Orinda City Council
January 31, 2023

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THIS MEETING: To protect our residents, officials, and staff, and in alignment with AB 361 and Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21, in which certain teleconference requirements of the Brown Act have been suspended, including the requirement to provide a physical location for members of the public to participate in the meeting, this meeting will be held by Teleconference.

BY

TELECONFERENCE
VIA

ZOOM WEBINAR
By PC:

MEETING URL:
https://tinyurl.com/ncusvn4h
MEETING ID: 924 9319 5201
By Telephone:
+1 669-900-9128
MEETING ID: 924 9319 5201

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
6:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 01.31.23
How to follow or participate in the meeting:
• Members of the public may observe and participate in the meeting at the teleconference location highlighted above. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by following instructions below:

Send your e-mail to [email protected] by 3pm on the day of the meeting.

Those e-mails will be forwarded to the City Council. They will also be made a part of the public record and be available to view in the public review binder at Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way. In addition, they will be available electronically by 5pm on the day of the meeting by selecting the date of the meeting in this Box account link:https://cityoforinda.box.com/s/aqrelwbwv0wc37m5hkju2o8a0sta7bup • Comments may also be submitted by e-mail during the meeting up until the closure of public comment period on the relevant agenda item. These will be read into the record by staff at their normal cadence and will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes. To be read into the record, e-mail must contain in the subject line “Public Forum – Not on the Agenda” or “Public Comment – Agenda Item #” with the relevant agenda item indicated.
• To comment orally in real time during the meeting, you may use the Zoom “raise your hand” function on your computer screen or the *9 function on your phone.

City Council
Agenda Page 2 01.31.23
6:00 PM - SPECIAL SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Brandyn Iverson, Latika Malkani, Janet Riley Vice Mayor Darlene Gee, Mayor Inga Miller
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.

D. PUBLIC HEARING
D.1. Adoption of Plan Orinda including the Environmental Impact Report, Downtown Precise Plan, 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and Safety Element Update.

Recommendation:

Adopt City Council Resolution 07-23, 08-23, and 09-23 with the following actions:

1. Take the following actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
a. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for Plan Orinda, which includes the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and the Downtown Precise Plan;
b. Adopt Findings under CEQA;
c. Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable;
d. Adopt and incorporate into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project;
e. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project,

2. Adopt the Downtown Precise Plan;

3. Adopt a General Plan Amendment to: (1) Approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and (2) Approve the Safety Element Update; and

4. Authorize submittal of the approved 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for final certification.

E. PUBLIC FORUM
The public forum provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of the City Council that is not on the agenda.

Additionally, a speaker has the option of addressing the Council on an item listed City Council
Agenda Page 3 01.31.23
on the agenda, if the speaker will not be present when that agenda item is taken up. When an item is not listed on the agenda, State law prohibits Council discussion or action. Councilmembers may only “briefly respond” to statements made and questions posed. For example, State law allows Councilmembers to ask questions for clarification and provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. Additionally, consistent with the “Matters Initiated” rule contained in its Policies and Procedures Manual, the Council may also direct staff to report back and/or place a matter on a future agenda for discussion.

F. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
G. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
H. MATTERS INITIATED
I. ADJOURNMENT
The next Special Meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 7:00 PM.

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

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

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

I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this regular meeting agenda has been posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way. Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org
~ Notices ~
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in Court to certain City decisions that require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you file a challenge in Court, you may be limited by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to those issues raised in connection with the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting. For information on the next City Council meeting, please call 925.253.4221 or visit the website at www.cityoforinda.org. Unless otherwise noted, City Council actions include a determination that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply. ~ Accessible Public Meetings ~
City Council
Agenda Page 4 01.31.23
The City of Orinda will provide special assistance for disabled citizens to participate in public meetings upon advance notice. If you need auxiliary hearing aid or sign language assistance at least two (2) working days advanced notice is necessary. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, Ca 94563 or 925.253.4221 or [email protected] with the following information: name, mailing address, phone number and type of assistance requested.

City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: D.1
Date: January 31, 2023
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of Plan Orinda including the Environmental Impact Report, Downtown Precise Plan, 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and Safety Element Update.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt City Council Resolution 07-23, 08-23, and 09-23 with the following actions:

1. Take the following actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
a. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for Plan Orinda, which includes the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and the Downtown Precise Plan;
b. Adopt Findings under CEQA;
c. Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable;
d. Adopt and incorporate into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project;
e. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project,

2. Adopt the Downtown Precise Plan;

3. Adopt a General Plan Amendment to: (1) Approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and (2) Approve the Safety Element Update; and

4. Authorize submittal of the approved 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for final certification.

BACKGROUND: The Plan Orinda project includes: an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP), the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and the Safety Element Update.

The EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the DPP, 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and Safety Element Update. The DPP process began in January 2020 and the Housing/Safety Element Update began in June 2021. Over 40 public meetings have been held on Plan Orinda topics over the past three years.

A recommendation from the Planning Commission is required prior to the City Council making a decision on the project. On January 18, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution 23-01 recommending the City Council take the actions outlined in the staff recommendation.

D.1
Packet Pg. 5
DISCUSSION:

The City Council is being asked to make a decision on the Plan Orinda project. The staff report is broken down into four sections, one section for each component of Plan Orinda.

I. Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a project before making a decision on a discretionary action or project. The purpose of CEQA is to inform decision makers and members of the public regarding potential environmental impacts. If it is determined that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.

An EIR is an informational document that describe the significant environmental effects of a project, identifies possible ways to minimize the significant impacts, and describes reasonable alternatives to the project. A Program EIR is prepared when a plan or program has multiple components that are related geographically, through applications of rules or regulations, or as logical parts of a long-term plan. A Program EIR has been prepared for the DPP, Housing Element Update, and Safety Element Update.

EIR Process
A summary of the required CEQA environmental review process that has been completed is listed below. A more detailed discussion of this process can be found in the draft EIR.

1. Notice Of Preparation – Once it is determined that an EIR is required, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) must be filed to solicit input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing. The NOP must also be posted in the County Clerk’s office. State Clearinghouse No. 2022010392 has been assigned to the Plan Orinda EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21092.2).

2. Draft EIR – The draft EIR must include a) a table of contents; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts; f) a discussion of project alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) a discussion of irreversible changes.

3. Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability – A Notice of Completion (NOC) must be filed with the State Clearinghouse when a draft EIR is complete, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) must be published. The NOC must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30-days (PRC Section 21092) and must also be sent to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). The draft EIR public review period must be a minimum of 45-days.

D.1
Packet Pg. 6

4. Final EIR – The Final EIR must include a) the draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during the draft EIR public review period; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) a response to timely comments on the draft EIR.

EIR Timeline
Table 1 provides a timeline of the EIR, including key milestones and public meetings held to date. Key milestones are highlighted in blue.

Table 1. EIR Timeline
Date Meeting Body Topic
01/04/22 - Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued for 30-day public review period (01/04/22 to 02/03/22).
01/20/22 Subcommittee EIR Scoping Meeting to receive comments on the scope of the EIR.
01/25/22 - NOP public review period extended to 02/24/22. 09/15/22 - Draft EIR released for 45-day public review (09/15/22 to 10/31/22).
10/03/22 Subcommittee Public meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIR 01/13/23 - Final EIR released for public review
01/18/23 Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council to certify the Final EIR, adopt Findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, incorporate all mitigation measures,
and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.

Draft EIR
The draft EIR was released for a 45-day public review period on September 15, 2022.

The draft EIR includes a project description to describe the project and analyzes fourteen environmental impacts. Each environmental impact is categorized into one of four categories:
• Significant and Unavoidable – An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonable available and feasible mitigation measures.

Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved.
• Less that Significant with Mitigation – An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonable available and feasible mitigation measures. A summary of all the mitigation measures can be found in the in the draft EIR Executive Summary.
• Less than Significant – An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.
• No Impact – The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

D.1
Packet Pg. 7
Table 2. Summary of Draft EIR Environmental Impacts
No Impact or Less than
Significant
Less than Significant with
Mitigation
Significant and
Unavoidable
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources*
Aesthetics Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Energy* Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Noise
Hydrology and Water
Quality*
Biological Resources Transportation
Land Use and Planning Cultural Resources Wildfire
Mineral Resources* Geology and Soils
Population and Housing Tribal Cultural Resources
Public Services and
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
*These issues areas were determined to have a less than significant impact and were not analyzed in detail in the EIR. A more detailed description of these issues areas can be found in Section 4.15 of the draft EIR – Effects Found Not to be Significant.

Project Alternatives
The EIR is required to analyze project alternatives that would meet most of the project objectives and reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts of the project. Each alternative has been analyzed to a full level of detail in order to allow the City Council maximum flexibility to select one of the project alternatives as the final project. Three project alternatives were analyzed in the Draft EIR:

Alternative 1 – No Project
An EIR must always analyze a no project alternative. With Alternative 1, there would be no change to zoning or the General Plan and planning for the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation would not be achieved. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the project objectives.

Alternative 1 would generally result in similar or decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project, with the exception of land use and planning, which would be greater. Alternative 1 would have no significant and unavoidable impacts.

Alternative 2 – DPP plus BART Sites
This alternative would include the DPP sites, the BART station parking lot sites (sites BART-A and BART-B), and the Miramonte High School site (Housing Element site HE4). It would remove the 3 church sites in this alternative (Housing Element sites HE-1, HE-2, and HE-3) as well as the Caltrans Gateway site (Housing Element site HE-5).

The Miramonte High School site is included in this alternative to meet Housing Element fair housing requirements to reduce the concentration of low-income housing in certain areas within the community. In addition, this alternative would reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) since it assumes that future residents would be closer to downtown and use BART for travel. Alternative 2 would meet or exceed all project objectives.

D.1
Packet Pg. 8
Alternative 2 would generally result in similar or incrementally decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. The inclusion of the BART parking lots would reduce VMT per capita; however, due to the increase in population and increased development, would create greater impacts to aesthetics, transportation and utilities and service systems. Alternative 2 would have the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Project.

Figure 1. Alternative 2 (DPP, BART Sites, and Miramonte Site) Alternative 3 – No DPP
This last alternative would include the BART station parking lot sites, the 3 church sites, the Miramonte High School site, and the Caltrans Gateway site. It would remove the DPP sites from the alternative. This alternative would meet the Housing Element objectives, but not the DPP objectives.

Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, and transportation compared to the proposed project. However, impacts to aesthetics, and utilities and service systems under Alternative 3 would be incrementally D.1
Packet Pg. 9
greater. Alternative 3 would have the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Project with the exception of noise, which would be less than significant under Alternative 3.

Figure 2. Alternative 3 Sites (No DPP)
Final EIR
The Final EIR provides a written response to each comment received during the Draft EIR public comment period and lists all revisions made to the Draft EIR. A total of 6 written comments were received during the Draft EIR public comment period, 3 from public agencies and 3 from members of the public. The Final EIR includes five chapters:

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

2. Verbal Comments and Responses – A response to comments that were made during the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee meeting on October 3, 2022.

D.1
Packet Pg. 10

3. Written Comments and Responses – A response to written comments received during the 45-day public comment period.

4. Revisions to the Draft EIR – Each proposed text change, listed by page number in the Draft EIR is identified in this section.

5. Recirculation not Warranted – A description of why the revisions to the Draft EIR do not warrant recirculation of the document.

EIR Next Steps
The following steps need to occur following publication of the Final EIR:

1. Certification of Final EIR – Prior to making a decision on the Plan Orinda project (DPP, 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and Safety Element Update), the City Council must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the City Council; and c) the City Council has reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

2. Lead Agency Project Decision – The City Council may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant environment effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines sections 15042 and 15043).

3. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations – For each significant impact identified in the EIR, the City Council must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the project; b) changes to the project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091).

The CEQA Findings have been prepared and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been written describing the reasons for supporting the City’s decision. The CEQA Findings are included as Exhibit A-1 and the Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as Exhibit A-2 within Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (Attachment B).

4. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program – A reporting or monitoring program must be adopted for measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects. The MMRP is included as Exhibit A-3 within Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (Attachment B).

Following City Council’s action on #1-4 above and adoption of Plan Orinda, the next step would include filing a Notice of Determination (NOD) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). The NOD must be filed with the County Clerk, posted for 30-days, and sent to anyone previously requesting notice.

D.1
Packet Pg. 11
II. Downtown Precise Plan (DPP)
The Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) documents the City’s long-range planning priorities for Downtown Orinda. Although the discussion of downtown planning has occurred over the last 15 years, a comprehensive downtown planning document has not been created until the DPP. The DPP builds on prior downtown planning discussions while setting the stage for future downtown development. The DPP describes long-range options for Downtown Orinda. The plan provides guidance for downtown development decisionmaking by offering a cohesive vision that would be implemented through future development, policymaking, and programs.

The DPP is organized into five chapters, with a sixth chapter to be adopted upon future amendment of the General Plan.

1. Introduction – An overview of the DPP, its scope and structure, process, and future DPP-related programming.

2. Existing Conditions – A snapshot of the community profile and economy; major land-uses and features; adopted policies, regulations, and plans; downtown characteristics and property conditions; circulation; and natural features and infrastructure.

3. Vision & Guiding Principles – A vision statement that describes the envisioned form that future downtown will take, a series of principles, and supporting goals and policies that will achieve the intended results.

4. San Pablo Creek – A history of San Pablo creek restoration efforts and a guidebook for future restoration effects.

5. Utilities, Services, & Infrastructure – An overview of existing conditions and potential impacts upon utilities, services, and infrastructure as a result of development generated by the DPP. The development constraints posted by the PG&E transmission lines is also discussed.

Appendices
• Objective Design Standards (Draft) – will become the sixth chapter of the DPP once finalized and adopted (timing to be determined) • ConnectOrinda Plan
• San Pablo Creek Memo
• Economic Development Feasibility Memo
• Downtown Redevelopment Potential Memo
The DPP document is non-regulatory and does not alter or affect the General Plan or zoning. Rather, the content within the DPP will be used to guide future consideration of potential General Plan and zoning text and map amendments. The DPP contains draft Objective Design Standards, which are intended to be finalized and adopted in the future.

DPP Timeline
Table 3 provides a summary of all DPP public meetings held to date with key milestones highlighted in blue.

D.1
Packet Pg. 12
Table 3. DPP Timeline
Date Meeting Body Topic
Jan 2020 - DPP Kick-off
02/26/20 Subcommittee Update on project branding, RFPs/RFQs, existing conditions, and stakeholder engagement.
04/07/20 City Council Update on project branding, RFPs/RFQs, and existing conditions.
04/29/20 Subcommittee Update on existing conditions, property profiles, community engagement, and upcoming meetings.
05/02/20 - DPP online survey available
05/18/20 - Draft Existing Conditions Chapter available
05/26/20 Joint Subcommittee &
Planning Commission
Community Workshop #1 –
Overview of DPP, background of past planning
efforts, state and local regulations, and existing
conditions.
06/10/20 Subcommittee ConnectOrinda refresher, results of online survey, and update of stakeholder interviews.
06/23/20 Joint Subcommittee &
Planning Commission
Community Workshop #2 –
Overview of CEQA, results of online survey and
stakeholder interviews, draft vision statement, draft
goals and objectives, and components of the DPP.
07/28/20 Joint Subcommittee &
Planning Commission
Community Workshop #3 –
Overview of objective design standards and proposed
densities and building heights.
08/18/20 City Council Overview of objective design standards, and proposed densities and heights for the Program EIR
project description.
09/10/20 Subcommittee Discuss comments raised at the 8/18 City Council meeting regarding the EIR, density bonus, mixed-use,
incentives, and project examples.
09/30/20 Subcommittee Interview of 3 economic firms for on-call economic services.
10/06/20 City Council DPP update
11/19/20 Joint City Council &
Planning Commission
Character Area Workshop –
Discussion of changes of building heights, vertical
and horizontal mixed use, and objective design
standards.
03/02/21 City Council Discussion of draft Economic Feasibility Memo 03/16/21 City Council Consideration for coordination of the DPP and Housing/Safety Element update.
04/13/21 City Council Decision to process the DPP and Housing/Safety Element update concurrently as one project.
06/10/21 Subcommittee Discussion of PG&E transmission lines with PG&E representatives in attendance.
08/31/21 - Draft Objective Design Standards released for public review
09/27/21 Subcommittee
11/17/21 Joint City Council & Discussion of draft Objective Design Standards Planning Commission
02/17/22 - DPP online survey #2 available
D.1
Packet Pg. 13
Date Meeting Body Topic
07/15/22 - Draft Vision & Guiding Principles Chapter available 07/18/22 Subcommittee Discussion of draft Vision & Guiding Principles 08/09/22 Planning Commission 09/01/22 - Draft San Pablo Creek Memo available
09/06/22 City Council Discussion of draft Vision & Guiding Principles; Discussion of draft San Pablo Creek memo
12/07/22 - Draft DPP available
12/14/22 Planning Commission Draft DPP 01/10/23 City Council 01/18/23 Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council to adopt the DPP.

Draft Objective Design Standards
The draft Objective Design Standards (ODS) are proposed as an appendix to the DPP until finalized and adopted. The ODS would ultimately regulate the built form and character of future development. Some of the main standards proposed within the ODS include:
• A new Downtown Core and Downtown General area where the existing Downtown Commercial (DC) and Downtown Office (DO) zoning districts are located,
• Ability to propose vertical mixed-use or horizontal mixed-use depending on the project site,
• Residential densities of 25, 30, or 55 du/ac depending on the project site, and • Maximum building heights of 35’ or 45’ depending on the project site.

Vertical and Horizontal Mixed-Use
The draft ODS proposes vertical or horizontal mixed-use within the Downtown Core and Downtown General area depending on the project site. Vertical mixed-use combines different uses within one building while horizontal mixed-use includes multiple singleuse buildings. Generally, the Downtown Core would include vertical mixed-use while the Downtown General and Downtown General-Enhanced would include horizontal mixeduse.

A number of sites within the Downtown Core and Downtown General are identified as opportunity sites within the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Per Government Code section 65583(f) and Government Code section 65583.2(h) the Housing Element makes clear the City will “Ensure (a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low- and very lowincome regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses, or (b) if accommodating more than 50 percent of the lowand very low-income regional housing need on sites designated for mixed-uses, all sites designated for mixed-uses must allow 100 percent residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project”. In Figure 3 below, the sites highlighted in yellow indicate Downtown Core Housing Element sites where sites could still be developed as vertical mixed-use as long as at least 50% of the project includes residential use; however, a project with up to 100% residential would also be allowed pursuant to Government Code requirements. The D.1
Packet Pg. 14
timing of this requirement will be either within one or three years of Housing Element adoption.

Figure 3. Mixed-Use and Height Map
Creek Chapter Update
At the January 10, 2023 public meeting, City Council directed staff to update sections

4.4 and 4.5 of DPP Chapter 4: San Pablo Creek. These sections detail recentlyproposed plans for creek revitalization, including the 2019 Friends of Orinda Creeksproduced concept, which proposes creek realignment consistent with the historical natural course of the creek, as well as the 2022 concept produced by PlaceWorks, which proposes alterations and amenities that largely maintain the existing straight channel of the creek. Language within these two chapters was deemed to heavily favor D.1
Packet Pg. 15
the latter plan over the former, and City Council determined it would be beneficial to the chapter’s scope to neutrally present these plans as viable alternatives. Following the January 10th City Council meeting, staff has been in communication with Friends of Orinda Creeks regarding the revisions to these sections. The attached Proposed Downtown Precise Plan incorporates revisions per Council’s direction and communication with Friends of Orinda Creeks.

