Court of Appeal ruling that the City could bel held liable fori inverse condemnation if damage to a downstream property resulted from ap publici improvement, public work, or public use, eveni if thet final length of drainpipe where water exited to the downstream propertywas privately owned, ift there was a substantial cause and effect relationship between the  public improvements and the damage sustained.  2. Myth. 2: My road would make a great fire road, and common drainage with the public Reality- - The true questions are whether (1) the "transaction" as a whole, will be for the public benefit, (2) the "benefit"'isactual, or a mere pretext, and (3) the "benefit" the City receives will equal or exceed the large future cost and risk to the City of taking on the private individual's obligation. One would ordinarily expect a request for an additional fire road to come from the Fire Chief, or ar request for drainage improvements to come fromi the Public Works Department. Once in a while, the Cityi is offered the opportunity to acquire a piece of property that would make a great park, or a good school site, or serve some other public benefit. A negotiation then ensures over price. The situation with most Private Roads, however, is different. Because of maintenance conditions, or weather or geological risk, the Private Road may be worth less than the obligations and risk to be laid off on the City. Ini this way, al Private Road may resemble an underwater timeshare that the owner wants the timeshare operator to re-acquire, and the "seller" may need to pay the "purchaser"to re-acquire it (to be released from having to continue to pay maintenance, insurance, and HOA fees). Assertions of public benefit that originate from someone wanting something from the City (as opposed to from the Fire Chief, the Public Works Director, or another City official) must be carefully analyzed to ensure sucha assertions are not mere pretexts, and that the City will receive cash (such as a trust fund for  road would improve public safety, so the City needs my road for the public benefit.  future maintenance), property, or other benefits that justify the acquisition.  3. Roads.  Myth. 3: Itis unfair for people who "live on"A Private Roads to have to "payfor"Public Reality - (1) Persons who "live on"! Private Roads use public roads at least as much, ifnot more, than persons who "live on" public roads. Consequently, they should contribute to maintaining  Page3of9  6_12_2024 Strauss Ltrto Council  20    public roads; (2) if the City does not fund: short private driveways or other repairs for people who live on smaller, less exclusive properties, then iti is unfair for the City to fund long shared driveways and select HOA property for larger, more exclusive properties. AllOrinda residents, including those whose homes are located on Private Roads, use the City's public roads. They drive to Safeway, schools, the library, and thei freeway, using the City's public roads. Many Private Roads start at the end of cul-de-sacs or are located in developments at the outskirts of Orinda. Consequently, residents who access public roads through Private Roads (long shared driveways and HOA-owned property), as a group, likely drive more miles on the City's public roads than residents who directly access the public roads from short individual driveways. Iti is thus ridiculous for owners of properties that access public roads through Private Roads to claim that they are being treated "unfairly" and: should be excused from having to pay  City taxes that fund publicr roads.  4.  Myth 4-1 "1 didn't know my road was private."  Reality - Title reports and required seller disclosure identify Private Roads; the City is not an insurance company. When informed that some people who "lived" on Private Roads said that they didn't know when they purchased their property that their roads weren't publicly maintained, one local real estate laughed. "They always know," the agent said. "Iti is required in the seller disclosure. They also appear on the title report as rights of way or easements. Then there are the signs [i.e. "Private Road  No Trespassingl-  The bottom line ist that buyers of real property always are aware (ors should be) that their property is accessed through al Private Road. Shared driveways and related maintenance responsibilities are reflected in recorded documents creating easements and rights of way (andi ift there is no public road marked, then there is no public road). For shared driveways, "Private Road - No Trespassing" signs often denote where the public road ends and the Private Road commences. California Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statements specifically require the seller to disclose awareness of "common. driveways, whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on the subject property," "encroachments, easements, or similar matters," "CC&R's or other deed restrictions or obligations," Homeowners' Association," and' "any 'common area' (facilities such as pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas co-owned in undivided interest with others)." See "REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE $1102 ET: SEQ.)