DPP Next Steps
Following City Council approval of the DPP, the next steps to implement the DPP would include:

1. General Plan amendments to reflect the DPP vision and guiding principles, and

2. Amendments to the Orinda Municipal Code, General Plan land use map, and Land Use Element to reflect the draft Objective Design Standards.

III. Housing Element Update
The Housing Element is a required element of the City’s General Plan that must be updated on a schedule set by state law (e.g., every 8 years). Each jurisdiction is assigned a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) that is the number of new housing units that the Housing Element must plan for. The Housing Element also includes goals, policies, and programs to encourage housing development for all income levels over the 8-year planning period. Orinda’s 5th Cycle Housing Element, which plans for 2015 to 2023, was required to plan for 227 RHNA units. For the 6th Cycle Housing Element, which will plan for the period of 2023 to 2031, Orinda has been assigned 1,359 RHNA units.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element has an approval deadline of January 31, 2023. If the 2023-2031 Housing Element is not approved prior to the deadline, there are consequences the City would face including a one-year rezoning deadline compared to a three year rezoning deadline and the ineligibility to qualify for certain grants and funding sources. In addition, if the Housing Element is not adopted prior to the deadline, “builders remedy” could be enacted where a developer could propose an eligible housing development project that does not comply with the City’s zoning or general plan.

The draft Housing Element is comprised of seven chapters:

1. Introduction – An overview of state requirements, the purpose of the Housing Element, and General Plan consistency.

2. Public Participation – A discussion of the public meetings and engagement activities that occurred prior to release of the draft Housing Element.

3. Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element – An evaluation of the City’s progress towards the 5th Cycle Housing Element goals.

4. Population, Employment, and Housing Characteristics – Demographic information and an assessment of fair housing, a new requirement for the 2023- 2031 Housing Element update.

D.1
Packet Pg. 16

5. Housing Sites Inventory – An inventory of land available for housing development, including vacant sites and nonvacant sites that have the potential for redevelopment during the planning period.

6. Housing Constraints – An analysis of the governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing development.

7. Goals, Policies, and Actions – The goals, policies, and programs to address the housing needs of the community. This section identifies the actions the City will take to meet local housing goals, quantified objectives, and housing needs of Orinda.

Housing Element Update Timeline
Table 4 provides a summary of all Housing Element public meetings held to date with key milestones highlighted in blue. While the Housing Element kick-off officially began in June 2021 after City Council approval of the PlaceWorks contract, there were Housing Element pre-work meetings held prior to June 2021 where staff provided Housing Element and state law updates.

Table 4. Housing Element Update Timeline
Date Meeting Body Topic
02/16/21 City Council Overview of Housing Element regulations and key changes to state housing law
03/16/21 City Council Consideration for coordination of the DPP and Housing/Safety Element update.
04/13/21 City Council Decision to process the DPP and Housing/Safety Element update concurrently as one project.
05/11/21 Joint City Council &
Planning Commission
Overview of the Housing Element, RHNA, and a
preliminary sites inventory analysis
June
2021
- Housing Element Kick-Off
10/18/21 Subcommittee Housing Element sites inventory
11/09/21 Planning Commission Housing Element overview, RHNA, and sites 11/16/21 City Council inventory
12/15/21 - Balancing Act Housing Simulation tool released 02/15/22 City Council Housing Element sites inventory update 03/31/22 - Draft Housing Element released for public review; postcard notice of the draft Housing Element is
mailed to all residential properties in Orinda
04/05/22 Planning Commission Draft Housing Element 04/19/22 City Council 05/16/22 - Draft Housing Element submitted to HCD for 90-day review period
06/03/22 - Fair Housing survey available
06/27/22 Subcommittee Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing workshop 08/04/22 - Draft Housing Element revised and released for public review based on preliminary HCD comments
08/12/22 - HCD comment letter received
09/23/22 - Sept 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element released for public review in response to HCD comment letter
D.1
Packet Pg. 17
Date Meeting Body Topic
10/10/22 Subcommittee Sept 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element 11/01/22 City Council 11/04/22 - Nov 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element released for public review
11/16/22 - Revised Draft Housing Element submitted to HCD for 60-day review period
01/05/23 - Jan 5th 2023 Revised Draft Housing Element released for public review based on preliminary HCD
comments
01/13/23 - HCD Comment Letter received
01/18/23 Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council to adopt a General Plan Amendment to approve the 2023-2031 Housing
Element Update and Safety Element Update.

Sites Inventory
Since the Housing Element kick-off in June 2021, there have been multiple public meetings to discuss the potential sites to include in the Housing Element sites inventory.

The latest draft of the Housing Element includes the following sites to accommodate future residential development to meet Orinda’s RHNA:
• Existing vacant residentially-zoned sites
• Sites from the 5th Cycle Housing Element that were not developed with residential units during that period
o Santa Maria Church site
• Approved Projects
o Wilder Memory Care Project
o Vista Verde Senior Housing Program
• Downtown Precise Plan sites
o BevMo block
▪ Proposed 55 du/ac with a 45’ maximum building height
o Country Club Plaza block
▪ Proposed 55 du/ac with a 45’ maximum building height
o Downtown Office (DO) sites
▪ 5 sites proposed at 25 du/ac with a 35’ maximum building height o Downtown Commercial (DC) sites
▪ 8 sites proposed at 30 du/ac with a 45’ maximum building height • Church sites
o 3 Moraga Way church sites (Holy Shepherd Church, St. Mark’s Church, and St. John’s Church) proposed at 20-25 du/ac.
• Miramonte High School site
o A vacant portion of the school site proposed at 20-25 du/ac. • Caltrans Gateway Site
o A vacant site owned by Caltrans proposed at 20-40 du/ac.

HCD Review
The Housing Element is required to be approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The first draft Housing Element was D.1
Packet Pg. 18
submitted to HCD on May 16, 2022, for a 90-day review period. At the conclusion of the 90-days, on August 12, 2022, the City received a comment letter of all items that needed to be addressed or revised in the draft Housing Element in order to obtain HCD’s approval.

The draft Housing Element was revised based on the HCD comment letter and feedback received from the City Council and members of the public. The revised draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD on November 16, 2022, for a 60-day review period.

On January 3, 2023, staff and Placeworks had a conference call with HCD to obtain preliminary verbal comments prior to receiving their formal comment letter on January 13, 2023. Many of the preliminary comments were minor clarifications to address HCD’s remaining comments with the exception of HCD’s concerns about the availability of the Caltrans Gateway site, which would require completion of a “decertification” process with Caltrans before the site could be used for a purpose other than transportationrelated. In the November 2022 Revised Draft, Action 1.C stated that the City will initiate the decertification process by June 2023 and if the decertification is not completed by January 2026, the City will identify additional sites to accommodate any potential RHNA shortfall. As part of HCD’s preliminary comments, feedback was provided to consider revising Action 1.C to set an earlier evaluation period, prior to January 2026.

Because HCD remained concerned about the site being available in a timely fashion to enable development during the 2023-2031 Housing Element period, staff added in five additional sites within the DPP to the sites inventory. In addition, the density at the BevMo block and Country Club Plaza block was increased from 50 du/ac to 55 du/ac.

By adding these five additional sites and increasing the density at the two downtown blocks, the City’s RHNA requirement can be met without needing to count units on the Caltrans Gateway site.

In response to the preliminary verbal comments, edits to the Nov 2022 Revised Draft were made and the January 5th 2023 Revised Draft Housing Element was released for public review.

On January 13, 2023, the City received a comment letter from HCD detailing the few remaining items that still need to be addressed in the Housing Element in order to obtain HCD approval. The HCD comment letter is included as Attachment G to this report.

January 13th HCD Comment Letter
The January 13th HCD Comment Letter includes six remaining categories that need to be addressed. Following release of the January 5th 2023 Revised Draft, Placeworks was in communication with HCD and worked on revisions to the Housing Element prior to and after receiving the comment letter on January 13th. The latest draft Housing Element that was released on January 13th as an attachment to the Planning Commission staff report responds to these comments. A few additional minor changes are also proposed that include:

D.1
Packet Pg. 19
• A revision to the section titles in Section 1.2 (Content and Organization) to ensure consistency with the section titles in the Table of Contents. • The addition of a footnote to Table A-1 clarifying that certain sites listed in the table are not being relied on to meet RHNA, but any future development on these sites would add to the City’s RHNA surplus.
• Other technical edits in response to public comments.

HCD Comment #1
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites and Small Sites: While the element was revised to include examples of development on sites smaller than 0.5 acres to support assumptions in the sites inventory, it must include analysis to demonstrate the suitability of these sites to facilitate development affordable to lower income households. The element should provide specific examples with the densities and affordability. For sites expected to be aggregated, the element must describe circumstances leading to consolidation, such as common ownership, the City’s role or track record in facilitating small lot consolidation, policies or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation, specific examples of projects that were built for lower-income households on similarly sized sites, densities and affordability and relate those examples back to the sites inventory.

In response to HCD Comment #1, additional project examples were added from neighboring jurisdictions that have similar characteristics. Details regarding the City’s existing lot consolidation regulations in Orinda Municipal Code Section 16.16 and Section 17.20 was also added. Action Item 1.L was modified to specify that incentives would be provided for small lot consolidation.

HCD Comment #2
CalTrans Site: The element was revised to include estimated timing and the process for decertification on the CalTrans site. HCD also received additional revisions to Action 1.C (Caltrans Gateway Site Development); however as these changes were not made available to the public pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), HCD could not fully consider them as part of this review. In addition, HCD had received several third-party comments related to the suitability of this site for development. In order to demonstrate the availability of this site for residential development, the element should include evidence from CalTrans to determine that the site will be available for development within the planning period, and demonstrate that decertification of this site by Caltrans will happen within two years from the start of the planning period or that if this does not occur by that timeframe, the City will identify additional sites in the inventory to accommodate the lower-income housing need by January 31, 2026. The element must include a clear steps to analyze whether decertification will occur by January 2025 and when the site will be available for residential development or identify additional sites to meet by-right shortfall requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h) and (i).

The timeframe of Action 1.C was revised to state that the City will evaluate the decertification process by June 2024 instead of January 2025. In addition, the actual decertification completion was changed from January 2026 to January 2025. Additional reasons why staff believes the Caltrans Gateway site is a suitable site for development has also been added to the latest draft Housing Element. These reasons include:

D.1
Packet Pg. 20
• The site being situated similarly to the recently approved 34-unit congregate care facilities approved on the other side of Highway 24.
• The site being one of the viable, vacant lot plots of land available in the City. • The site being a potential candidate for affordable housing under the Governor’s Executive Order for sites owned by state departments.
• The site being located in a high resource area with close proximity to a major recreational facility, a performing arts venue, public trails and open space, and Orinda’s newest Wilder neighborhood.
• The site being close and accessible to downtown Orinda and the Orinda BART station with improved pedestrian and bike connect, shuttle, or transit links. • The City being committed to pursuing the Caltrans decertification process and exploring the Excess Lands Program with local legislators.

HCD Comment #3
Suitability of Sites: Please note, that the East Bay for Everyone comment letter notes several sites which may be inaccurately depicted. The City should verify the status of the sites and amend the sites inventory and analysis accordingly.

Table A-1 lists all vacant sites currently zoned for residential use. Staff reviewed Table A-1 and removed sites that that are very small, owned by other agencies, or appear infeasible due to existing overhead powerlines.

HCD Comment #4
Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis.

Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs.

The following programs were modified as a result of HCD Comment #1-3: Action 1.C (Caltrans Gateway Site Development), Action 1.D (Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designation), Action 1.L (Lot Consolidation), and Action 4.G (Monitor Development Fees).

HCD Comment #5
Land Use Controls: While the element was revised to analyze lot width and depths in the RM and SH overlay as a constraint, analysis is needed regarding heights limited to 27 feet.

Heights that limit development to two stories in multifamily zones are a constraint on development and a program must be added to allow at least three stories in zones allowing multifamily developments, including but not limited to the RH-25 zone. Based on the outcome of the analysis, the element should add or modify programs to address the constraint.

Action 1.D was revised to state that the development standards for the SH-Overlay will be modified to allow three stories.

HCD Comment #6
Program 4.G (Monitor Development Fees): While the element was revised to add an analysis of multifamily development fees, it demonstrated that multifamily development fees are significantly higher than single family fees as total development cost. The City must revise program 4.G to commit to modifying standards and reducing fees based on D.1
Packet Pg. 21
conversations with developers and applicants.

Action 4.G was revised to remove the wording “if needed” to commit the City to taking action to modify standards and reduce fees based on conversations with developers and applicants.

Other HCD Comments
In the January 13, 2023 letter, HCD noted that it had received communication from community organizations East Bay for Everyone and YIMBY Law regarding the Orinda Housing Element Update dated January 12, 2023 that HCD staff has not had the opportunity to review. HCD encouraged Orinda to review the comments and incorporate feedback where appropriate. Staff reviewed the letters and believes that the main concerns addressed by the groups have been addressed to the greatest degree possible (unless counter to the goals and objectives of the Housing Element Update or views expressed by previous community input).

Housing Element Next Steps
Staff believes that the edits described above that have been made to the latest draft Housing Element addresses each of HCD’s comments in the January 13th comment letter and that the latest draft substantially compiles with all requirements of State Housing Element Law as interpreted by HCD. By adopting the latest draft Housing Element prior to the deadline, the City should therefore avoid the adverse consequences of late adoption, including a one year rezoning timeline, inability to qualify for grants or funding sources, and being subject to a developer’s “builders remedy” application.

Resolution 09-23 prepared for City Council consideration (Attachment D) contains two exhibits with findings of substantial compliance. Exhibit A notes how the City has responded to each comment in HCD’s January 13th comment letter. Exhibit B provides a checklist of HCD requirements and identifies where in the Housing Element Update this requirement has been satisfied. Both of these exhibits serve to support the conclusion that the Housing Element Update is in substantial compliance with State law.

Following City Council approval of the Housing Element Update and authorization for submittal to HCD, next steps would include:

1. Submitting the Housing Element to HCD for a 60-day review.

2. Following HCD approval and certification of the Housing Element, General Plan and zoning amendments to implement the goals, policies, and actions of the Housing Element.

IV. Safety Element Update
The Safety Element is a required element of the City’s General Plan. The purpose of the Safety Element is to include safety considerations into planning and decision-making processes by establishing policies related to future development. The Safety Element identifies natural and man-made hazards that may result in personal injury, loss of life, property damage, or environmental damage. The Safety Element must be updated D.1
Packet Pg. 22
upon each revision of the Housing Element or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, but not less than once every eight years.

The Safety Element is organized into three main chapters:

1. Overview – An overview of the purpose and content of the Safety Element, the role of Moraga-Orinda Fire District, relationship to other existing plans, and the result of the Vulnerability Assessment.

2. Public Safety Issues – A discussion of the existing and likely future hazardous conditions including emergency preparedness, flood and inundation hazards, seismic and geologic hazards, fire hazards, hazardous waste and materials, and additional climate-related hazards.

3. Goals, Policies, and Actions – 6 goals, 60 total policies, and 26 implementing actions are identified to reduce hazards and increase resiliency through preparedness and adaptation.

Evacuation Analysis
In March 2022, the City Council authorized preparation of an Evacuation Route Analysis concurrent with the Safety Element update. While the Safety Element is required to include a general discussion of emergency evacuation, the Evacuation Route Analysis provides a deeper analysis of emergency scenarios and evacuation roadways. The Evacuation Route Analysis was prepared pursuant to AB 747 and supplements the Safety Element Update based on community interest in emergency preparedness and evacuation.

The Evacuation Analysis is referenced in the Safety Element and specific goals and policies have been developed based on the analysis, but the final Evacuation Analysis document is a standalone document.

Safety Element Update Timeline
Table 5 includes a summary of all Safety Element public meetings with key milestones highlighted in blue.

Table 5. Safety Element Update Timeline
Date Meeting Body Topic
03/16/21 City Council Consideration for coordination of the DPP and Housing/Safety Element update.
04/13/21 City Council Decision to process the DPP and Housing/Safety Element update concurrently as one project.

June
2021
- Safety Element Kick-Off
11/03/21 Workshop Safety Element Community Workshop
11/04/21 - Safety Element survey available
02/09/22 SSTOC Safety Element overview, results of the survey, and a discussion of the Vulnerability Assessment
06/07/22 - Draft Safety Element & Vulnerability Assessment released for public review
06/14/22 Planning Commission Draft Safety Element & Vulnerability Assessment D.1
Packet Pg. 23
Date Meeting Body Topic
07/05/22 City Council
11/09/22 - Draft Evacuation Analysis released for public review 11/15/22 City Council Draft Evacuation Analysis
12/07/22 - Revised Draft Safety Element released for public review
12/14/22 Planning Commission Revised Draft Safety Element 01/10/23 City Council 01/18/23 Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council to adopt a General Plan Amendment to approve the 2023-2031 Housing
Element Update and Safety Element Update.

CalFire Review
The Safety Element update requires review from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). Unlike the Housing Element which requires approval from HCD, the Safety Element is not required to obtain approval from any other agency. The draft Safety Element was submitted to CalFire in August 2022 and comments were received in November 2022. The revised draft Safety Element was presented to the Resource Protection Committee of the Board of Forestry on December 6, 2022. Positive feedback was received from the Committee and there were no requests for edits to the revised draft Safety Element. On December 8, 2022, the City received confirmation from CalFire/Board of Forestry of their completed review of the Safety Element and no further action with CalFire is required.

Safety Element Next Steps
Following approval of the Safety Element, next steps would include:

1. Implementation of the goals, policies, and actions of the Safety Element.

NEXT STEPS: Following adoption of City Council Resolution 07-23, 08-23, and 09-23, staff will transmit the Final Housing Element to HCD for review and certification. A CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the County Clerk pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no material fiscal impact resulting from staff’s recommendations. All of the costs associated with the Plan Orinda project are within the amounts previously approved in the Mid-Cycle Budget Update adopted June 21, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Planning Commission Resolution 23-01
B. Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23
C. Proposed City Council Resolution 08-23
D. Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23
E. Environmental Impact Report [weblink]
F. Proposed Downtown Precise Plan [weblink]
G. HCD Comment Letter (January 13, 2023)
D.1
Packet Pg. 24
H. Proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element Update [weblink]
I. Proposed Safety Element Update [weblink]
J. DRAFT January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes K. Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting)
L. Public Correspondence (Received After January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting)
Respectfully Submitted by:

Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
Prepared By: Winnie Mui, Associate Planner
Approved by:

D.1
Packet Pg. 25
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2023-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORINDA, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,RECOMMENDING
THAT CITY COUNCIL (1) CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR FOR PLAN ORINDA (WHICH

INCLUDES THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE AS WELL AS THE DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN); (2) ADOPT THE CEQA FINDINGS; (3)

ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THOSE IMPACTS THAT WERE FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE; (4) ADOPT AND

INCORPORATE INTO THE PROJECT ALL OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT; (5) ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT; (6) ADOPT THE DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN; AND (7) ADOPT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO APPROVE THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND APPROVE THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE.

WHEREAS, the Plan Orinda project is made up of an Environmental Impact Report, the Downtown Precise Plan, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and the Safety Element Update; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act to analyze the environmental impacts of the Downtown Precise Plan, 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and Safety Element Update; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing consistent with Government Code section 65353 on Plan Orinda; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has taken testimony and reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report, Downtown Precise Plan, 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and Safety Element, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission finds and resolves as follows:

Section 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR for Plan Orinda (which includes the Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and the Downtown Precise Plan), adopt findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable, adopt and incorporate into the project all of the mitigation measures for the project, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Section 2. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Downtown Precise Plan, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

Section 3. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a General Plan Amendment to (1) approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and (2) approve the Safety Element update, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

D.1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 23-01 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) D.1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution 23-01 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) RESOLUTION NO. 07-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA CERTIFYING THE

FINAL EIR FOR PLAN ORINDA (WHICH INCLUDES THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE, AND THE DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN); ADOPTING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA);

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THOSE IMPACTS THAT WERE FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE; ADOPTING AND

INCORPORATING INTO THE PROJECT ALL OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals
A. On April 7, 2020, the City Council authorized City staff to enter into a Service Contract with Rincon Consultants, Inc to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Plan Orinda, which now includes the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP), the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update, and the Safety Element Update.