(C.A.R. Form TDS, Rev. 6/23)." California Civil Code $845 describes allocation of maintenance responsibilities for shared easements and rights of way. The City is not an insurance company of last resort. Ifa purchaser buys a property and later learns something unexpected about the property (which may mean the purchaser overpaid for the property), then the purchaser's usual recourse would be (1) toi the seller and the seller's real estate agent, if an intentional misrepresentation was made, (2) to the title insurance company, ift the title report failed to identify something material for whichi the company provides coverage, or (3) to the buyer's inspector, if the inspector missed: something within thei inspector's purview. Ifthe buyer simply failed to read the disclosure and title report, or failed to see something apparent from visiting the property, then the buyer can (a) sell the property and buy a different property that meets the buyer's expectations, or (b) eat the loss and live with the property as is. The buyer'sremedy is NOT to ask the City (i.e.1 the purchaser's neighbors, as fellow taxpayers) to pay to fix the problem or to compensate the buyer for  having paid too much for the property.  5. or unfair."  Myth! 5-1 "Mello-Roos or specidlassessment districts, and HOAS are unusual, hidden,  Page 4 of9  6_12_2024: Strauss Ltrto Council  21    Reality- Mello-Roos and special assessment districts are common methods for financing improvements that benefit select private property owners, are viewed as positives by some (especially those seeking highere end features), and arej fully disclosed in title reports and property tax bills. Where road, streetlighting, sewers, or otheri improvements will benefit and enhance the value of a particular neighborhood, but not the City as av whole, it is common to create (1) a Mello-Roos specialtax district, for an area owned by only at fewl landowners (generally at the development stage), or( (2)a special assessment district (such as under the Improvement Act of1911), for an already developed area. Thoset two types of districts issue bonds financing construction of improvements. The bonds are repaid over time with revenue: from special taxes or assessments unique tot the relevant areas. The improvements enhance the value ofs select neighborhoods, but the relevant property-owners are the  ones who foot the bill.  These districts and the governing documents of their HOAS show upi in title reports. Special taxes and assessments are: specifically identified in property tax bills. Seller disclosure requirements are the same as for other properties (see Myth 4 above), and developers usually provide detailed disclosure. Many developments could not take place without formation of Mello-Roos districts. It can bea selling point that the development has superior infrastructure, "exclusive" features (such as limited traffic and a private club), and a means already established to pay for upkeep. Buyers into such developments understand the deal: special taxes fors special benefits. It would be unfair to ask taxpayers outside those "exclusive" developments (who may have been more frugal in their original purchases) to relieve residents of Mello-Roos special tax districts or special assessment districts of their voluntarily  undertaken tax obligations, free of cost.  6.  Myth 6- Because the City accepted a portion of Road) Xand agreed to maintain it, the City is morally or legally required to accept the rest of Road x (ori ifnot, then the City is being "unfair"). Reality-There are lots ofr reasons why a City would acquire only part ofo a road, and the Cityis not under any obligation to consider offers ofproperty. There is a presumption that public officials made past decisions in goodi faith andi for the public benefit (otherwise, second-guessing could go on forever). Legitimate reasons why the City might not have accepted the entirety of Road Xi into its public road system include: (1) limited resources allowing acceptance, and allocation of those resources to the most desirable roads or portions of those roads, such as those closest to public roads, used by more people, or meeting other criteria, (2) grading or other issues making the private portion of Road) X more expensive toi insure and maintain, or (3) the people who owned the properties on the part that remained private may not have wanted their portion oft the road to become public. Ifthe Cityi is later asked to consider acquiring the remaining portion of a Private Road, then a new analysis is required, which is the same for any new acquisition: (a) "Does the City want to doi this?", (b) "Is there al legitimate, non- pretextual current public benefit in doing so?," and (c) "What will the City receive in return fort taking on the additional obligations and risk?" Just as with someone offering to sell the City any other piece of property, the City is not obligated to consider an offeri ifiti is not currently looking for that type of  property, although it may certainly do sO.  7.  Myth 7- Allresidents of Private Roads want them to become public.  Reality - Many, perhaps a silent majority, value their privacy and restrictions in recorded documents that may limit future traffic; others simply believe that they should live with the deal they  Page 5of9  6_12_2024: Straussl Ltrt to Council  22    made andi not attempt to transfer their obligations to their neighbors. Properties with well maintained Private Roads, whether at the end ofa a cul de sac or within a planned development, often sella at a premium overt those through which more traffic passes. This is because buyers desire the generally large properties that they are purchasing and their accompanying privacy protections. Private Road/No Trespassing signs or entrance gates may discourage foot and roadi traffic. Recorded easements and rights of way may limit usage (such as to one household per parcel) that could otherwise seriously increase  noise and decrease the value of interim homes along a shared driveway. the deallmade; Ido not expect my neighbors to take on my obligations." Special Concerns for Private Road Support or Acquisition.  One co-owner ofa al Private Road summarized his views this way: "I am an ethical person; Iknow  C.  Private Road acquisition or direct financial support to Private Road stakeholders merits extreme caution. This is because it involves (1) al large financial benefit to a select group of private individuals and/ort their service providers, (2) large amounts of City staff time for analysis and administration, (3) significant City financial resources (assumption of costly future obligations and risk), and (4) severe financial stress, even bankruptcy, of the City, ife even one acquisition turns out to be a mistake. Possible reasons for the City to take a particular Private Road might be requirements for (1)a common drainage system to avoid damage to downstream properties and consequent litigation, (2) improved road conditions for a private road that is open to the general public and serves as a thoroughfare, which requires better maintenance to protect the general public than originally contemiplated, or (3) a through-way fort fire trucks that needs to be maintained better than the standard  ofa private road to protect the general public.  Set forth below are some areas the City Council would do well to consider:  1. Before considering any proposed acquisitions (or maintenance support agreements), analyze projected surplus and necessary public projects for the foreseeable future to determine whether it reasonable even to consider acquisition of additional obligations; don't waste staff time if insufficient surplus to cover for present value of obligations to be undertaken. 2. Prioritize adequate reserves for projected future costs fori fire, land movement, drainage, maintenance, insurance, and litigation for existing public roads already in the system. 3. Discuss with City's insurance carrieri impact of additional road and maintenance obligations 4. Ifp preliminary: analysis identifies some potential surplus and funding, then determine who will be paying for the studies, staff time, and outside consultants (financial, geological, legal, and others) that will be required to make ai final determination. (Third party sellers of property often prepare their own packages and make presentations tot the City.) Ass soon as a particular transaction is presented, determine whether there is likely to bea true public benefit. Assertions of "public benefit" that originate, not from a public official, but from a property owner or service provider who stands to gain financially from the City's acquisition of a Private Road, should be viewed with some skepticism. For example,  andi incorporate recommendations.  Page 6of9  6_12_2024 Strauss Ltrto Council  23    infrastructure or road maintenance companies may benefit from lucrative public works contracts when governmental entities are encouraged to expand their public road networks. 6. Have the City's legal counsel identify all stakeholders and circulate conflict of interest questionnaires tot the City Council. Because so much money is involved, iti is extremely a. Actual conflicts that disqualify council members from participation int the decisions (such as council members who have a direct financial interest in a contractor that b. Potential conflicts which: should, at ar minimum, bei identified and discussed (suchas employment by al business that stands to benefit from Cities generally acquiring and  important to identify early:  would be used, or in the Private Roadi to be acquired), and  paying to maintain public roads).  