B. On January 4, 2022, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Plan Orinda EIR, and distributed the NOP for a public comment period, beginning on January 4, 2022 and ending on February 24, 2022 [State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2022010392].

C. On January 20, 2022, the City held a virtual EIR scoping meeting during the regularly scheduled Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee meeting at which interested members of the public provided input on issues that should be addressed, analyzed, and considered in the Plan Orinda EIR.

D. On March 14, 2022, the City initiated consultation with 11 Native American tribes in accordance with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 and California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4. Two Native American tribes requested further consultation and staff held a virtual consultation meeting individually with each tribe on May 26, 2022 and June 29, 2022. On August 23, 2022, consultation was considered closed due to a lack of response following the virtual consultation meetings, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2(b).

E. On September 15, 2022, the City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR to address the specific environmental effects of implementing Plan Orinda, which analyzed land use changes that would plan for approximately 2,383 new dwelling units and approximately 6,672 new residents. These actions would identify capacity in Orinda to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,359 units (1,506 with 25% buffer). The NOA announced that the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee would hold a public meeting to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

F. On September 15, 2022, the City published and circulated the Draft Plan Orinda EIR for a 45-day public review period, starting September 15, 2022 and ending October 31, 2022.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) The Draft EIR analyzed the Project, which includes five possible Housing Element Sites outside of the DPP Plan Area. These sites are distributed in the southwest portion of the City and would involve rezoning that would allow for 20 to 25 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on most sites (HE-1 through HE-4) and 20 to 40 du/ac on the Caltrans –Gateway site (HE5). Within the DPP Plan Area, 43 parcels are identified as potential sites for residential development, either as vertical mixed-use or horizontal mixed use (i.e., allowing either commercial or residential development without a requirement that it be vertically). Within the DPP Plan Area, there are 33 parcels identified as commercial or office development sites which would be rezoned to either Downtown Core or Downtown General designations and would allow for the addition of residential development. In addition to the Project, the Plan Orinda EIR included an assessment of three alternatives:

Alternative 1 is the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes there is no change in zoning or General Plan land use designations for the parcels identified for development in Plan Orinda. Current uses on the sites would continue under this alternative, with future full buildout of the proposed housing and DPP sites limited by the existing zoning and General Plan designations. This alternative would not meet Orinda’s objective to plan for its assigned RHNA obligation.

Alternative 1 would generally result in similar or decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project, with the exception of land use and planning, which would be greater. Alternative 1 would have no significant and unavoidable impacts.

Alternative 2 would include all of the sites identified for future housing in Plan Orinda in the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) area as well as future housing at the BART A and BART B sites as outlined in EIR Tables 2-4 and 2-5 in Section 2, Project Description. This alternative would not include Housing Element sites HE-1, HE-2, HE-3, or HE-5. This alternative would result in approximately 2,941 new dwelling units and approximately 8,233 new residents.

This would equate to approximately 558 more units and approximately 1,561 more new residents than the proposed project. This alternative would meet Orinda’s objective to plan for its assigned RHNA obligation.

Alternative 2 would generally result in similar or incrementally decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. By including the BART sites and adding approximately 8,233 new residents to Orinda, this alternative would reduce VMT per capita; however, due to the increase in population and increased development, would create greater impacts to aesthetics, transportation and utilities and service systems. Alternative 2 would have the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Project.

Alternative 3 would exclude all of the DPP sites identified for future housing in the EIR but would include planning for future housing on sites HE-1, HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, as well as the BART A and BART B sites. This alternative would result in approximately 1,854 new dwelling units and approximately 5,190 new residents. This would equate to approximately 529 fewer units and approximately 1,482 fewer residents than the proposed project. This alternative would meet Orinda’s objective to plan for its assigned RHNA obligation.

Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, and transportation compared to the proposed project. However, impacts to aesthetics, and utilities and service systems under Alternative 3 would be incrementally D.1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) greater. Alternative 3 would have the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Project with the exception of noise, which would be less than significant under Alternative 3.

G. On October 3, 2022, the City held a virtual public meeting to receive comments on the Plan Orinda Draft EIR during the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee meeting.

H. On January 13, 2023, the City issued the Final EIR for public review, and sent the Final EIR to public agencies who had commented on the Draft EIR.

I. On January 18, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing consistent with Government Code section 65353 on Plan Orinda and it reviewed and considered the Final EIR, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council (1) certify the Final EIR for Plan Orinda (which includes the Housing Element Update and the Safety Element Update as well as the Downtown Precise Plan); (2) adopt the CEQA Findings, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (3) adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (4) adopt and incorporate into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project; (5) adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (6) adopt the Downtown Precise Plan; (7) adopt a General Plan Amendment to approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and approve the Safety Element Update; and (8) authorize submittal of the approved 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to HCD for final certification.

J. On January 31, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing consistent with Government Code section 65355 on Plan Orinda and it reviewed and considered the Final EIR, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

K. In accordance with Government Code section 65352, notifications have been sent to the appropriate agencies. No consultations were requested or comments received from said agencies.

Section 2. Environmental Impact Report
The City Council hereby finds as follows:

A. The Final EIR has been presented to the City Council. All procedures have been duly followed as required by law. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record as a whole in conjunction with its deliberations, in accordance with CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and procedures of the State of California and the City of Orinda. The Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

B. CEQA requires decision makers to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant effect identified in the EIR, and to incorporate the MMRP including all mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. The Final EIR includes an analysis of the extent to which the proposed project’s direct and indirect impacts will commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) C. In response to oral and written comments received during the 45-day Draft EIR public comment period, some sections of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although some new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR that would necessitate recirculation.

D. The EIR considered impacts in the following environmental subject areas to be less than significant: Aesthetics, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems.

E. The EIR provides substantial evidence that the following environmental subject areas would result in less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures:

Aesthetics, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems.

F. The EIR has concluded that the development of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts in the following environmental subject areas:

Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, and Wildfire.

G. The EIR has also identified that the Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding wildfires.

H. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has determined that findings regarding the significant impacts of the Project must be made and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

I. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has determined that a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required, as there are unmitigable environmental impacts that result from the Project.

Section 3. Certification of the Final EIR
The City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The Final EIR consists of the September 15, 2022 Draft EIR and the January 13, 2023 Final EIR.

Both documents are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4. Adoption of CEQA Findings
The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings, attached hereto as “Exhibit A-1” and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 5. Adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as “Exhibit A-2” and incorporated herein by reference.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Section 6. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated December 20, 2022, attached hereto as “Exhibit A-3” and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on January 31, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Inga Miller, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
1597454.1
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) EXHIBIT A-1

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS FOR PLAN ORINDA A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Orinda (“City”), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Plan Orinda (the “Project”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022010392) (the “Final EIR” or “EIR”). The Final EIR is a program-level EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines.1 The Final EIR consists of the September 15, 2022 Draft EIR (the “Draft EIR”) and the January 13, 2023 Final EIR, which includes a Responses to Comments package (all comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments, and corresponding amplifications and clarifications of information presented in the Draft EIR) and associated revisions to the text of the Draft EIR.

In determining to approve the Project, which is described in more detail in the Project Summary section below, the City makes and adopts the following findings of fact, and it makes and adopts as conditions of project approval the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding (“administrative record”).

Pursuant to Section 15090(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making these findings, and the City Council determined that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the Final EIR and other evidence in the administrative record.

B. PROJECT SUMMARY
Plan Orinda is a long-range planning effort that will shape the future of development and economic growth in Orinda. These efforts include updates to the Housing Element, the Land Use Element, and the Safety Element section of the Environmental Resources Chapter of the General Plan, and minor updates to the Growth Management Element of the Growth Management Chapter. The DPP includes new development standards and the adoption of objective design standards for the area. Plan Orinda includes General Plan and Zoning Amendments based on the proposed changes to policies, programs, and land use.

Housing Element Update
The Housing Element Update involves an update for the 2023-2031 planning period to replace the existing Housing Element in the City’s General Plan. The Housing Element Update establishes policies and programs to further the goal of meeting existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community; provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the RHNA allocation through the year 2031, as identified by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); and puts in place a rezone program needed to identify the required housing capacity.

The Housing Element Update includes five possible Housing Element Sites outside of the DPP area. These sites are distributed in the southwest portion of the city and would involve rezoning that would allow for 20 to 25 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on most sites and 20 to 40 du/ac on the Caltrans – Gateway site (HE-5).

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) State law requires that housing elements are updated every 8 years (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). The proposed update, the 2023-2031 Housing Element, identifies sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and needs of special population groups defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583); analyzes governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons.

The update to the Housing Element would ensure compliance with State legislation passed since adoption of the General Plan and the 2015-2023 Housing Element.

Downtown Precise Plan (DPP)
The DPP includes potential revisions to the downtown development standards and potential mixed-use and residential design standards for the Theatre and Village districts, which would be accomplished through future General Plan amendments and zoning code changes. The DPP also includes an evaluation of the impact on utilities and infrastructure in the area. Potential changes described in the DPP relating to development standards include residential density, building heights, number of building stories, allowed uses, and parking requirements. The San Pablo Creek Restoration and trail concept are also included as part of the DPP.

Under the DPP, the existing Downtown Commercial (DC) and Downtown Office (DO) zones may be updated to allow a mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and office. Zoning standards may be revised to allow development up to 85 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and up to 55 feet in height. The current permitted density in the Downtown Commercial (DC) district is a maximum of 10 du/acre, whereas Downtown Office (DO) prohibits residential uses. The General Plan may be updated to adjust the permitted density for the Downtown Commercial and Downtown Office districts to a range of 25 to 85 du/acre.

Objective Design Standards
As a part of the proposed zoning changes, objective design standards regulating aesthetics (architectural style, building proportions, building types, civic spaces, etc.) are proposed for the DPP area. The DPP objective design standards would apply to all existing DC and DO designated parcels should they undergo redevelopment. For the Housing Element sites outside of the DPP area, new residential objective design standards will also be developed.

Safety Element Update
The Safety Element is a state-mandated General Plan element that must identify potential natural and human-created hazards that could affect the City of Orinda’s residents, businesses, and services. The purpose of the Safety Element is to establish a framework that anticipates these hazards and prepares the community to minimize exposure to these risks. The Safety Element update would include goals, policies, and actions to minimize the hazards to safety in and around Orinda. It would identify the natural and human-caused hazards that would affect existing and future development, describe present and expected future conditions, and set policies and standards for improved public safety. This would include efforts to minimize physical harm to the buildings and infrastructure in and around Orinda to reduce damage to local economic systems, community services, and ecosystems.

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Housing Element Update as part of Plan Orinda is intended to achieve the following project objectives:

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda)

1. Meet the State required RHNA for 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period of 2023- 2031;

2. Bring the General Plan into conformance with recently enacted State law;

3. Identify housing policies and programs that enable the development of additional units and the preservation of existing units, that reduce governmental constraints to building housing, and that affirmatively further fair housing across the board;

4. Identify housing sites with a collective capacity to meet the City’s RHNA, with buffer capacity; and

5. Locate most housing sites in existing urban areas, near transit and commercial services.

The Downtown Precise Plan as part of Plan Orinda is intended to achieve the following project objectives:

1. To encourage a mix of uses including employment opportunities, housing, recreational and cultural uses;

2. To increase open spaces and community gathering places to foster greater connections with nature;

3. To maintain the village “small town” character of downtown while encouraging development that is compatible with existing uses, the pedestrian environment, and streetscape;

4. To incorporate varying architectural building types with appropriate detailing; and

5. To develop the area with complimentary uses consistent with the current scale and size of surrounding development.

D. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Based on the project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences, and pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following project alternatives were selected for analysis:

Alternative 1 is the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes there is no change in zoning or General Plan land use designations for the parcels identified for development in Plan Orinda. Current uses on the sites would continue under this alternative, with future full buildout of the proposed housing and DPP sites limited by the existing zoning and General Plan designations. This alternative would not meet Orinda’s objective to plan for its assigned RHNA obligation.

Alternative 1 would generally result in similar or decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project, with the exception of land use and planning, which would be greater.

Alternative 1 would have no significant and unavoidable impacts.

Alternative 2 would include all of the sites identified for future housing in Plan Orinda in the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) area as well as future housing at the BART A and BART B sites as outlined in EIR Tables 2-4 and 2-5 in Section 2, Project Description. This alternative would not include Housing Element sites HE-1, HE-2, HE-3, or HE-5. This alternative would result in approximately 2,941 new dwelling units and approximately 8,233 new residents. This would equate to approximately 558 more units and approximately 1,561 more new residents than the D.1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) proposed project. This alternative would meet Orinda’s objective to plan for its assigned RHNA obligation.

Alternative 2 would generally result in similar or incrementally decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. By including the BART sites and adding approximately 8,233 new residents to Orinda, this alternative would reduce VMT per capita; however, due to the increase in population and increased development, would create greater impacts to aesthetics, transportation and utilities and service systems. Alternative 2 would have the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Project.

Alternative 3 would exclude all of the DPP sites identified for future housing in the EIR but would include planning for future housing on sites HE-1, HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, as well as the BART A and BART B sites. This alternative would result in approximately 1,854 new dwelling units and approximately 5,190 new residents. This would equate to approximately 529 fewer units and approximately 1,482 fewer residents than the proposed project. This alternative would meet Orinda’s objective to plan for its assigned RHNA obligation.

Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, and transportation compared to the proposed project. However, impacts to aesthetics, and utilities and service systems under Alternative 3 would be incrementally greater. Alternative 3 would have the same significant and unavoidable impacts as the Project with the exception of noise, which would be less than significant under Alternative 3.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
On January 4, 2022, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Plan Orinda EIR, and distributed the NOP for a public comment period, beginning on January 4, 2022 and ending on February 24, 2022 [State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2022010392].

On January 20, 2022, the City held a virtual EIR scoping meeting during the regularly scheduled Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee meeting at which interested members of the public provided input on issues that should be addressed, analyzed, and considered in the Plan Orinda EIR.

On March 14, 2022, the City initiated consultation with 11 Native American tribes in accordance with California Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 and California Public Resources Code § 65352.3 – 65352.4. Two Native American tribes requested further consultation and staff held a virtual consultation meeting individually with each tribe on May 26, 2022 and June 29, 2022. On August 23, 2022, consultation was considered closed due to a lack of response following the virtual consultation meetings, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2(b).

On September 15, 2022, the City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR to address the specific environmental effects of implementing Plan Orinda, which analyzed land use changes that would plan for approximately 2,383 new dwelling units and approximately 6,672 new residents. These actions would identify capacity in Orinda to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,359 units (1,506 with 25% buffer). The NOA announced that the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee would hold a public meeting to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) On September 15, 2022, the City published and circulated the Draft Plan Orinda EIR for a 45- day public review period, starting September 15, 2022 and ending October 31, 2022. The Draft EIR analyzed the Project and included an assessment of three alternatives:

On October 3, 2022, the City held a virtual public meeting to receive comments on the Plan Orinda Draft EIR during the regularly scheduled Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee meeting.

On January 13, 2023, the City issued the Final EIR for public review, and sent the Final EIR to public agencies who had commented on the Draft EIR.

F. FINDINGS
The findings and recommendations set forth below (the “Findings”) are made and adopted by the Orinda City Council as the City’s findings under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project.

These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR with regard to project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified in the Final EIR, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and state the City’s findings and rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determination regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts.

In adopting mitigation measures, below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. In the event a mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The following section provides brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final EIR identifies as less than significant with adopted mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the text of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.

G. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THAT ARE REDUCED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION

MEASURES ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The Final EIR identifies the following potentially significant impacts associated with the Project.

It is hereby determined that the impacts addressed by these mitigation measures will be mitigated to a less than significant level or avoided by adopting and incorporating these mitigation measures into the Project. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section D.1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Section 15091(a)(1), the findings in this section are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

Aesthetics
Impact AES-2- AES-4: Housing Element Site HE-5 and DPP Sites are visible from SR 24, an officially designated State Scenic Highway. However, with the exception of Housing Element Site HE-5, development facilitated by the project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources in view of a scenic highway. Impacts from development on Housing Element Site HE-5 would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE AES-1: CITY OF ORINDA OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS The City, with the guidance of a qualified urban design firm, shall develop and adopt objective design standards for the Plan Orinda area similar to the City’s current Senior Housing Overlay standards prior to development of the Housing Element sites. Objective Design Standards shall include guidance including but not limited to structure design, massing, intensity, lighting, and landscaping. For the Housing Element sites, the Objective Design Standards shall require tree planting or other screening measures to ensure that the general aesthetic of Orinda’s roadways would not be substantially adversely affected by the project.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which would be required on all future development, impacts related to scenic routes, the visual character of the plan area, and light and glare would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Objective Design Standards are in draft form currently and are expected to be adopted in the near future – prior to development of any of the Housing Element sites. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Air Quality
Impact AQ-2: Development facilitated by Plan Orinda would increase air pollutant emissions, which would affect local air quality. Operational impacts from emissions of criteria pollutants would be less than significant. Construction Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-1: INDIVIDUAL AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS For individual projects subject to CEQA that do not meet the BAAQMD construction and/or operational screening criteria under Table 4.2 3, individual air quality analysis shall be conducted to determine project significance. Where individual projects exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds detailed under Table 4.2-4, mitigation measures shall be incorporated to reduce emissions to below thresholds. Construction mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, incorporation of Tier 4 and/or alternative fueled equipment, use of onsite power sources instead of generators, and use of low/no-VOC content architectural coatings.

Operational mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, increased incorporation of PV beyond regulatory requirements, increased incorporation of EV charging stations and/or infrastructure beyond regulatory requirements, incorporation of a development wide, ride-share system, or elimination of natural gas usage within residential developments. Individual project analysis and accompanying emission-reduction measures shall be approved by the City and/or BAAQMD prior to issuance of a permit to construct or permit to operate.

MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-2: CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MEASURES D.1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) As part of the City’s development approval and building permit issuance process, the City shall require project applicants to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines), outlined below.

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.

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

3. 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.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

5. 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.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacture’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper conditions prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign 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 number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project’s construction air quality impacts would be less than significant. Measure AQ-1 would require additional air quality analysis for individual projects that do not meet BAAQMD’s screening criteria. If that additional analysis finds significant air quality impacts, additional mitigation measures will be required to reduce the impacts. Measure AQ-2 would also require incorporation of BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures which would reduce temporary construction impacts and fugitive dust emissions to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact AQ-3: Construction activities for individual projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation. The project would not include new sources of TACs and operational impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-3: CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT For individual projects where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would use diesel equipment for longer than two months and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment, a construction health risk assessment (HRA) shall be prepared. If an HRA is to be prepared, the HRA shall determine potential risk and compare the risk to the following BAAQMD thresholds:

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) • Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; • Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
• Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or • Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
If risk exceeds the thresholds, measures such as requiring the use of Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment shall be incorporated to reduce the risk to below the threshold.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, which would require coordination with the City to determine if a construction HRA would need to be performed for projects with construction timelines greater than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, in order to reduce potential risk exposure to nearby sensitive receptors to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Project implementation may result in impacts to special status plant and animal species directly or through habitat modifications. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SCREENING AND

ASSESSMENT
For projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5 that would require grading or vegetation trimming or removal, the project applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to perform a preliminary biological resources screening, for the City’s review and approval, to determine whether the project has the potential to impact special status biological resources, inclusive of special status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities, jurisdictional waters (including creeks, drainages, streams, ponds, vernal pools, riparian areas and other wetlands), critical habitat, wildlife movement area, or biological resources protected under local or regional ordinances or an existing HCP or NCCP. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required.

If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a project-specific biological analysis to document the existing biological resources within a project footprint plus a minimum buffer of 50 feet around the project footprint and to determine the potential impacts to those resources, as approved by the City. The project-specific biological analysis shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities, critical habitats, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, State, and/or federal agencies. If the project would have the potential to impact these resources, mitigation measures BIO-2 through BIO-9 shall be incorporated and recommendations developed to enhance wildlife movement (e.g., installation of wildlife friendly fencing), as applicable, to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Pending the results of the project-specific biological analysis, City review, design alterations, further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations with the USFWS, NMFS, CDFW, and/or other local, State, and federal agencies may be required. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the project-specific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
If the project-specific biological analysis, for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, determines that there is potential for significant impacts to federally or State listed plants from project development, a qualified biologist shall complete surveys for special status plants prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species blooming season or identifiable period identified in the project-specific biological analysis. All special status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate, for review and/or approval.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES AVOIDANCE,

MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION
If federally and/or State listed or CRPR List 1B or 2 species are found during special status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-2, for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE- 5), and listed species would be directly impacted, or there would be a population-level impact to non-listed species, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid impacting those plant species. Listed plant species occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist and approved by the City, to protect them from harm.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN If federally and/or State listed plants or non-listed special status plant populations cannot be avoided within Housing Element Sites HE-2,HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, and will be impacted by development under Plan Orinda, all impacts shall be mitigated by project applicant at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the final ratio to be determined by the City (in coordination with CDFW and USFWS as and if applicable) for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A qualified biologist shall prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan and submit it to the City for review and approval. (Note: if a federally and/or State listed plant species will be impacted, the plan shall be submitted to the USFWS and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or State take authorization may be required by these agencies). The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components:
• Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type)
• Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved] • Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions and values)
• Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan). • Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule) • Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target D.1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports)
• Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type
• An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria
• Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation • Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism)
MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5: LISTED SPECIES HABITAT ASSESSMENTS AND

PROTOCOL SURVEYS
If the results of the project-specific biological analysis, for projects within Housing Element sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, determine that suitable habitat is present for any federally or State listed species, a qualified biologist shall complete protocol habitat assessments/surveys in accordance with CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits.

If through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS it is determined that protocol habitat assessments/surveys are not required, said consultation shall be documented prior to issuance of any construction permits. Each protocol has different survey and timing requirements. The project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring they understand the protocol requirements and shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct protocol surveys. A report of any habitat assessments or protocol surveys shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the start of construction.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6: LISTED SPECIES AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION The following measures shall be applied to aquatic and/or terrestrial species as determined by the project-specific biological assessment, for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE3, HE-4, and HE-5. • Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project.

The project limits of disturbance shall be flagged. Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance. • All projects occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between June 1 and October 15, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species.
• All projects occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federally and/or State listed species shall have a CDFW-, NMFS-, and/or USFWS-approved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities. Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, said biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for listed species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW, NMFS, and/or USFWS, said biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.
• No listed species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW, NMFS, and/or USFWS.
• If at any time during construction of the project an endangered/threatened species enters the construction site or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease. A CDFW-, NMFS-, and/or USFWS-approved biologist shall D.1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) document the occurrence and consult with the CDFW, NMFS, and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine whether it was safe for project activities to resume. • For all projects occurring in areas where listed species may be present and are at risk of entering the project site during construction, exclusion fencing shall be placed along the project boundaries prior to start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW-, NMFS-, and/or USFWSapproved biologist. This fence shall consist of solid silt fencing placed at a minimum of 3 feet above grade and 2 feet below grade and shall be attached to wooden stakes placed at intervals of not more than 5 feet. The fence shall be inspected weekly and following rain events and high wind events and shall be maintained in good working condition until all construction activities are complete.
• All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies.
• No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel.
• If project activities could degrade water quality, water quality sampling shall be implemented to identify the pre-project baseline, and to monitor during construction for comparison to the baseline.
• If water is to be diverted around work sites, a diversion plan shall be submitted (depending upon the species that may be present) to the CDFW, RWQCB, NMFS, and/or USFWS for their review and approval prior to the start of any construction activities (including staging and mobilization). If pumps are used, all intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than five millimeters to prevent animals from entering the pump system.
• At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.
• All trenches, pipes, culverts or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.
• The CDFW, NMFS-, and/or USFWS-approved biologist shall remove invasive aquatic species such as bullfrogs and crayfish from suitable aquatic habitat whenever observed and shall dispatch them in a humane manner and dispose of properly. • Considering the potential for projects to impact federally and/or State listed species and their habitat, City shall contact the CDFW, NMFS, and/or USFWS to identify mitigation banks within the project service area during development under Plan Orinda. Upon implementation of development projects included in the General Plan Update, but on a project-by-project basis, if the results of the project-specific biological analysis determines that impacts to federally and/or State listed species habitat are expected, the applicant shall identify species-appropriate mitigation bank(s) servicing the region and purchase mitigation credits as feasible.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7: NON-LISTED SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The project-specific biological analysis, for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, shall identify some or all of the following measures that will be required and applicable to the individual project:
• For non-listed special status terrestrial amphibians and reptiles, a qualified biologist shall complete coverboard surveys within three months of the start of construction. The coverboards shall be at least 4 feet by 4 feet and constructed of untreated plywood D.1.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) placed flat on the ground. The coverboards shall be checked by a qualified biologist once per week for each week after placement up until the start of vegetation removal. All non-listed special status and common animals found under the coverboards shall be captured and placed in five-gallon buckets for transportation to relocation sites. All relocation sites shall be reviewed by the qualified biologist and shall consist of suitable habitat. Relocation sites shall be as close to the capture site as possible but far enough away to ensure the animal(s) is not harmed by construction of the project. Relocation shall occur on the same day as capture. CNDDB Field Survey Forms shall be submitted to the CFDW for all special status animal species observed. • Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing buildings to determine if bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access to all structures and interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.).
• If bats are roosting in the building during the daytime but are not part of an active maternity colony, then exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow bats to get out but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the structure. Maternal bat colonies shall not be disturbed.
• A qualified biologist shall complete pre-construction clearance surveys within 14 days of the start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall cover the entire disturbance footprint plus a minimum 200-foot buffer and shall identify all special status animal species that may occur on-site. All non-listed special status species shall be relocated from the site either through direct capture or through passive exclusion. A report of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to the start of construction.
• A qualified biologist shall be present during all initial ground disturbing activities, including vegetation removal to recover special status animal species unearthed by construction activities.
• Project activities shall be restricted to daylight hours. • Upon project completion, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Final Compliance Report documenting all compliance activities implemented for the project, including the preconstruction survey results. The report shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of project completion.
• If special status bat species may be present and impacted by the project, within 30 days of the start of construction a qualified biologist shall conduct a presence/absence surveys for special status bats in consultation with the CDFW and the City where suitable roosting habitat is present. Surveys shall be conducted using acoustic detectors and by searching tree cavities, crevices, and other areas where bats may roost. If active roosts are located, exclusion devices such as netting shall be installed to discourage bats from occupying the site. If a roost is determined by a qualified biologist to be used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site. The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultations with the CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction activities shall be postponed within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed. Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately upon approval from CDFW and the City.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-8: PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS FOR NESTING BIRDS

FOR CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING WITHIN NESTING SEASON
For projects in any of the Housing Element Sites or DPP area that require the removal of trees or vegetation that may contain a nesting bird, construction activities shall occur outside of the nesting season wherever feasible (September 16 to February 14), and no mitigation activity will be required. If construction activities must occur during the nesting season (February 15 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for nesting birds covered by the CFGC and MBTA no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. The surveys shall include the entire segment disturbance area plus a 200-foot buffer around the site or a designated buffer to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional agency. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 150 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed, and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer. A report of these preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City to document compliance within 30 days of its completion.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-9: WORKER ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS PROGRAM (WEAP)
If potential impacts to special status species are identified in the project-specific biological analysis, for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction shall attend WEAP training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project site. The specifics of the WEAP shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of projects. All employees shall sign a form documenting provided by the trainer indicating they have attended the WEAP and understand the information presented to them. The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-10: INVASIVE WEED PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM
For those projects where activity would occur within or adjacent to sensitive habitats, such as riparian habitat or sensitive vegetation communities, as determined by the project-specific biological analysis, for projects within Housing Element sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, prior to start of construction a qualified biologist shall develop an Invasive Weed Prevention and Management Program to prevent invasion of native habitat by non-native plant species. The Invasive Weed Prevention and Management Program shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. A list of target species shall be included, along with measures for early detection and eradication. All disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded with a mix of locally native species upon completion of work in those areas. In areas where construction is ongoing, hydroseeding shall occur where no construction activities have occurred within six weeks since ground disturbing activities ceased. If exotic species invade these areas prior to hydroseeding, weed removal shall occur in consultation with a qualified biologist and in accordance with the D.1.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) restoration plan. Landscape species shall not include noxious, invasive, and/or non-native plant species that are recognized on the Federal Noxious Weed List, California Noxious Weeds List, and/or California Invasive Plant Council Lists 1, 2, and 4.

Finding: The City finds that the Project would have less than significant impacts to special status plant and animal species with incorporation of MM BIO-1 through BIO-10. These measures will reduce impacts to special status species to less than significant levels by requiring biological resources screening and studies, implementing specified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures if sensitive resources are found, specifying coordination and consultation requirements with resource agencies, formalizing survey protocols, and ensuring worker awareness training for projects within the Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, and implementation of further requirements to avoid or reduce site-specific impacts on a project-by-project basis. Furthermore, given the developed nature of the DPP area, relatively small size of Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5 and locations adjacent to developed areas, the potential for significant impacts would be low. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would reduce impacts to nesting birds within the Housing Element Sites and the DPP Plan Area. Impacts to special status species would be mitigated to less than significant levels. The requirement for a minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio as specified in Mitigation Measure BIO-4 is considered industry standard and provides a starting place for project applicants to begin the compensatory mitigation process. Mitigation Measure is intended to apply to a variety of projects, and individual impacts and compensatory mitigation ratios will be determined on a project by project basis following the preparation of an initial biological resources assessment, which is required in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact BIO-2: Project implementation may result in impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or designated critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake directly or through habitat modifications. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-11: SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY AND CRITICAL

HABITAT AVOIDANCE
If sensitive natural communities or critical habitat are identified at Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, or HE-5 through the Biological Resources Screening and Assessment required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1, they shall be avoided and the project shall be situated outside of critical habitats. A qualified biologist shall approve the installation of bright orange protective fencing at least 30 feet beyond the extent of the sensitive natural community during construction, or other distance the City, to protect them from harm.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-12: RESTORATION FOR IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE NATURAL

COMMUNITIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
Impacts to sensitive natural communities, for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, (including riparian areas that may qualify as waters of the State and/or waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction[s] of the CDFW, RWQCB, and/or USACE) and critical habitat shall be mitigated onsite or through the funding for the acquisition and in-perpetuity management of similar habitat. The project applicant shall fund and manage off-site mitigation areas through purchase of credits from an existing, approved mitigation bank or land and placed into a conservation easement or other covenant restricting development (e.g., deed restriction).

On-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, or in lieu funding sufficient to acquire and manage lands, if D.1.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) such a program were to be developed, shall provide habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be impacted by individual project activity. • Restoration and Monitoring. If sensitive natural communities cannot be avoided and will be impacted by the project, the project applicant shall implement a compensatory mitigation program in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-4 and any additional measures set forth by the regulatory agencies during the permitting process (USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW for sensitive natural communities and USFWS and/or NMFS for critical habitat). The project applicant shall fully restore all temporary impacts to sensitive natural communities to their natural condition.
• Sudden Oak Death. A qualified biologist shall inspect all nursery plants used in restoration for sudden oak death. Nursery plants selected for restoration shall be purchased from a nursery that is in compliance with annual inspections under 7 CFR 301.92, et seq. for sudden oak death. Vegetation debris shall be disposed of properly and vehicles and equipment shall be free of soil and vegetation debris before entering natural habitats. Pruning tools shall be sanitized.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-11 and BIO-12, which would reduce impacts to sensitive natural communities and critical habitat by requiring biological resources studies for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, or HE5, and implementation of further requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on a project-by-project basis. If there are resource impacts, mitigation would be required by permitting agencies, which would result in impacts to sensitive natural communities and critical habitat be mitigated to less than significant levels. Given the developed nature of the DPP area, relatively small size of Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5 and locations adjacent to developed areas, the potential for significant impacts would be low. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect the extent feasible.

Impact BIO-3: Development facilitated by the proposed project could adversely impact state or federally protected wetlands in the plan area during project construction and/or operation.

Impacts would be significant but mitigable.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-13: JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION
If potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands are identified by the project-specific analysis, for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, a qualified biologist shall complete a jurisdictional delineation to determine the extent of the jurisdictions for CDFW, USACE, and/or RWQCB. This delineation shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth by each agency. The result shall be a preliminary jurisdictional delineation report that shall be submitted to the City, USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, for review and approval. Jurisdictional areas shall be avoided. If jurisdictional areas are expected to be impacted, then the RWQCB would require a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permit and/or Section 401 Water Quality Certification (depending upon whether the feature falls under federal jurisdiction). If CDFW asserts its jurisdictional authority, then a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC would also be required prior to construction within the areas of CDFW jurisdiction. If the USACE asserts its authority, then a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA would likely be required.

Furthermore, a compensatory mitigation program shall be implemented in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-4 and the measures set forth by the aforementioned regulatory agencies during the permitting process. Compensatory mitigations for all permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. and waters of the state shall be completed at a ratio as required in applicable permits but shall not be less than a minimum ratio of 1:1. All temporary impacts to waters of the D.1.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) U.S. and waters of the State shall be fully restored to natural condition. The project applicant shall submit the report documenting restoration activities and monitoring to the City for review and approval.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-14: GENERAL AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION Potential jurisdictional features within the any of the Housing Element Sites or DPP area identified in jurisdictional delineation reports shall be avoided. Projects that may impact jurisdictional features shall include a report detailing how all identified jurisdictional features will be avoided, including groundwater draw down. The project applicant shall submit this report to the City for review and approval prior to construction. • Material/spoils generated from project activities shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from storm water run-off using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls (non- monofilament), covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate. • Materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and generally at least 50 feet from the top of bank.
• Any spillage of material will be stopped if it can be done safely. The contaminated area will be cleaned, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative will be notified.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-13 and BIO-14, which would reduce impacts to State and federally protected waters and wetlands by requiring jurisdictional delineations for projects within the Housing Element Sites or DPP, and implementation of further requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on a project-by-project basis.

Further, given the developed nature of the DPP area, relatively small size of Housing Element Sites HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5 and locations adjacent to developed areas, the potential for significant impacts would be low. Impacts to waters and wetlands would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact BIO-4: Project implementation may result in impacts to wildlife movement through habitat modifications. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would be required.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and, as applicable, Measures BIO-2 through BIO-9, would reduce impacts to wildlife movement by requiring biological resources studies for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-3, HE-4 and HE-5, and additional mitigation if resources would be impacted. Further, given the developed nature of the DPP area, relatively small size of Housing Element Sites HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5 and locations adjacent to developed areas, the potential for significant impacts would be low.

Impacts to wildlife movement would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Cultural Resources
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Impact CUL-1: Development projects facilitated by Plan Orinda may result in the alteration or demolition of historical resources project area. Potential impacts to historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1: BUILT ENVIRONMENT HISTORICAL RESOURCES For a project that involves a building or structure over 45 years of age, the project applicant shall hire a qualified professional to conduct a survey and evaluation of the structure(s) to determine their eligibility for recognition under State, federal, or local historic resource designation criteria. The evaluation shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) as defined in 36 CFR Part 61.

All buildings and structures 45 years of age or older within the Plan Area shall be evaluated in their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-2: TREATMENT OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, efforts shall be made to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource under the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). A report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities shall be provided, demonstrating how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the PQS as defined by 36 CF Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 which would reduce impacts on historical resources by requiring evaluations for projects within the City of Orinda and the implementation of further requirements to avoid impacts on those resources on a project-by-project basis. Impacts to historical resources would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact CUL-2: Development facilitated by Plan Orinda would have the potential to impact archaeological resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY PROGRAM The project applicant shall hire a qualified professional to investigate the potential to disturb archaeological resources on a project site. If preliminary research suggests that cultural resources may exist, a Phase I cultural resources study shall be performed by a qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s PQS for archaeology (NPS 1983). A Phase I cultural resources study shall include a pedestrian survey of the project site and sufficient background research and, as necessary, field sampling to determine whether archaeological resources may be present. Archival research shall include a records search at the NWIC and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and coordination with Native American tribes listed by the NAHC. The Phase I technical report documenting the study shall include recommendations to avoid or reduce impacts on archaeological resources (e.g., monitoring, extended Phase I, etc.). The City shall review and D.1.b
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) approve the Phase I technical report prior to implementation of recommendations. The project applicant shall implement the recommendations prior to issuance of building permits.

MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-4: UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL

RESOURCES
In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 60 feet of the find shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (NPS 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and cannot be avoided by the modified project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources. The City shall review and approve any treatment plan or modified project as applicable.

Finding: The City finds that, with incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4, which would reduce impacts on archaeological resources by requiring archaeological resource studies for projects within the City of Orinda and the implementation of requirements to avoid or reduce impacts on those resources on a project-by-project basis, the Project’s impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
Impact GEO-6: Development facilitated by the Housing Element and DPP has the potential to impact paleontological resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPLEMENTATION

PROGRAM
The City of Orinda shall require avoidance and/or mitigation for potential impacts to paleontological resources for any development that occurs within high or undetermined sensitivity geologic units (Section 4.5, Geology and Soils, Table 4.5-2), whether they are mapped at the surface or occur in the subsurface. When paleontological resources are uncovered during site excavation, grading, or construction activities, work on the site will be suspended until the significance of the fossils can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. If significant resources are determined to exist, the paleontologist shall make recommendations for protection or recovery of the resource.

The City shall require the following for projects that could disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity:
• Paleontological Resources Assessment (PRA). Prior to initial ground disturbance, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Paleontologist to conduct a paleontological resources assessment (PRA). A qualified professional paleontologist is defined by the SVP (2010) standards as an individual preferably with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least two years. The PRA shall determine the age and paleontological sensitivity of geologic formations underlying the proposed disturbance D.1.b
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) area, consistent with SVP (2010) guidelines for categorizing paleontological sensitivity of geologic units within a project area. If underlying formations are found to have a high potential for paleontological resources, the Qualified Paleontologist shall create a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program, which will be approved by the City of Orinda and contain the following elements:
• Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. • Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work) previously undisturbed sediments assigned a high paleontological sensitivity (Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits, Mulholland Formation, Orinda Formation, Neroly Sandstone, Briones Sandstone, and Hambre Sandstone). Initial part-time monitoring (i.e., spot-checking) shall be conducted for all ground-disturbing activities that impact previously undisturbed Holocene units (i.e., Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits) to check for the presence of older, higher sensitivity geologic units. If older sediments are observed at depth, then full-time monitoring shall be conducted.

Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City of Orinda. If the Qualified Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or ceased entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Paleontologist at that time. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. A Qualified Paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the Qualified Paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources:
• Fossil Salvage. If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt or temporarily divert construction equipment within 50 feet of the find until the monitor and/or lead paleontologist evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits
• Fossil Preparation and Curation. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection, along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) • Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the City of Orinda. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which would be required on all future development, impacts related to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant. Mitigation would require avoidance of high sensitivity geological units. Furthermore, mitigation provides a course of action if paleontological resources are uncovered during construction which include project suspension and review of resources by a paleontologist. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Transportation
Impact TRA-3: Development facilitated by the project may result in designs for on-site circulation, access, and parking areas that fail to meet industry standard design guidelines.

However, with project-specific transportation impact analysis guidelines implemented as mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE TRA-2: PREPARE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS (TA)

GUIDELINES
The City shall prepare guidelines to identify if a project will have a substantial adverse effect on on-site and/or off-site vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and access to transit. At a minimum, the TA guidelines shall include appropriate references to design guidelines and standards such as Caltrans Highway Design Manual and NACTO guidelines. The guidelines shall include transportation operations and queueing analysis to ensure a project will not create potential adverse effects on driveways and the internal and external roadway network.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2, impacts on on-site circulation, access and parking areas would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Mitigation would require a transportation analysis based on the City’s new guidelines to be completed for each development project prior to the permitting process. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Impact TRA-4: Development facilitated by Plan Orinda would not result in inadequate emergency access during operation of new or existing development. Construction could adversely affect emergency access; however, impacts related to construction would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE TRA-3: CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC GUIDELINES Prior to issuance of building permits for Housing Element sites and Downtown Precise Plan sites, the City shall adopt guidance prepared by a qualified transportation consultant for D.1.b
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) accommodating pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit in construction zones. This shall include providing sidewalk diversion or detour plans, bicycle accommodations, and bus stop relocation or closure plans.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRA-3, which would ensure that pedestrian, bicyclists, and transit would be accommodated in construction zones to avoid obstruction of emergency access. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: Development facilitated by Plan Orinda may involve grading and/or excavation, which have the potential to impact previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. Impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURE TCR-1: AVOIDANCE OF TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES When feasible, development facilitated by the project shall be designed to avoid known tribal cultural resources. Any tribal cultural resource within 60 feet of planned construction activities shall be fenced off to ensure avoidance. The feasibility of avoidance of tribal cultural resources shall be determined by the City and applicant in consultation with local California Native American tribe(s).

MITIGATION MEASURE TCR-2: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE PLAN A Tribal Cultural Resources Plan shall be required for development occurring in areas identified as potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources during consultation with local California Native American tribe(s) during AB 52 consultation if required for the project. Prior to any development facilitated by the project that would include ground disturbance, the project applicant or its consultant, shall prepare a tribal cultural resources treatment plan to be implemented in the event an unanticipated archaeological resource that may be considered a tribal cultural resource is identified during construction. The plan shall include any necessary monitoring requirements, suspension of all earth-disturbing work in the vicinity of the find, avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the local Native Americans and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate treatment for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City and the appropriate local California Native American tribe(s) to confirm compliance with this measure prior to construction.

MITIGATION MEASURE TCR-3: NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORING
For development occurring in areas identified as potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources through consultation with local California Native American tribe(s), the project applicant shall retain a locally affiliated Native American monitor to observe all ground disturbance, including archaeological excavation, associated with development facilitated by the project. Monitoring methods and requirements shall be outlined in a tribal cultural resources treatment plan prepared under Mitigation Measure TCR-2. In the event of a discovery of tribal cultural resources, the steps identified in the tribal cultural resources plan prepared under Mitigation Measure TCR-2 shall be implemented.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, which would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources from development facilitated by the project to less than significant levels by requiring avoidance, treatment plans, and monitoring in areas identified as sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

Utilities
Impact UTIL-1: Development facilitated by the project may require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities within the city. Except for Housing Element Site HE-5, new connections to utility service systems would not result in disturbance beyond individual development sites and adjacent existing infrastructure corridors; these impacts would be less than significant. However, water and wastewater infrastructure extended to and within Housing Element Site HE-5, which would involve ground disturbing activities, could result in significant environmental effects to biological resources, cultural resources, and/or other resource areas. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation measures identified throughout the EIR, including mitigation measures related to biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils, would be implemented to minimize impacts related to ground-disturbing activities.

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified throughout the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible.

H. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) requires a description of any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. This section provides brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final EIR identifies as significant and unavoidable, even with adopted mitigation.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed project could expose people or structures to a significant risk from wildland fires because the project includes sites in or near moderate, high, and very high FHSZs. Wildfire risks could be significant.

Mitigation Measures WFR-1, WFR-2, and WFR-3 would be required (see Wildfire below).

Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measures WFR-1, WFR-2, and WFR-3, the risk of loss of structures within the Plan Area and the risk of injury or death due to wildfires would be reduced. However, it is possible that mitigation measures would not fully prevent a significant risk of wildfires or fully protect people and structures from the risks of wildfires in all cases. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations D.1.b
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. .

Noise
Impact NOI-1: Development facilitated by Plan Orinda would introduce new on-site operational noise sources associated with residential and mixed use development and would contribute to increases in traffic noise. The continued regulation of on-site noise under the Orinda Municipal Code would minimize disturbance to adjacent land uses, and traffic noise increases would not exceed significance thresholds; therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Construction of individual projects facilitated by Plan Orinda would temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Provisions in the Orinda Municipal Code would limit construction noise disturbance to the extent feasible.

However, construction noise may still exceed noise standards and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-1: CONSTRUCTION NOISE REDUCTION MEASURES For development projects involving construction within 50 feet of sensitive receivers, the applicant shall develop a site specific Construction Noise Reduction Program prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to reduce construction noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible, subject to review and approval of the Planning Director in advance of issuance of building permits. The following measures to minimize exposure to construction noise shall be included:

1. Mufflers. During excavation and grading construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

2. Air compressors. Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources to the greatest extent practicable. Select hydraulically or electrically powered equipment and avoid pneumatically powered equipment where feasible.

3. Pile driving. If pile driving is required, pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. Examine whether the use of sonic pile driving is feasible and quieter. If so, utilize that method.

4. Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers. Construct temporary noise barriers or partial enclosures to acoustically shield such equipment to the maximum extent feasible.

5. Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers.

6. Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction.

7. Perimeter Noise Reduction. Construct solid plywood fences around construction sites adjacent to operational business, residences or other noise-sensitive land uses where the noise control plan analysis determines that a barrier would be effective at reducing noise.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda)

8. Signage. For the duration of construction, the applicant or contractor shall post a sign in a construction zone that includes contact information for any individual who desires to file a noise complaint.

Finding: The City finds that with Implementation of Orinda Municipal Code requirements and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would not ensure that construction noise impacts would be reduced to below Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise limits or would not result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact NOI-2: Operation of residential and mixed uses facilitated by Plan Orinda would not result in substantial vibration or groundborne noise. However, construction facilitated by the project could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, particularly through pile driving, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Mitigation measures could not ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-2: VIBRATION CONTROL PLAN
For projects involving pile drivers, the applicant shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to the commencement of construction activities. The Vibration Control Plan shall be prepared by a licensed structural engineer and shall include methods to minimize vibration, including, but not limited to:
• Use of drilled piles or similar method (e.g., cast-in-place systems) rather than pile driving • Use of resonance-free vibratory pile drivers
• Avoiding the use of vibrating equipment when allowed by best engineering practices The Vibration Control Plan shall include a pre-construction survey letter establishing baseline conditions of buildings within a 50-foot radius as well as at potentially affected extremely fragile buildings/historical resources and/or residential structures within the vicinity of the construction site. The condition of existing potentially affected properties shall be documented by photos and description of existing condition of building facades, noting existing cracks. The survey letter shall provide a shoring design to protect such buildings and structures from potential damage.

At the conclusion of vibration causing activities, the qualified structural engineer hired by the applicant shall issue a follow-up letter describing damage, if any, to impacted buildings. The letter shall include recommendations for repair, as may be necessary, in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Repairs shall be undertaken and completed by the contractor and monitored by a qualified structural engineer in conformance with all applicable codes including the California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24).

A Statement of Compliance signed by the applicant and owner is required to be submitted to the City Building Department at plan check and prior to the issuance of any permit. The Vibration Control Plan, prepared as outlined above, shall be documented by a qualified structural engineer, and shall be provided to the City upon request. A Preservation Director shall be designated and this person’s contact information shall be posted in a location near the project site that it is clearly visible to the nearby receivers most likely to be disturbed. The Director will manage complaints and concerns resulting from activities that cause vibrations. The severity of the vibration concern should be assessed by the Director, and if necessary, evaluated by a qualified noise and vibration control consultant.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Finding: The City finds that impacts associated with vibration from pile driving would be reduced to the greatest extent feasible, including avoidance of damaging a historic or cultural resources, through implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2. Still, impacts related to vibration may remain above distinctly perceptible levels even with implementation of a vibration control plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Transportation
Impact TRA-2: Development facilitated by Plan Orinda would generate home-based VMT per capita that would be less than 85 percent of the countywide average home-based VMT per resident. However, it is possible that development facilitated by the project would not be screened out of further project-specific VMT analysis and may exceed the VMT criteria. Even with mitigation, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE TRA-1: IMPLEMENT VMT REDUCTION MEASURES Individual housing project development proposals that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis using the methods applied in this EIR, with modifications if appropriate based on future changes to City of Orinda practices and CCTA VMT analysis methodology guidelines. The City shall require travel demand management measures and physical measures to reduce VMT for projects that result in a significant impact. These shall include, but not be limited to, the measures below, which have been identified as being potentially VMT reducing in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (December 2021). Potential VMT reduction estimates are included below, but detailed requirements, calculation steps, and limitations are described in the CAPCOA Handbook. In addition, application of one or more measures shall be generally expected to result in a net VMT reduction of 10 percent or less for development projects in suburban settings such as Orinda.

Unbundle parking costs (i.e., sell or lease parking separately from the housing unit).

Effectiveness: up to 15.7 percent reduction in GHG from VMT per the CAPCOA Handbook.

Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, or scooter sharing programs. Effectiveness: 0.15 – 0.18 percent reduction in GHG from VMT for car share, 0.02 – 0.06 percent for bike share, and 0.07 percent for scooter share, pursuant to the CAPCOA Handbook. The higher car share and bike share values are for electric car and bike share programs.

Subsidize transit passes for residents of affordable housing. Effectiveness: up to 5.5 percent reduction in GHG from VMT pursuant to the CAPCOA Handbook.

In addition to the on-site measures noted above, individual housing projects that are above the VMT threshold could potentially contribute to future VMT mitigation fee programs, banks, or exchanges. No regional VMT mitigation programs currently exist; however, the CCTA is currently evaluating different mitigation program frameworks which may lead to a countywide or sub-regional VMT mitigation program. Should such a program be implemented, development projects could potentially pay into a fee program or purchase mitigation credits to achieve needed VMT mitigation instead of, or in addition to, on-site TDM measures.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Finding: The City finds that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, impacts to VMT would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible by unbundling parking, providing car sharing, and subsidizing transit passes. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect the extent feasible. However, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Wildfire
Impact WFR-1: Development facilitated by the project would be in and near a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Compliance with applicable State and local regulations relating to evacuation would reduce the extent to which the project would impair emergency response and evacuation. Nonetheless, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE WFR-1: DEVELOP WILDFIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND PLAN

AND SITES SUBJECT TO SHELTER-IN-PLACE GUIDELINES (HOUSING ELEMENT SITES HE-4 AND HE-5)
The City shall require the following measures prior to approval of projects on Housing Element Sites HE-4 and HE-5:

1. A Wildfire Hazard Assessment and Plan shall be developed for the project site.

2. Shelter-in-place design guidelines shall be required for project site development.

Guidelines include the following:
a. Well-maintained, fire district approved landscape and vegetation management plan
b. Adequate roadway and driveway widths, designed to accommodate two-way traffic and large firefighting apparatus
c. Adequate water supply and water flow for firefighting efforts. d. Vegetation modification zones surrounding the community. e. Homes in the community are built with heavy timber, ignition-resistant eaves, residential fire sprinklers, a Class A ignition-resistant roof, dual pane (one being tempered) glass windows, and chimneys with spark arrestors containing a minimum of 0.5-inch screen.

3. Hazard Assessment and Plan and site design applying shelter-in-place guidelines must be approved by MOFD.

Finding: The City finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measure WFR-1, congestion induced from additional residents at these Housing Element Sites during an evacuation may be reduced. However, it is not possible to ensure that the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, despite implementation of mitigation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact WFR-2: The project envisions potential future development on sites that are in or near Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZs. Development facilitated by the project would expose project occupants and structures to wildfire risks for sites located in or WUIs or Very High FHSZs. Wildfire risk would be significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE WFR-2: CONSTRUCTION WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION D.1.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) The City shall require the following measures during project construction:

1. Construction activities with potential to ignite wildfires shall be prohibited during redflag warnings issued by the National Weather Service for the site. Example activities include welding and grinding outside of enclosed buildings.

2. Fire extinguishers shall be available onsite during project construction. Fire extinguishers shall be maintained to function according to manufacturer specifications. Construction personnel shall receive training on the proper methods of using a fire extinguisher.

3. Construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with spark arresters. The spark arresters shall be maintained pursuant to manufacturer recommendations to ensure adequate performance.

At the City’s discretion, additional wildfire risk reduction requirements may be required during construction. The City shall review and approve the project-specific methods to be employed prior to building permit approval.

MITIGATION MEASURE WFR-3: PROJECT DESIGN WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION Project landscape plans shall include fire-resistant vegetation native to Contra Costa County and/or the local microclimate of the site and prohibit the use of fire-prone species especially non-native, invasive species.

If the project site is within a known landslide area (see Figure 4.5-2 in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils), the site shall be subject to geotechnical review regarding potential post-fire slope instability. Structural engineering features incorporated into the design of the structure to reduce the risk of damage to the structure from post-fire slope instability shall be recommended by a qualified engineer and approved by the City prior to the building permit approval.

Finding: The City finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measures WFR-2 and WFR-3, the risk of loss of structures and the risk of injury or death due to wildfires would be reduced.

These measures would make structures more fire resistant and less vulnerable to loss in the event of a wildfire. These measures would also reduce the potential for construction to inadvertently ignite a wildfire. However, it is not possible to prevent a significant risk of wildfires or fully protect people and structures from the risks of wildfires, despite implementation of mitigation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

I. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
An EIR is required to discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. State CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of the project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

State CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(3); Pub. Resources Code § 21083(b)(2). The EIR analyzes the cumulative impacts of the Plan Orinda in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future projects which are listed in Draft EIR.

The City finds that Plan Orinda, in conjunction with other foreseeable projects, would result in cumulatively considerable impacts.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) With the exception of the unavoidable impacts to wildfire hazards, construction noise, construction vibration, VMT per capita, and development in the WUI and FHSZs Plan Orinda would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact after mitigation with respect to all environmental issues.

As discussed in Section 4.14 Wildfire of the EIR, in Orinda, the Very High FHSZs are located largely along the western and northern portion of the city and most of the remainder of Orinda is designated as a WUI. Most of the unincorporated county is designated as an State Responsibility Area Within the geographic scope for this cumulative analysis (all of Contra Costa County), wildfire-related impacts could be significant if development is in rural or high fire hazard areas that could exacerbate risks. Cumulative development throughout Contra Costa County would increase the density of development in urban areas and within designated urban service areas, which would increase the number of residents in designated WUI and FHSZs, potentially exacerbating wildfire risks. All new development and infrastructure would be subject to statewide standards for fire safety in the California Fire Code, as described in Impact WFR-2.

However, existing codes and regulations cannot fully prevent wildfires from damaging structures or populations, and cumulative wildfire impacts would be significant.

As described in Impact WFR-2, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the exposure of people to wildfire risks. While mitigation is provided, it is not possible to prevent a significant risk of wildfires or fully protect people and structures from the risks of wildfires. Therefore, the project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding wildfires.

Plan Orinda would result in substantial long-term environmental impacts and, therefore, would contribute to cumulative environmental changes that may occur due to planned and pending development. Potential impacts of Plan Orinda would be cumulatively considerable.

J. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action. Growth-inducing impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) as follows:
“... the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth .... Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.

Also ... the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.”
With the total estimated growth under Plan Orinda of 6,672 new residents and 2,383 additional housing units, the City would have a population of 23,608 persons and 8,812 housing units by 2031. This would result in a population that would exceed ABAG growth projections by 21.3 percent. However, as described in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, project projections represent a conservative level of buildout as a result of the Housing Element Update and DPP, whereby identified sites are developed to the maximum extent feasible. Actual housing units and subsequent population growth is anticipated to be lower than project projections.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Growth anticipated under the project is intended to meet regional housing needs, as it includes State mandated housing goals. The project would be consistent with State requirements for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which would result in increased population in the City. Although the project would facilitate development beyond what is forecast in ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040, it would bring the forecasts for the City’s General Plan and Plan Bay Area into consistency since Plan Bay Area will be updated to reflect new forecasts for each city in the region. The State requires that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of their communities (HCD 2021). Given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional units under the project would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the City’s communities. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update (as part of the project) would first be submitted to the HCD for review and approval to ensure that it would adequately address the housing needs and demands of the City. Approval by the HCD would ensure that population and housing growth under the project would not be substantial or unplanned.

The Final EIR finds that the proposed Project is not fostering or inducing growth; it is planning for and accommodating population growth that is projected to occur in response to ABAGmandated RNHA requirements. The EIR fully analyzes the impacts of all growth contemplated in Plan Orinda. Secondary or indirect effects associated with this growth do not represent a new significant environmental impact which has not already been addressed in the individual chapters of this EIR.

K. FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the Project. The discussion of alternatives is required to include the “No Project” alternative. CEQA requires further that the City identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the “No Project” alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6).

Based on the analysis of alternatives in this section, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative as it would either avoid or lessen the severity of most impacts of the proposed project. Second to the No Project Alternative, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative as it would either avoid or lessen the severity of most impacts of the proposed project. Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives identified in Section 2, Project Description, as it would meet the State required RHNA for the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period, bring the General Plan into conformance with recently enacted State law, and locate housing within existing urban areas, near transit and commercial services. Alternative 3 would generally have lesser or equal impacts than the proposed project for all impacts areas with the exception of aesthetics and utilities and service systems, where the impacts would be greater.

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes there is no change in zoning or General Plan land use designations for the parcels identified by the project. Current uses on the sites would continue under this alternative, with future full buildout of the proposed housing and DPP sites limited by the existing zoning and General Plan designations. Buildout of the proposed housing and DPP sites under existing zoning would result in minimal residential development and additional population. This alternative would not accomplish any of the four Housing Element Update D.1.b
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) project objectives and would not meet all DPP objectives due to limits presented by the existing zoning.

Finding: The No Project Alternative would generally result in similar or decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. By reducing the number of development sites, this alternative would reduce impacts related to aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfires. The No Project Alternative would have more severe impacts to the proposed project related to land use and planning. However, this alternative would not meet the project objectives, as it would not encourage the development of housing in the City of Orinda and it would not enable the City to meet its fair share housing obligations.

The City rejects Alternative 1 as infeasible because it would not achieve Plan Orinda’s land use objectives. Furthermore, Alternative 1 would reduce all significant and unavoidable impacts but would result in greater impacts to land use and planning than the proposed project.

The findings for Plan Orinda set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.

6.2 Alternative 2: DPP Plus BART Sites
Alternative 2 analyzes one of the identified Housing Element sites on Moraga Way (HE-4, Miramonte High School site) along with two parking lots owned by Caltrans adjacent to the Orinda Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station (BART-A and BART-B). This alternative would include all of the DPP sites identified for future housing as outlined in Tables 2-4 and 2-5 in Section 2, Project Description of the EIR. This alternative would not include Housing Element Sites HE-1, HE-2, HE-3, and HE-5.