7. Ifthe City determines to move forward on aj particular transaction, then allocate consideration for the deal between the City and the private stakeholders int the Private Road. a. Ifcommon drainage is required, but it is the Private Road that seems to be causing most of the problems, then the owners oft the Private Road would be expected to payt the City (good land, ai trust fund, etc.) to undertake more risk and obligations. If itist the City's public propertyt that seems to be causing most of the problems, then b. Ifthep properties adjacent to the Private Road are subject to recorded covenants obligating them to maintain the road and also provide a right of way toi the general public, then these covenants likely impacted the original prices of their properties. Relieving Private Road: stakeholders entirely of this obligation without consideration provides a windfalli to them (unless the City receives a countervailing benefit). Consider other property that could be conveyed to the City as consideration for assuming Private Road obligations. E.g., would an HOA offer to convert its private club to a public building and transfer it to the City, or provide at trust fund representing the present value of future maintenance obligations, in exchange for having the City acquire one or more ofi its Private Roads?  the City might not require additional compensation.  8. Document, summarize, and file City Council discussions, studies, legal advice from the City Attorney, and conclusions regarding Private Roads, so1 that subsequent City Council members, City Managers, and City Attorneys do not have to restart from ground zeroi if the Financially Prudent Actions the City Can Reasonably Take to Help Underwater Homeowners Given the high risk of Private Road acquisition, the Citys should focus on helping residents identify quality maintenance and repair contractors for their properties, along with sources ofi financing, and not oni identifying pretexts under which specific groups of individuals could convince/mislead the Cityi into  issue is raised again.  D.  Without Being Unfair to Other Homeowners.  acquiring portions of their private property that they no longer wish to maintain.  Page 7of9  6_12_2024 Strauss Ltrto Council  24    The City could, for example, provide guidance or assistance regarding (a) contacting one's title insurance company for possible collection on the policy ifit appears that the policy failed to reference: a material recorded document, (b) accessing State or other governmental grants or low cost loans to finance repairs or improvements, (c) identifying contractors willing to work with Private Roads stakeholders, (d) negotiating "deals" with contractors and consultants that the City employs to offer services to Private Road owners at preferential prices and/or using baseline standards, (e) assembling lists of mortgage lenders who have indicated that they are willing to provide home improvement loans or reverse mortgages to City residents who require money to maintain their Private Roads, (f) offer grants equally available to any resident (notj just Private Roads residents) experiencing retaining wall, driveway, or other drainage issues due to natural disasters, or (e) providing access to public finance lawyers regarding formation of special assessment districts or publicly financed loan programs that  would allow financing of repairs and improvements at public finance rates.  In limited circumstances, the City could offert to contribute to maintenance of select Private Roads that the City views as necessary thoroughfares, if conditions have significantly changed since a public right-of-way was originally granted. For example, a developer may have granted a public right of way through a Private Road where there is now more traffic than would ever have been contemplated. Recorded documents obligate the developer andi its successors ini interest (now, individual homeowners along the Private Road) to maintain the road in perpetuity. Ifthe City truly believes that the maintenance of the road at al higher standardi is required for the safety of City residents (such as for use asaf fire exit), then the City could agree to contribute to maintenance costs (provided that it receives indemnification). This would provide some help to struggling homeowners, without requiring the City to  become an "owner" for purposes of insurance and litigation.  E.  Conclusion.  For a City like Orinda that has limited resources, and high risk of severe weather, fire, and earth movement, a single "bad" decision to acquire al Private Road can bankrupt the City. Thus, road Road acquisition merits special scrutiny because it involves (1) high preliminary assessment costs, (2)asubstantial, long term commitment of City resources, (3) financial benefit to a select group of residents and contractors that willl be paid for by the City'st taxpayers (unless at trust fund, property, or other benefit of corresponding value is provided), and (4) future litigation and casualty risk.  acquisition should be rare.  The City Council has at fiduciary duty to ascertain that any transaction the City enters into is fiscally prudent, int the best interests of the City, and serves al legitimate public purpose rather than being primarily of private benefit to a select group ofi individuals. The City should ensure that it receives adequate consideration for obligations it undertakes. City Council members should implement procedures to identify and eliminate conflicts of interest, as well as to preserve institutional memory. City officials should avoid even the appearance ofi impropriety, such as would arise from working with others to develop pretextual "public benefit" reasons to encourage Private Road acquisition. Assertions of "public benefit" that originate, not from a public official, but from a resident who stands to gain financially from the City's acquisition of a particular Private Road (ori from a contractor who advocates policies encouraging government outlays fori infrastructure) should be closely scrutinized.  