This alternative would result in approximately 2,941 new dwelling units and approximately 8,233 new residents. This would equate to approximately 558 more units and approximately 1,561 more new residents than the proposed project. This pattern of development would reduce VMT as it is assumed that many of the future residents would use BART for some travel and that most residents would live closer to Downtown, which would provide local retail, commercial uses, and services. Alternative 2 would meet or exceed all of the Housing Element Update and DPP project objectives.

The analysis of Alternative 2 includes some components present in the proposed project. Those similar components are the inclusion of Housing Element Site HE-4 and the DPP Sites. Due to this overlap, the analysis done for these sites in regard to the proposed project also applied to Alternative 2. The impact analysis in Alternative 2 focuses on impacts that are different from the project’s, due to the removal of Housing Element Sites HE-1 through HE-3 and HE-5 and the addition of the BART Sites.

Finding: Alternative 2 would generally result in similar or incrementally decreased environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. By including the BART sites and adding approximately 8,233 new residents to Orinda, this alternative would reduce VMT per capita; however, due to the increase in population and increased development, would create greater impacts to aesthetics, transportation and utilities and service systems.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) The City rejects Alternative 2 as infeasible because it will result in more significant impact to aesthetics, transportation, and utilities and service systems than the proposed project.

The findings for Plan Orinda set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.

6.3 Alternative 3: No DPP
Alternative 3 analyzes all of the identified Housing Element Sites (HE-1 through HE-5) along with the two BART sites (BART-A and BART-B). Although the number of dwelling units would increase under this alternative compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would exclude all of the DPP sites identified for future housing, and thus would involve development on fewer sites throughout the City.

This alternative would result in approximately 1,854 new dwelling units and approximately 5,190 new residents. This would equate to approximately 529 fewer units and approximately 1,482 fewer residents than the proposed project. This alternative would be consistent with most of the project objectives; development facilitated under this alternative would meet the State required RHNA for 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period of 2023-2031, identify housing sites with a collective capacity to meet the City’s RHNA, with buffer capacity, and locate most housing sites in existing urban areas, near transit and commercial services.

The analysis of Alternative 3 includes some components present in the proposed project. Those similar components are the inclusion of Housing Element Sites HE-1 through HE-5. Due to this overlap, the analysis done for these sites in regard to the proposed project also applies to Alternative 3. The impact analysis in Alternative 3 focuses on impacts that are different from the project’s, due to the removal of the DPP Sites and the addition of the BART Sites.

Finding: Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts to aesthetics and utilities. Impacts would be reduced to land use and planning, and population and housing. Alternative 3 would have reduced cumulative impacts as discussed in each of the resource areas and would remain consistent with the goals outlined in the Housing Element and DPP.

Based on the analysis in the EIR, Alternative 3 would have lesser cumulative impacts overall and reduced impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, and transportation than the proposed project. Impacts to geology and soils, land use and planning, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire would be similar to the proposed project. The proposed project was determined not to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts as discussed in each environmental issue area. Impacts to aesthetics, and utilities and service systems under Alternative 3 would be incrementally greater. Cumulative impacts under Alternative 3 were determined not to be cumulatively considerable.

The City rejects Alternative 3 as infeasible because it will result in more significant impact to aesthetics, transportation, and utilities and service systems than the proposed project.

The findings for Plan Orinda set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration.

L. FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when making findings required by Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the lead agency approving a project shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval, in order to ensure compliance with project implementation and to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City hereby finds that:

1. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared for Plan Orinda, and the mitigation measures therein are made a part of the project or condition of project approval. The MMRP is incorporated herein by reference and is considered part of the record of proceedings for Plan Orinda.

2. The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation. The City’s Planning Director will serve as the overall MMRP coordinator and will be primarily responsible for ensuring that all mitigation measures are complied with.

3. The MMRP prepared for Plan Orinda has been adopted concurrently with these Findings. The MMRP meets the requirements of Section 21021.6 of the Public Resources Code. The City will use the MMRP to track compliance with mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.

M. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final EIR for the Project, the MMRP, City staff reports relating to the Project, and other documents related to public hearings on the Project, by reference, in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project.

N. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. No significant new information was added to the Draft EIR as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR responds to comments and clarifies, amplifies and makes insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR does not identify any new significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact.

For the foregoing reasons, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.

O. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the project constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Those documents and materials are located in the offices of the custodian for the documents and materials, which is the City of Orinda Planning Department, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563.

P. SUMMARY
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) The City makes the following findings pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091:

1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to each of the significant environmental effects of the Project:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
b. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the Project.

2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City determines that:
a. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project (or a Selected Alternative) have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
b. Any remaining significant impacts found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations as having specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) EXHIBIT A-2

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the benefits of a project against its significant unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). The City has found that Plan Orinda will result in project and cumulative significant adverse environmental impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, and Wildfire that cannot be avoided following adoption, incorporation into the Project, and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR. In addition, there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the Project’s significant environmental impacts. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions. See also Public Resources Code Section 21081(b).

Having balanced the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, the City finds that the Project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.

The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the benefits of the Project can be found in the CEQA Findings, in the Project itself, and in the Record of Proceedings. The City further finds that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.

The City adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of Plan Orinda and the anticipated benefits of Plan Orinda. The City finds that each of the benefits set forth below in this Statement constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of Plan Orinda outweigh the risks of their potential significant adverse environmental impacts. The benefits of Plan Orinda, which constitute the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations that justify the approval of Plan Orinda are as follows:
 Through numerous legislative actions in the past several years, the State of California has identified the lack of housing as a significant area of public concern, leading to an unsustainable lack of housing affordability, increased homelessness, social stress related to increased poverty and a reduction in economic prosperity for many state residents. In the current RHNA cycle, Orinda has been allocated 1,359 units between 2023 and 2031. The

2.383 units planned for in Plan Orinda provide for development of the RHNA units and creates an important level of flexibility to allow market forces to efficiently develop the allocated units.
 Under State law, the City must adopt a Housing Element Update to allow for future growth and development.
 Plan Orinda will ensure that the City of Orinda meets its State-mandated RHNA requirements, including the required buffer to comply with the State Housing Element Law.  Plan Orinda will encourage affordable housing, which is desired by the community and will contribute toward alleviating a shortage of housing in Orinda and the region.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda)  Plan Orinda will encourage development of a variety of types of housing at a range of income levels.
 Plan Orinda will encourage the development of housing with access to transit, jobs, services, and community benefits in a manner that distributes affordable and special needs housing and affirmatively furthers fair housing.
 Plan Orinda reflects an extensive public outreach process that engaged the community and decision-makers. The City hosted a series of community workshops, online forums, stakeholder interviews, and Planning Commission/City Council study sessions. Adopting a plan for development that reflects community and public input is an important social benefit.  Plan Orinda achieves a number of economic benefits that address both City and regional goals for fiscal sustainability, housing supply and affordability, and enhancement of public infrastructure and facilities.
 Plan Orinda includes a state-mandated safety element to establish a framework that anticipates hazards and prepares the community to minimize exposure to these risks.  The DPP portion of Plan Orinda increases accessibility to employment for residents by encouraging a mix of employment opportunities, housing, recreational and cultural uses. In doing so it will maintain the village character of the DPP area while allowing residents to live in an active, vibrant neighborhood.

On balance, the City finds that there are specific considerations associated with Plan Orinda that serve to override and outweigh Plan Orinda’s significant unavoidable impacts. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), these adverse effects are considered acceptable.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) EXHIBIT A-3

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR PLAN ORINDA December 20, 2022
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This MMRP is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase.

As the lead agency, the City of Orinda will be responsible for monitoring compliance with all mitigation measures. Different City departments are responsible for various aspects of the project. The MMRP identifies the department with the responsibility for ensuring each measure is completed; however, it is expected that one or more departments will coordinate efforts to ensure compliance.

The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below.
• Mitigation Measure: The mitigation measures are taken from the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in the same order they appear in the EIR. • Action Required: Describes precisely what needs to be done. • Monitoring Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project the mitigation must be completed.
• Monitoring Frequency: Describes how often the action needs to take place. • Responsible Agency: Identifies the department within the City with responsibility for mitigation monitoring.
• Verification (Date and Initials): Provides a contact who reviewed the mitigation measure and the date the measure was determined complete.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Aesthetics
AES-1: City of Orinda Objective Design Standards
The City, with the guidance of a qualified
urban design firm, shall develop and adopt
objective design standards for the Plan
Orinda area similar to the City’s current
Senior Housing Overlay standards prior to
development of the Housing Element sites.

Objective Design Standards shall include
guidance including but not limited to
structure design, massing, intensity, lighting,
and landscaping. For the Housing Element
sites, the Objective Design Standards shall
require tree planting or other screening
measures to ensure that the general
aesthetic of Orinda’s roadways would not be
substantially adversely affected by the
project.

Develop and adopt objective
design standards for the Plan
Orinda area.

Prior to
development of
the Housing
Element sites
Once City of
Orinda
Air Quality
AQ-1: Individual Air Quality Analysis
For individual projects subject to CEQA that
do not meet the BAAQMD construction
and/or operational screening criteria under
Table 4.2-3, individual air quality analysis
shall be conducted to determine project
significance. Where individual projects
exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds
detailed under Table 4.2-4, mitigation
measures shall be incorporated to reduce
emissions to below thresholds Construction
mitigation measures may include, but are
not limited to, incorporation of Tier 4 and/or
alternative fueled equipment, use of onsite
power sources instead of generators, and
use of low/no-VOC content architectural
coatings. Operational mitigation measures
may include, but are not limited to,
increased incorporation of PV beyond
regulatory requirements, increased
incorporation of EV charging stations and/or
infrastructure beyond regulatory
Projects that do not meet
BBAQMD screening criteria
will undergo individual air
quality analysis. Projects that
exceed BAAQMD
significance will incorporate
both construction and
operational mitigation
measures which shall be
approved by the city.

Prior to
issuance of a
permit to
construct or a
permit to
operate
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
requirements, incorporation of a
development wide, ride-share system, or
elimination of natural gas usage within
residential developments. Individual project
analysis and accompanying emissionreduction measures shall be approved by the City and/or BAAQMD prior to issuance
of a permit to construct or permit to operate.

AQ-2: Construction Emissions Measures
As part of the City’s development approval
and building permit issuance process, the
City shall require project applicants to
comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s basic control
measures for reducing construction
emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures
Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of
the May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines),
outlined below.

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking
areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall
be watered two times a day.

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

3. 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.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads
shall be limited to 15 miles per hour

5. 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.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by
shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to
The City will require
applicants to comply with
BAAQMD’s basic control
measures for reducing
construction emissions of
PM10
As part of the
City’s
development
approval and
building permit
issuance
process
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
five minutes (as required by the
California Airborne Toxics Control
Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations). Clear
signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be
maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacture’s
specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper
conditions prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign 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 number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.

AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment
For individual projects where construction
activities would occur within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors, would use diesel
equipment for longer than two months and
would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative
fuel construction equipment, a construction
health risk assessment (HRA) shall be
prepared. If an HRA is to be prepared, the
HRA shall determine potential risk and
compare the risk to the following BAAQMD
thresholds:

Non-compliance with Qualified Community
Risk Reduction Plan;
 Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a
million;
 Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0
Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or
 Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3
annual average
For individual projects where
construction activities would
occur within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors, would
use diesel equipment for
longer than two months and
would not utilize Tier 4 and/or
alternative fuel construction
equipment, a construction
health risk assessment
(HRA) shall be prepared to
determine potential risk and
compare the risk to BAAQMD
thresholds.

Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
If risk exceeds the thresholds, measures
such as requiring the use of Tier 4 and/or
alternative fuel construction equipment shall
be incorporated to reduce the risk to below
the threshold.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Biological Resources Screening and Assessment
For projects within Housing Element Sites
HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5 that would
require grading or vegetation trimming or
removal, the project applicant shall hire a
qualified biologist to perform a preliminary
biological resources screening, for the City’s
review and approval, to determine whether
the project has the potential to impact
special status biological resources, inclusive
of special status plants and animals,
sensitive vegetation communities,
jurisdictional waters (including creeks,
drainages, streams, ponds, vernal pools,
riparian areas and other wetlands), critical
habitat, wildlife movement area, or biological
resources protected under local or regional
ordinances or an existing HCP or NCCP. If it
is determined that the project has no
potential to impact biological resources, no
further action is required.

If the project would have the potential to
impact biological resources, prior to
construction, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a project-specific biological analysis
to document the existing biological
resources within a project footprint plus a
minimum buffer of 50 feet around the project
footprint, and to determine the potential
impacts to those resources, as approved by
the City. The project-specific biological
analysis shall evaluate the potential for
impacts to all biological resources including,
but not limited to special status species,
nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive
plant communities, critical habitats, and
other resources judged to be sensitive by
local, State, and/or federal agencies. If the
project would have the potential to impact
these resources, mitigation measures BIO-2
through BIO-9 shall be incorporated and
recommendations developed to enhance
For projects within Housing
Element Sites HE-2, HE-3,
HE-4, and HE-5 that would
require grading or vegetation
trimming or removal, the
project applicant shall hire a
qualified biologist to perform
a preliminary biological
resources screening, for the
City’s review and approval.

Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
wildlife movement (e.g., installation of
wildlife friendly fencing), as applicable, to
reduce impacts to less than significant
levels. Pending the results of the projectspecific biological analysis, City review, design alterations, further technical studies
(e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations
with the USFWS, NMFS, CDFW, and/or
other local, State, and federal agencies may
be required. Note that specific surveys
described in the mitigation measures below
may be completed as part of the projectspecific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.

BIO-2: Special Status Plant Species Surveys
If the project-specific biological analysis, for
projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2,
HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, determines that
there is potential for significant impacts to
federally or State listed plants from project
development, a qualified biologist shall
complete surveys for special status plants
prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or
other construction activity (including staging
and mobilization). The surveys shall be
floristic in nature and shall be seasonally
timed to coincide with the target species
blooming season or identifiable period
identified in the project-specific biological
analysis. All special status plant species
identified on site shall be mapped onto a
site-specific aerial photograph or
topographic map with the use of Global
Positioning System (GPS) unit. Surveys
shall be conducted in accordance with the
most current protocols established by the
CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if
said protocols exist. A report of the survey
results shall be submitted to the City, and
the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate,
for review and/or approval.

If the project-specific
biological analysis, for
projects within Housing
Element Sites HE-2, HE-3,
HE-4, and HE-5, determines
that there is potential for
significant impacts to
federally or State listed plants
from project development, a
qualified biologist shall
complete surveys for special
status plants. All special
status species identified on
site shall be mapped onto a
site-specific aerial
photograph or topographic
map with the use of Global
Positioning System (GPS)
Prior to any
vegetation
removal,
grubbing, or
other
construction
activity
(including
staging and
mobilization)
Once City of
Orinda
BIO-3: Special Status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation D.1.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
If federally and/or State listed or CRPR List
1B or 2 species are found during special
status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation
Measure BIO-2, for projects within Housing
Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE5), and listed species would be directly impacted, or there would be a populationlevel impact to non-listed species, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid
impacting those plant species, Listed plant
species occurrences that are not within the
immediate disturbance footprint but are
located within 50 feet of disturbance limits
shall have bright orange protective fencing
installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent,
or other distance as approved by a qualified
biologist and approved by the City, to
protect them from harm.

If federally and/or State listed
or CRPR List 1B or 2 species
are found during special
status plant surveys
(pursuant to Mitigation
Measure BIO-2, for projects
within Housing Element Sites
HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE5), and listed species would
be directly impacted, or there
would be a population-level
impact to non-listed species,
then the project shall be redesigned to avoid impacting those plant species.

Prior to any
vegetation
removal,
grubbing, or
other
construction
activity
(including
staging and
mobilization)
Once City of
Orinda
BIO-4: Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
If federally and/or State listed plants or nonlisted special status plant populations cannot be avoided, within Housing Element
Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, and will
be impacted by development under Plan
Orinda, all impacts shall be mitigated by
project applicant at a minimum ratio of 1:1
with the final ratio to be determined by the
City (in coordination with CDFW and
USFWS as and if applicable) for each
species as a component of habitat
restoration. A qualified biologist shall
prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan
and submit it to the City for review and
approval. (Note: if a federally and/or State
listed plant species will be impacted, the
plan shall be submitted to the USFWS
and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or
State take authorization may be required by
these agencies). The plan shall include, at a
minimum, the following components:
 Description of the project/impact site
(i.e., location, responsible parties, areas
to be impacted by habitat type)
A qualified biologist shall
prepare a mitigation and
monitoring plan in order to
mitigate any impacts to
federally and/or State listed
plants or non-listed special
status plants that cannot be
avoided and submit it to the
City for review and approval.

Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
 Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation
project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to
be established, restored, enhanced,
and/or preserved; specific functions and
values of habitat type(s) to be
established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved]
 Description of the proposed
compensatory mitigation site (location
and size, ownership status, existing
functions and values)
 Implementation plan for the
compensatory mitigation site (rationale
for expecting implementation success,
responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan).
Maintenance activities during the
monitoring period, including weed
removal as appropriate (activities,
responsible parties, schedule)
 Monitoring plan for the compensatory
mitigation site, including no less than
quarterly monitoring for the first year
(performance standards, target functions
and values, target acreages to be
established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved, annual monitoring reports)
 Success criteria based on the goals and
measurable objectives; said criteria to
be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent
survival of container plants and 30
percent relative cover by vegetation type
 An adaptive management program and
remedial measures to address any
shortcomings in meeting success criteria
 Notification of completion of
compensatory mitigation and agency
confirmation
 Contingency measures (initiating
procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation,
funding mechanism)
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-5: Listed Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys If the results of the project-specific biological
analysis, for projects within Housing
Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5,
determine that suitable habitat is present for
any federally or State listed species, a
qualified biologist shall complete protocol
habitat assessments/surveys in accordance
with CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior
to issuance of any construction permits. If
through consultation with the CDFW and/or
USFWS it is determined that protocol
habitat assessments/surveys are not
required, said consultation shall be
documented prior to issuance of any
construction permits. Each protocol has
different survey and timing requirements.

The project applicant shall be responsible
for ensuring they understand the protocol
requirements and shall hire a qualified
biologist to conduct protocol surveys. A
report of any habitat assessments or
protocol surveys shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval prior to the start
of construction.

If the results of the projectspecific biological analysis, for projects within Housing
Element Sites HE-2, HE-3,
HE-4, and HE-5, determine
that suitable habitat is
present for any federally or
State listed species, a
qualified biologist shall
complete protocol habitat
assessments/surveys in
accordance with CDFW
and/or USFWS protocols.

Prior to
issuance of any
construction
permits
Once City of
Orinda
BIO-6: Listed Species Avoidance and Minimization
The following measures shall be applied to
aquatic and/or terrestrial species as
determined by the project-specific biological
assessment, for projects within Housing
Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5.
 Ground disturbance shall be limited to
the minimum necessary to complete the
project. The project limits of disturbance
shall be flagged. Areas of special
biological concern within or adjacent to
the limits of disturbance shall have highly
visible orange construction fencing
installed between said area and the
limits of disturbance.
 All projects occurring within/adjacent to
aquatic habitats (including riparian
The City shall require
implementation of measures
to avoid and/or minimize
impacts to aquatic and/or
terrestrial listed species
During
construction
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
habitats and wetlands) shall be
completed between April 1 and October
31, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic
species.
 All projects occurring within or adjacent
to sensitive habitats that may support
federally and/or State listed species shall
have a CDFW-, NMFS-, and/or USFWS-
approved biologist present during all
initial ground disturbing/vegetation
clearing activities. Once initial ground
disturbing/vegetation clearing activities
have been completed, said biologist shall
conduct daily pre-activity clearance
surveys for listed species. Alternatively,
and upon approval of the CDFW, NMFS,
and/or USFWS, said biologist may
conduct site inspections at a minimum of
once per week to ensure all prescribed
avoidance and minimization measures
are fully implemented.
 No listed species shall be captured and
relocated without express permission
from the CDFW, NMFS, and/or USFWS.
 If at any time during construction of the
project an endangered/ threatened
species enters the construction site or
otherwise may be impacted by the
project, all project activities shall cease.

A CDFW-, NMFS-, and/or USFWS-
approved biologist shall document the
occurrence and consult with the CDFW,
NMFS, and USFWS, as appropriate, to
determine whether it was safe for project
activities to resume.
 For all projects occurring in areas where
listed species may be present and are at
risk of entering the project site during
construction, exclusion fencing shall be
placed along the project boundaries prior
to start of construction (including staging
and mobilization). The placement of the
fence shall be at the discretion of the
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
CDFW-, NMFS-, and/or USFWS-
approved biologist. This fence shall
consist of solid silt fencing placed at a
minimum of 3 feet above grade and 2
feet below grade and shall be attached
to wooden stakes placed at intervals of
not more than 5 feet. The fence shall be
inspected weekly and following rain
events and high wind events and shall
be maintained in good working condition
until all construction activities are
complete.
 All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging
shall occur not less than 100 feet from
any riparian habitat or water body.

Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be
available at each work location near
riparian habitat or water bodies.
 No equipment shall be permitted to enter
wetted portions of any affected drainage
channel.
 If project activities could degrade water
quality, water quality sampling shall be
implemented to identify the pre-project
baseline, and to monitor during
construction for comparison to the
baseline.
 If water is to be diverted around work
sites, a diversion plan shall be submitted
(depending upon the species that may
be present) to the CDFW, RWQCB,
NMFS, and/or USFWS for their review
and approval prior to the start of any
construction activities (including staging
and mobilization). If pumps are used, all
intakes shall be completely screened
with wire mesh not larger than five
millimeters to prevent animals from
entering the pump system.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
 At the end of each workday, excavations
shall be secured with cover or a ramp
provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.
 All trenches, pipes, culverts or similar
structures shall be inspected for animals
prior to burying, capping, moving, or
filling.
 The CDFW, NMFS-, and/or USFWSapproved biologist shall remove invasive aquatic species such as bullfrogs and
crayfish from suitable aquatic habitat
whenever observed and shall dispatch
them in a humane manner and dispose
of properly.
 Considering the potential for projects to
impact federally and/or State listed
species and their habitat, City shall
contact the CDFW, NMFS, and/or
USFWS to identify mitigation banks
within the project service area during
development under Plan Orinda. Upon
implementation of development projects
included in the General Plan Update, but
on a project-by-project basis, if the
results of the project-specific biological
analysis determines that impacts to
federally and/or State listed species
habitat are expected, the applicant shall
identify species-appropriate mitigation
bank(s) servicing the region and
purchase mitigation credits as feasible.

BIO-7: Non-Listed Special Status Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization The project-specific biological analysis, for
projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2,
HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, shall identify some
or all of the following measures that will be
required and applicable to the individual
project:
 For non-listed special status terrestrial
amphibians and reptiles, a qualified
biologist shall complete coverboard
surveys within three months of the start
The City shall require
implementation of measures
to avoid and/or minimize
impacts to non-listed special
status animal species.

Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
of construction. The coverboards shall
be at least 4 feet by 4 feet and
constructed of untreated plywood placed
flat on the ground. The coverboards shall
be checked by a qualified biologist once
per week for each week after placement
up until the start of vegetation removal.

All non-listed special status and common
animals found under the coverboards
shall be captured and placed in five-
gallon buckets for transportation to
relocation sites. All relocation sites shall
be reviewed by the qualified biologist
and shall consist of suitable habitat.

Relocation sites shall be as close to the
capture site as possible but far enough
away to ensure the animal(s) is not
harmed by construction of the project.

Relocation shall occur on the same day
as capture. CNDDB Field Survey Forms
shall be submitted to the CFDW for all
special status animal species observed.
 Prior to construction, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a survey of existing
buildings to determine if bats are
present. The survey shall be conducted
during the non-breeding season
(November through March). The biologist
shall have access to all structures and
interior attics, as needed. If a colony of
bats is found roosting in any structure,
further surveys shall be conducted
sufficient to determine the species
present and the type of roost (day, night,
maternity, etc.).
 If bats are roosting in the building during
the daytime but are not part of an active
maternity colony, then exclusion
measures must include one-way valves
that allow bats to get out but are
designed so that the bats may not re-
enter the structure. Maternal bat colonies
shall not be disturbed.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
A qualified biologist shall complete pre-
construction clearance surveys within 14
days of the start of construction
(including staging and mobilization). The
surveys shall cover the entire
disturbance footprint plus a minimum
200-foot buffer, and shall identify all
special status animal species that may
occur on-site. All non-listed special
status species shall be relocated from
the site either through direct capture or
through passive exclusion. A report of
the pre-construction survey shall be
submitted to the City for their review and
approval prior to the start of construction.
 A qualified biologist shall be present
during all initial ground disturbing
activities, including vegetation removal to
recover special status animal species
unearthed by construction activities.
 Project activities shall be restricted to
daylight hours.
 Upon project completion, a qualified
biologist shall prepare a Final
Compliance Report documenting all
compliance activities implemented for
the project, including the pre-
construction survey results. The report
shall be submitted to the City within 30
days of project completion.
 If special status bat species may be
present and impacted by the project,
within 30 days of the start of construction
a qualified biologist shall conduct a presence/absence surveys for special status bats in consultation with the
CDFW and the City where suitable
roosting habitat is present. Surveys shall
be conducted using acoustic detectors
and by searching tree cavities, crevices,
and other areas where bats may roost. If
active roosts are located, exclusion
devices such as netting shall be installed
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
to discourage bats from occupying the
site. If a roost is determined by a
qualified biologist to be used by a large
number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat
boxes shall be installed near the project
site. The number of bat boxes installed
will depend on the size of the
hibernaculum and shall be determined
through consultations with the CDFW. If
a maternity colony has become
established, all construction activities
shall be postponed within a 500-foot
buffer around the maternity colony until it
is determined by a qualified biologist that
the young have dispersed. Once it has
been determined that the roost is clear of
bats, the roost shall be removed
immediately upon approval from CDFW
and the City.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-8: Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds for Construction Occurring within Nesting Season For projects in any of the Housing Element
Sites or DPP area that require the removal
of trees or vegetation that may contain a
nesting bird, construction activities shall
occur outside of the nesting season
wherever feasible (September 16 to
February 14), and no mitigation activity will
be required. If construction activities must
occur during the nesting season (February
15 to September 15), a qualified biologist
shall conduct surveys for nesting birds
covered by the CFGC and MBTA no more
than 14 days prior to vegetation removal.

The surveys shall include the entire
segment disturbance area plus a 200-foot
buffer around the site or a designated buffer
to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
agency. If active nests are located, all
construction work shall be conducted
outside a buffer zone from the nest to be
determined by the qualified biologist. The
buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for nonraptor bird species and at least 150 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be
required depending upon the status of the
nest and the construction activities occurring
in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s)
shall be closed to all construction personnel
and equipment until the adults and young
are no longer reliant on the nest site. A
qualified biologist shall confirm that
breeding/nesting is completed, and young
have fledged the nest prior to removal of the
buffer. A report of these preconstruction
nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to
the City to document compliance within 30
days of its completion.

If construction activities must
occur during the nesting
season (February 1 to
September 15), a qualified
biologist shall conduct
surveys for nesting birds
covered by the CFGC and
MBTA no more than 14 days
prior to vegetation removal. A
report of these
preconstruction nesting bird
surveys shall be submitted to
the City to document
compliance within 30 days of
its completion.

The survey
shall be
conducted more
than 14 days
prior to
vegetation
removal and be
submitted to the
City within 30
days of
completion.

Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
BIO-9: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
If potential impacts to special status species
are identified in the project-specific
biological analysis, for projects within
Housing Element Sites HE-2, 3, 4, and 5,
prior to initiation of construction activities
(including staging and mobilization), all
personnel associated with project
construction shall attend WEAP training,
conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid
workers in recognizing special status
resources that may occur in the project site.

The specifics of the WEAP shall include
identification of the sensitive species and
habitats, a description of the regulatory
status and general ecological characteristics
of sensitive resources, and review of the
limits of construction and mitigation
measures required to reduce impacts to
biological resources within the work area. A
fact sheet conveying this information shall
also be prepared for distribution to all
contractors, their employers, and other
personnel involved with construction of
projects. All employees shall sign a form
documenting provided by the trainer
indicating they have attended the WEAP
and understand the information presented to
them. The form shall be submitted to the
City to document compliance.

A qualified biologist shall
administer WEAP training for
construction personnel and a
form documenting this
training for each construction
worker shall be submitted to
the City.

Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
BIO-10: Invasive Weed Prevention and Management Program For those projects where activity would
occur within or adjacent to sensitive
habitats, such as riparian habitat or
sensitive vegetation communities, as
determined by the project-specific biological
analysis, for projects within Housing
Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5,
prior to start of construction a qualified
biologist shall develop an Invasive Weed
Prevention and Management Program to
prevent invasion of native habitat by nonnative plant species. The Invasive Weed A qualified biologist shall
develop an Invasive Weed
Prevention and Management
Program to prevent invasion
of native habitat by nonnative plant species. The
Invasive Weed Prevention
and Management Program
shall be submitted to the City
for review and approval.

Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Prevention and Management Program shall
be submitted to the City for review and
approval. A list of target species shall be
included, along with measures for early
detection and eradication. All disturbed
areas shall be hydroseeded with a mix of
locally native species upon completion of
work in those areas. In areas where
construction is ongoing, hydroseeding shall
occur where no construction activities have
occurred within six weeks since ground
disturbing activities ceased. If exotic species
invade these areas prior to hydroseeding,
weed removal shall occur in consultation
with a qualified biologist and in accordance
with the restoration plan. Landscape
species shall not include noxious, invasive,
and/or non-native plant species that are
recognized on the Federal Noxious Weed
List, California Noxious Weeds List, and/or
California Invasive Plant Council Lists 1, 2,
and 4.

BIO-11: Sensitive Natural Community and Critical Habitat Avoidance If sensitive natural communities or critical
habitat are identified at Housing Element
Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, or HE-5 through
the Biological Resources Screening and
Assessment required by Mitigation Measure
BIO-1, they shall be avoided and the project
shall be situated outside of critical habitats.

A qualified biologist shall approve the
installation of bright orange protective
fencing at least 30 feet beyond the extent of
the sensitive natural community during
construction, or other distance the City, to
protect them from harm.

If sensitive natural
communities or critical habitat
are identified at Housing
Element Sites HE-2, 3, HE-4,
or HE-5 through the
Biological Resources
Screening and Assessment
required by Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, they shall be
avoided and the project shall
be situated outside of critical
habitats
Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
BIO-12: Restoration for Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat Impacts to sensitive natural communities,
for projects within Housing Element Sites
HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5, (including
riparian areas that may qualify as waters of
the State and/or waters of the U.S. under
the jurisdiction[s] of the CDFW, RWQCB,
If sensitive natural
communities cannot be
avoided and will be impacted
by the project, the project
applicant shall implement a
compensatory mitigation
Prior to project
approval
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
and/or USACE) and critical habitat shall be
mitigated onsite or through the funding for
the acquisition and in-perpetuity
management of similar habitat. The project
applicant shall fund and manage off-site
mitigation areas through purchase of credits
from an existing, approved mitigation bank
or land and placed into a conservation
easement or other covenant restricting
development (e.g., deed restriction). On-site
mitigation, off-site mitigation, or in lieu
funding sufficient to acquire and manage
lands, if such a program were to be
developed, shall provide habitat at a
minimum ratio of 1:1 for impacted lands,
comparable to habitat to be impacted by
individual project activity.
 Restoration and Monitoring. If
sensitive natural communities cannot be
avoided and will be impacted by the
project, the project applicant shall
implement a compensatory mitigation
program in accordance with Mitigation
Measure BIO-4 and any additional
measures set forth by the regulatory
agencies during the permitting process
(USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW for
sensitive natural communities and
USFWS and/or NMFS for critical habitat).

The project applicant shall fully restore
all temporary impacts to sensitive natural
communities to their natural condition.
 Sudden Oak Death. A qualified biologist
shall inspect all nursery plants used in
restoration for sudden oak death.

Nursery plants selected for restoration
shall be purchased from a nursery that is
in compliance with annual inspections
under 7 CFR 301.92, et seq. for sudden
oak death. Vegetation debris shall be
disposed of properly and vehicles and
equipment shall be free of soil and
program in accordance with
Mitigation Measure BIO-4
and any additional measures
set forth by the regulatory
agencies during the
permitting process (USACE,
RWQCB, and/or CDFW for
sensitive natural communities
and USFWS and/or NMFS
for critical habitat).

A qualified biologist shall
inspect all nursery plants
used in restoration for
sudden oak death
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
vegetation debris before entering natural
habitats. Pruning tools shall be sanitized.

BIO-13: Jurisdictional Delineation
If potentially jurisdictional waters and/or
wetlands are identified by the projectspecific analysis, for projects within Housing Element Sites HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5,
a qualified biologist shall complete a
jurisdictional delineation to determine the
extent of the jurisdictions for CDFW,
USACE, and/or RWQCB. This delineation
shall be conducted in accordance with the
requirements set forth by each agency. The
result shall be a preliminary jurisdictional
delineation report that shall be submitted to
the City, USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as
appropriate, for review and approval.

Jurisdictional areas shall be avoided. If
jurisdictional areas are expected to be
impacted, then the RWQCB would require a
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs)
permit and/or Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (depending upon whether the
feature falls under federal jurisdiction). If
CDFW asserts its jurisdictional authority,
then a Streambed Alteration Agreement
pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the
CFGC would also be required prior to
construction within the areas of CDFW
jurisdiction. If the USACE asserts its
authority, then a permit pursuant to Section
404 of the CWA would likely be required.

Furthermore, a compensatory mitigation
program shall be implemented in
accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-4
and the measures set forth by the
aforementioned regulatory agencies during
the permitting process. Compensatory
mitigations for all permanent impacts to
waters of the U.S. and waters of the state
shall be completed at a ratio as required in
applicable permits but shall not be less than
a minimum ratio of 1:1. All temporary
If potentially jurisdictional
waters and/or wetlands are
identified by the projectspecific analysis, for projects within Housing Element Sites
HE-2, HE-3, HE-4, and HE-5,
a qualified biologist shall
complete a jurisdictional
delineation to determine the
extent of the jurisdictions for
CDFW, USACE, and/or
RWQCB.

Prior to project
approval
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
impacts to waters of the U.S. and waters of
the State shall be fully restored to natural
condition. The project applicant shall submit
the report documenting restoration activities
and monitoring to the City for review and
approval.

BIO-14: General Avoidance and Minimization
Potential jurisdictional features within the
any of the Housing Element Sites or DPP
area identified in jurisdictional delineation
reports shall be avoided. Projects that may
impact jurisdictional features shall include a
report detailing how all identified
jurisdictional features will be avoided,
including groundwater draw down. The
project applicant shall submit this report to
the City for review and approval prior to
construction.
 Material/spoils generated from project
activities shall be located away from
jurisdictional areas or special-status
habitat and protected from storm water
run-off using temporary perimeter
sediment barriers such as berms, silt
fences, fiber rolls (non- monofilament),
covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale
barriers, as appropriate.
 Materials shall be stored on impervious
surfaces or plastic ground covers to
prevent any spills or leakage from
contaminating the ground and generally
at least 50 feet from the top of bank.
 Any spillage of material will be stopped if
it can be done safely. The contaminated
area will be cleaned, and any
contaminated materials properly
disposed. For all spills, the project
foreman or designated environmental
representative will be notified.

Projects that may impact
jurisdictional features shall
include a report detailing how
all identified jurisdictional
features will be avoided,
including groundwater draw
down. The project applicant
shall submit this report to the
City for review and approval.

Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Built Environmental Historical Resources
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
For a project that involves a building or
structure over 45 years of age, the project
applicant shall hire a qualified professional
to conduct a survey and evaluation of the
structure(s) to determine their eligibility for
recognition under State, federal, or local
historic resource designation criteria. The
evaluation shall be prepared by an
architectural historian or historical architect
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Archeology
and Historic Preservation, Professional
Qualification Standards (PQS) as defined in
36 CFR Part 61. All buildings and structures
45 years of age or older within the Plan
Area shall be evaluated in their historic
context and documented in a report meeting
the State Office of Historic Preservation
guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be
documented on Department of Parks and
Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report
shall be submitted to the City for review and
concurrence prior to project approval.

The project applicant shall
hire a qualified professional
to conduct a survey and
evaluation of the structure(s)
to determine their eligibility
for recognition under State,
federal, or local historic
resource designation criteria.

The report shall be submitted
to the City for review.

Prior to project
approval
Once City of
Orinda
CUL-2: Treatment of Historical Resources
If historical resources are identified through
the survey and evaluation, efforts shall be
made to ensure that the relocation,
rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource
under the proposed project is consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatments of Historic
Properties (Standards). A report identifying
and specifying the treatment of characterdefining features and construction activities shall be provided, demonstrating how the
project complies with the Standards and
avoids the substantial adverse change in
the significance of the historical resource as
defined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by
an architectural historian or historical
architect meeting the PQS as defined by 36
CF Part 61 and provided to the City for
A report identifying and
specifying the treatment of
character-defining features
and construction activities
shall be prepared by an
architectural historian or
historical architect meeting
the PQS shall be provided to
the City for review.

Prior to project
approval
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
review and concurrence prior to project
approval.

CUL-3: Archaeological Resources Study Program
The project applicant shall hire a qualified
professional to investigate the potential to
disturb archaeological resources on a
project site. If preliminary research suggests
that cultural resources may exist, a Phase I
cultural resources study shall be performed
by a qualified professional meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s PQS for
archaeology (NPS 1983). A Phase I cultural
resources study shall include a pedestrian
survey of the project site and sufficient
background research and, as necessary,
field sampling to determine whether
archaeological resources may be present.

Archival research shall include a records
search at the NWIC and a Sacred Lands
File (SLF) search with the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC), and
coordination with Native American tribes
listed by the NAHC. The Phase I technical
report documenting the study shall include
recommendations to avoid or reduce
impacts on archaeological resources (e.g.,
monitoring, extended Phase I, etc.). The
City shall review and approve the Phase I
technical report prior to implementation of
recommendations. The project applicant
shall implement the recommendations prior
to issuance of building permits.

The project applicant shall
hire a qualified professional
to investigate the potential to
disturb archaeological
resources on a project site.

A Phase I cultural resources
study shall be performed by a
qualified professional
meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s PQS for
archaeology
The City shall approve the
Phase I technical report and
the project applicant shall
implement the
recommendations.

The City shall
review and
approve the
Phase I
technical report
prior to
implementation
of
recommendatio
ns. Prior to
issuance of
building permits
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
CUL-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that archaeological resources
are encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, work within 60 feet of the find shall
be halted and an archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for archeology
(NPS 1983) shall be contacted immediately
to evaluate the find. If the find is prehistoric,
then a Native American representative shall
also be contacted to participate in the
evaluation of the find. If necessary, the
evaluation may require preparation of a
treatment plan and archaeological testing
for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves
to be eligible for the CRHR and cannot be
avoided by the modified project, additional
work, such as data recovery excavation,
may be warranted to mitigate any significant
impacts to historical resources. The City
shall review and approve any treatment plan
or modified project as applicable.