Page 8 of9  6_12_2024 Strauss Ltrto Council  25    Some City residents are genuinely experiencing serious, unexpected issues with their roads and would like to find a way to keep theirp property. There are ways that the City can help which do not involve the costly, risky acquisition ofal Private Road. Assistance might include (1) identifying contractors willing to work with Private Roads stakeholders, (2) working with contractors and consultants that the City employs to offer theirs services to Private Roads stakeholders at preferential prices and/or using baseline standards, and (3) helping Private Roads' stakeholders identify loan and grant sources to help  finance their repairs.  Inar rare circumstance, it might bei in the public interest for the City to contribute publici funds to the private owners of a necessary thoroughfare to help maintain that road. That would likely be less  risky than acquiring legal ownership.  The City is not an insurance company (whether title, property, or casualty). Ifunexpected conditions or expenses arise with respect to a property, the usual remedy is fort the property owner either to repair the damage or to sell the property and buys something more affordable. The remedy is not to have one's fellow taxpayers (who may have been more careful and frugal in their purchases) bail  the property owner out.  City representatives should quickly identify and publicly contradict false narratives. The truth is that (1) buyers know, or should know, when the shared driveway or HOA property that they use to access public roads is al Private Road, (2) all Orinda residents, including those who live on Private Roads, use the public roads (and those who live on many Private Roads place more mileage on public roads than those who dor not), (3) possibly a silent majority oft those who live on Private Roads do not want their roads made public, and (4)i it is unfair to ask one's neighbor who accesses the public roads through a short driveway to contribute to maintain the longer, shared driveway or private HOA property that  benefits solely Private Road residents.  While it can be difficult to say "no" to one's neighbors, iti is better to do sO early, than to allow Thank you for consideration of the matters presented in this letter. Please do not hesitate to  mistaken beliefs and unrealistic expectations to arise. contact me using thei information provided to the City Clerk.  Very trulyy yours, /s/Ruth A. Strauss Ruth A. Strauss, Esq.  CC: Sheri Smith, City Clerk smthediydtorindaor  Page9 9of9  6_12_2024S Strauss Ltrto Council  zla    From: Sent: To: Subject:  Glen Young Sheri Smith  Thursday, June 13, 2024 7:44 PM  Please use my taxes to maintain my road and storm drains.  Dear City of Orinda,  attended thei first meeting and having been, getting more educated regarding private roads. Nowit isa abundantly clear to met that private roads are not a luxury but part of our community that ini fairness  should be covered by our community tax base.  Thank you. Glen Young Bien Venida Orinda CA 94563  27    From: Sent: To: Subject: Sheri,  BARBARA NESTAL Tuesday, June 18, 202410:25AM Sheri Smith Private roads  Ican'tr make this meeting but my recommendation would be all roads be addressed the same as we all pay the same taxes. This could be implemented immediately without all the mapping etc.  Regards Barbara Nestal  28    From: Sent: To: Subject:  Arlene Cohen Tuesday, June 18, 20246:25AM City Clerk Private Roads  Orinda City Council, road" designation. Arlene Cohen Canyon View Drive Sent from my iPhone  As a homeowner living on a private road Ifeel like a 2nd class Orinda resident.  Ipay the same taxes as all Orinda citizens and yet my property is treated differently due to a  private lam hoping the Orinda City Council will finally treat all property owners in Orinda equally.  29    From: Sent: To: Subject:  PM Beaham Sheri Smith  Tuesday, June 18, 2024 10:26 AM City Council Meeting Public/Private Roads  Sheri:  Iposted this on Nextdoor. Iwas asked to forward it to you to bei included ini the notes for tonight's "lhave lived on a private lane for 30 years (shared with 3 other households) andlam adamantly against this proposal. All of us on our lane were informed of the shared maintenance during our respective escrows and took on1 the responsibility. We have resurfaced twice ini that time withouti incident. Infact, Icant with good conscience transfer a financial burden of my choice onto my fellow neighbors..'wasnt What's next??. Are we going to force our neighbors to pay for the maintenance of Churches, Private Private property comes with responsibilities & stewardship. Ifyou can't deal with it, sell and move.  public meeting.  our Asphalt job has held up better than the public roads. forced to buy my property on a private lane...  Schools, Private Golf & Swim Clubs....or our1 front & backyards?  Patrick Beaham  30