If archaeological resources
are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities,
work within 60 feet of the find
shall be halted and an
archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications
Standards for archeology
(NPS 1983) shall be
contacted immediately to
evaluate the find
During
construction
Ongoing City of
Orinda
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Implementation Program
The City of Orinda shall require avoidance
and/or mitigation for potential impacts to
paleontological resources for any
development that occurs within high or
undetermined sensitivity geologic units
(Section 4.5, Geology and Soils, Table 4.5-
2), whether they are mapped at the surface
or occur in the subsurface. When
paleontological resources are uncovered
during site excavation, grading, or
construction activities, work on the site will
be suspended until the significance of the
fossils can be determined by a qualified
paleontologist. If significant resources are
determined to exist, the paleontologist shall
make recommendations for protection or
recovery of the resource.

The City shall require the
following for projects that
could disturb geologic units
with high paleontological
sensitivity:

The project applicant shall
retain a Qualified
Paleontologist to conduct a
paleontological resources
assessment
The Qualified Paleontologist
or their designee shall
conduct a paleontological
Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP)
training for construction
personnel regarding the
Prior to initial
ground
disturbance
Prior to
construction
Once
Once
City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
The City shall require the following for
projects that could disturb geologic units
with high paleontological sensitivity:
 Paleontological Resources
Assessment (PRA). Prior to initial
ground disturbance, the project applicant
shall retain a Qualified Paleontologist to
conduct a paleontological resources
assessment (PRA). A qualified
professional paleontologist is defined by
the SVP (2010) standards as an
individual preferably with an M.S. or
Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is
experienced with paleontological
procedures and techniques, who is
knowledgeable in the geology of
California, and who has worked as a
paleontological mitigation project
supervisor for a least two years. The
PRA shall determine the age and
paleontological sensitivity of geologic
formations underlying the proposed
disturbance area, consistent with SVP
(2010) guidelines for categorizing
paleontological sensitivity of geologic
units within a project area. If underlying
formations are found to have a high
potential for paleontological resources,
the Qualified Paleontologist shall create
a Paleontological Mitigation and
Monitoring Program, which will be
approved by the City of Orinda and
contain the following elements:
 Paleontological Worker
Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP). Prior to the start of
construction, the Qualified Paleontologist
or their designee shall conduct a
paleontological Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training for
construction personnel regarding the
appearance of fossils and the
procedures for notifying paleontological
appearance of fossils and the
procedures for notifying
paleontological staff should
fossils be discovered by
construction staff.

Full-time paleontological
monitoring shall be
conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor
during ground disturbing
construction activities
Upon completion of ground
disturbing activity (and
curation of fossils if
necessary) the Qualified
Paleontologist shall prepare a
final report describing the
results of the paleontological
monitoring efforts associated
with the project. The report
shall be submitted to the City
of Orinda.

During ground
disturbing
activities
Prior to
construction
Ongoing
Once
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
staff should fossils be discovered by
construction staff.
 Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time
paleontological monitoring shall be
conducted during ground disturbing
construction activities (i.e., grading,
trenching, foundation work) previously
undisturbed sediments assigned a high
paleontological sensitivity (Pleistocene
alluvial fan and fluvial deposits,
Mulholland Formation, Orinda Formation,
Neroly Sandstone, Briones Sandstone,
and Hambre Sandstone). Initial part-time
monitoring (i.e., spot-checking) shall be
conducted for all ground-disturbing
activities that impact previously
undisturbed Holocene units (i.e.,
Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial
deposits) to check for the presence of
older, higher sensitivity geologic units. If
older sediments are observed at depth,
then full-time monitoring shall be
conducted. Paleontological monitoring
shall be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, who is defined
as an individual who has experience with
collection and salvage of paleontological
resources and meets the minimum
standards of the SVP (2010) for a
Paleontological Resources Monitor. The
duration and timing of the monitoring will
be determined by the Qualified
Paleontologist based on the observation
of the geologic setting from initial ground
disturbance, and subject to the review
and approval by the City of Orinda. If the
Qualified Paleontologist determines that
full-time monitoring is no longer
warranted, based on the specific
geologic conditions once the full depth of
excavations has been reached, they may
recommend that monitoring be reduced
to periodic spot-checking or ceased
entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments
any new ground disturbances are
required, and reduction or suspension
shall be reconsidered by the Qualified
Paleontologist at that time. In the event
of a fossil discovery by the
paleontological monitor or construction
personnel, all work in the immediate
vicinity of the find shall cease. A
Qualified Paleontologist shall evaluate
the find before restarting construction
activity in the area. If it is determined that
the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically
significant, the Qualified Paleontologist
shall complete the following conditions to
mitigate impacts to significant fossil
resources:
 Fossil Salvage. If fossils are discovered,
the paleontological monitor shall have
the authority to halt or temporarily divert
construction equipment within 50 feet of
the find until the monitor and/or lead
paleontologist evaluate the discovery
and determine if the fossil may be
considered significant. Typically, fossils
can be safely salvaged quickly by a
single paleontologist and not disrupt
construction activity. In some cases,
larger fossils (such as complete
skeletons or large mammal fossils)
require more extensive excavation and
longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix
sampling may be necessary to recover
small invertebrates or microvertebrates
from within paleontologically sensitive
deposits
 Fossil Preparation and Curation. Once
salvaged, significant fossils shall be
identified to the lowest possible
taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-
ready condition, and curated in a
scientific institution with a permanent
paleontological collection, along with all
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
pertinent field notes, photos, data, and
maps.
 Final Paleontological Mitigation
Report. Upon completion of ground
disturbing activity (and curation of fossils
if necessary) the Qualified Paleontologist
shall prepare a final report describing the
results of the paleontological monitoring
efforts associated with the project. The
report shall include a summary of the
field and laboratory methods, an
overview of the project geology and
paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if
any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if
any) and their scientific significance, and
recommendations. The report shall be
submitted to the City of Orinda. If the
monitoring efforts produced fossils, then
a copy of the report shall also be
submitted to the designated museum
repository.

Noise
NOI-1: Construction Noise Reduction Measures
For development projects involving
construction within 50 feet of sensitive
receivers, the applicant shall develop a site
specific Construction Noise Reduction
Program prepared by a qualified acoustical
consultant to reduce construction noise
impacts to the maximum extent feasible,
subject to review and approval of the
Planning Director in advance of issuance of
building permits. The following measures to
minimize exposure to construction noise
shall be included:

1. Mufflers. During excavation and grading
construction phases, all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be
operated with closed engine doors and
shall be equipped with properly operating
and maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers’ standards.

The applicant shall develop a
site specific Construction
Noise Reduction Program
Prior to
issuance of
building permits
Prior to
construction
During ground
disturbing
activities
Once
Once
Ongoing
City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments

2. Air compressors. Utilize “quiet” models of
air compressors and other stationary
noise sources to the greatest extent
practicable. Select hydraulically or
electrically powered equipment and
avoid pneumatically powered equipment
where feasible.

3. Pile driving. If pile driving is required,
pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize
the number of impacts required to seat
the pile. Examine whether the use of
sonic pile driving is feasible and quieter.

If so, utilize that method.

4. Stationary Equipment. All stationary
construction equipment shall be placed
so that emitted noise is directed away
from the nearest sensitive receivers.

Construct temporary noise barriers or
partial enclosures to acoustically shield
such equipment to the maximum extent
feasible.

5. Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment
staging shall be located in areas that will
create the greatest distance feasible
between construction-related noise
sources and noise-sensitive receivers.

6. Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile
construction equipment shall have smart
back-up alarms that automatically adjust
the sound level of the alarm in response
to ambient noise levels. Alternatively,
back-up alarms shall be disabled and
replaced with human spotters to ensure
safety when mobile construction
equipment is moving in the reverse
direction.

7. Perimeter Noise Reduction. Construct
solid plywood fences around
construction sites adjacent to operational
business, residences or other noise-
sensitive land uses where the noise
control plan analysis determines that a
Prior to
construction
Once
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
barrier would be effective at reducing
noise.

8. Signage. For the duration of
construction, the applicant or contractor
shall post a sign in a construction zone
that includes contact information for any
individual who desires to file a noise
complaint.

NOI-2: Vibration Control Plan
For projects involving pile drivers, the
applicant shall prepare a Vibration Control
Plan prior to the commencement of
construction activities. The Vibration Control
Plan shall be prepared by a licensed
structural engineer and shall include
methods to minimize vibration, including, but
not limited to:
 Use of drilled piles or similar method
(e.g., cast-in-place systems) rather than
pile driving
 Use of resonance-free vibratory pile
drivers
 Avoiding the use of vibrating equipment
when allowed by best engineering
practices
The Vibration Control Plan shall include a
pre-construction survey letter establishing
baseline conditions of buildings within a 50-
foot radius as well as at potentially affected
extremely fragile buildings/historical
resources and/or residential structures
within the vicinity of the construction site.

The condition of existing potentially affected
properties shall be documented by photos
and description of existing condition of
building facades, noting existing cracks. The
survey letter shall provide a shoring design
to protect such buildings and structures from
potential damage. At the conclusion of
vibration causing activities, the qualified
structural engineer hired by the applicant
shall issue a follow-up letter describing
The applicant shall prepare a
Vibration Control Plan which
shall be provided to the City
upon request.

A Statement of Compliance
signed by the applicant and
owner is required to be
submitted to the City Building
Department at plan check
and prior to the issuance of
any permit.

Prior to
construction
At plan check
and prior to
issuance of any
permit.

Once
Once
City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
damage, if any, to impacted buildings. The
letter shall include recommendations for
repair, as may be necessary, in
conformance with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards. Repairs shall be
undertaken and completed by the contractor
and monitored by a qualified structural
engineer in conformance with all applicable
codes including the California Historical
Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24).

A Statement of Compliance signed by the
applicant and owner is required to be
submitted to the City Building Department at
plan check and prior to the issuance of any
permit. The Vibration Control Plan, prepared
as outlined above, shall be documented by
a qualified structural engineer, and shall be
provided to the City upon request. A
Preservation Director shall be designated
and this person’s contact information shall
be posted in a location near the project site
that it is clearly visible to the nearby
receivers most likely to be disturbed. The
Director will manage complaints and
concerns resulting from activities that cause
vibrations. The severity of the vibration
concern should be assessed by the
Director, and if necessary, evaluated by a
qualified noise and vibration control
consultant.

Transportation
TRA-1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures
Individual housing project development
proposals that do not screen out from VMT
impact analysis shall provide a quantitative
VMT analysis using the methods applied in
this EIR, with modifications if appropriate
based on future changes to City of Orinda
practices and CCTA VMT analysis
methodology guidelines. The City shall
require travel demand management
measures and physical measures to reduce
VMT for projects that result in a significant
Individual housing project
development proposals that
do not screen out from VMT
impact analysis shall provide
a quantitative VMT analysis
using the methods applied in
this EIR
The City shall require travel
demand management
measures and physical
Prior to project
approval
Prior to project
approval
Once
Once
City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
impact. These shall include, but not be
limited to, the measures below, which have
been identified as being potentially VMT
reducing in the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate
Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and
Equity (December 2021). Potential VMT
reduction estimates are included below, but
detailed requirements, calculation steps,
and limitations are described in the
CAPCOA Handbook. In addition, application
of one or more measures shall be generally
expected to result in a net VMT reduction of
10 percent or less for development projects
in suburban settings such as Orinda.

Unbundle parking costs (i.e., sell or lease
parking separately from the housing unit).

Effectiveness: up to 15.7 percent reduction
in GHG from VMT per the CAPCOA
Handbook.

Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, or scooter
sharing programs. Effectiveness: 0.15 –

0.18 percent reduction in GHG from VMT for
car share, 0.02 – 0.06 percent for bike
share, and 0.07 percent for scooter share,
pursuant to the CAPCOA Handbook. The
higher car share and bike share values are
for electric car and bike share programs.

Subsidize transit passes for residents of
affordable housing. Effectiveness: up to 5.5
percent reduction in GHG from VMT
pursuant to the CAPCOA Handbook.

In addition to the on-site measures noted
above, individual housing projects that are
above the VMT threshold could potentially
contribute to future VMT mitigation fee
programs, banks, or exchanges. No regional
VMT mitigation programs currently exist;
however, the CCTA is currently evaluating
different mitigation program frameworks
which may lead to a countywide or submeasures to reduce VMT for projects that result in a
significant impact.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
regional VMT mitigation program. Should
such a program be implemented,
development projects could potentially pay
into a fee program or purchase mitigation
credits to achieve needed VMT mitigation
instead of, or in addition to, on-site TDM
measures.

TRA-2: Prepare Transportation Impact Analysis (TA) Guidelines The City shall prepare guidelines to identify
if a project will have a substantial adverse
effect on on-site and/or off-site vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and
access to transit. At a minimum, the TA
guidelines shall include appropriate
references to design guidelines and
standards such as Caltrans Highway Design
Manual and NACTO guidelines. The
guidelines shall include transportation
operations and queueing analysis to ensure
a project will not create potential adverse
effects on driveways and the internal and
external roadway network.

The City shall prepare
guidelines to identify if a
project will have a substantial
adverse effect on on-site
and/or off-site vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian
circulation and access to
transit
2024 Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
TRA-3: Construction Traffic Guidelines
Prior to issuance of building permits for
Housing Element sites and Downtown
Precise Plan sites, the City shall adopt
guidance prepared by a qualified
transportation consultant for
accommodating pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit in construction zones. This shall
include providing sidewalk diversion or
detour plans, bicycle accommodations, and
bus stop relocation or closure plans.

The City shall adopt guidance
prepared by a qualified
transportation consultant for
accommodating pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit in
construction zones
Prior to
issuance of
building permits
Once City of
Orinda
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Avoidance of Tribal Cultural Resources
When feasible, development facilitated by
the project shall be designed to avoid known
tribal cultural resources. Any tribal cultural
resource within 60 feet of planned
construction activities shall be fenced off to
ensure avoidance. The feasibility of
avoidance of tribal cultural resources shall
be determined by the City and applicant in
consultation with local California Native
American tribe(s).

The applicant and the City
shall determine feasibility of
avoidance of tribal cultural
resources in consultation with
local California Native
American tribe(s).

Prior to project
approval
Once
During
constructio
n
City of
Orinda
TCR-2: Tribal Cultural Resource Plan
A Tribal Cultural Resources Plan shall be
required for development occurring in areas
identified as potentially sensitive for tribal
cultural resources during consultation with
local California Native American tribe(s)
during AB 52 consultation if required for the
project. Prior to any development facilitated
by the project that would include ground
disturbance, the project applicant or its
consultant, shall prepare a tribal cultural
resources treatment plan to be implemented
in the event an unanticipated archaeological
resource that may be considered a tribal
cultural resource is identified during
construction. The plan shall include any
necessary monitoring requirements,
suspension of all earth-disturbing work in
the vicinity of the find, avoidance of the
The project applicant shall
prepare a tribal cultural
resources treatment plan to
be implemented in the event
an unanticipated
archaeological resource that
may be considered a tribal
cultural resource is identified
during construction. The plan
shall be reviewed and
approved by the City.

Prior to
construction
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
resource or, if avoidance of the resource is
infeasible, the plan shall outline the
appropriate treatment of the resource in
coordination with the local Native Americans
and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist.

Examples of appropriate treatment for tribal
cultural resources include, but are not
limited to, protecting the cultural character
and integrity of the resource, protecting
traditional use of the resource, protecting
the confidentiality of the resource, or
heritage recovery. The plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the City and the
appropriate local California Native American
tribe(s) to confirm compliance with this
measure prior to construction.

TCR-3: Native American Monitoring
For development occurring in areas
identified as potentially sensitive for tribal
cultural resources through consultation with
local California Native American tribe(s), the
project applicant shall retain a locally
affiliated Native American monitor to
observe all ground disturbance, including
archaeological excavation, associated with
development facilitated by the project.

Monitoring methods and requirements shall
be outlined in a tribal cultural resources
treatment plan prepared under Mitigation
Measure TCR-2. In the event of a discovery
of tribal cultural resources, the steps
identified in the tribal cultural resources plan
prepared under Mitigation Measure TCR-2
shall be implemented.

For development occurring in
areas identified as potentially
sensitive for tribal cultural
resources the project
applicant shall retain a locally
affiliated Native American
monitor to observe all ground
disturbance, including
archaeological excavation,
associated with development
facilitated by the project
During
construction
Once City of
Orinda
Wildfire
WFR-1: Develop Wildfire Hazard Assessment and Plan and Sites Subject to Shelter-In-Place Guidelines The City shall require the following
measures prior to approval of projects on
Housing Element Sites HE-4 and HE-5:

1. A Wildfire Hazard Assessment and Plan
shall be developed for the project site.

The City shall require a
Wildfire Hazard Assessment
and Plan and Shelter-in-place
design guidelines that are
approved by MOFD for each
proposed project on Housing
Prior to project
approval
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments

2. Shelter-in-place design guidelines shall
be required for project site development.

Guidelines include the following:
 Well-maintained, fire district approved
landscape and vegetation
management plan
 Adequate roadway and driveway
widths, designed to accommodate
two-way traffic and large firefighting
apparatus
 Adequate water supply and water
flow for firefighting efforts.
 Vegetation modification zones
surrounding the community
 Homes in the community are built
with heavy timber, ignition-resistant
eaves, residential fire sprinklers, a
Class A ignition-resistant roof, dual
pane (one being tempered) glass
windows, and chimneys with spark
arrestors containing a minimum of

0.5-inch screen.

3. Wildfire Hazard Assessment and Plan
and site design applying shelter-in-place
guidelines must be approved by MOFD.

Element Sites HE-4 and HE5
WFR-2: Construction Wildfire Risk Reduction
The City shall require the following
measures during project construction:

1. Construction activities with potential to
ignite wildfires shall be prohibited during
red-flag warnings issued by the National
Weather Service for the site. Example
activities include welding and grinding
outside of enclosed buildings.

2. Fire extinguishers shall be available
onsite during project construction. Fire
extinguishers shall be maintained to
function according to manufacturer
specifications. Construction personnel
shall receive training on the proper
methods of using a fire extinguisher.

The City shall prohibit
construction activities with
potential to ignite wildfires
during red-flag warnings
issued by the National
Weather Service for the site
The City shall require fire
extinguishers to be available
onsite during project
construction
The City shall require
construction equipment
powered by internal
combustion engines to be
equipped with spark arresters
Prior to building
permit approval
Prior to building
permit approval
Prior to building
permit approval.

Once
Once
Once
City of
Orinda
City of
Orinda
City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Initial
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Date
Com-
pliance
Verifi-
cation
Comments

3. Construction equipment powered by
internal combustion engines shall be
equipped with spark arresters. The spark
arresters shall be maintained pursuant to
manufacturer recommendations to
ensure adequate performance.

At the City’s discretion, additional wildfire
risk reduction requirements may be required
during construction. The City shall review
and approve the project-specific methods to
be employed prior to building permit
approval.

D.1.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Mitigation Measure Action Required
Monitoring
Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
WFR-3: Project Design Wildfire Risk Reduction.

Project landscape plans shall include fireresistant vegetation native to Contra Costa County and/or the local microclimate of the
site and prohibit the use of fire-prone
species especially non-native, invasive
species.

If the project site is within a known landslide
area (see Figure 4.5-2 in Section 4.5,
Geology and Soils), the site shall be subject
to geotechnical review regarding potential
post-fire slope instability. Structural
engineering features incorporated into the
design of the structure to reduce the risk of
damage to the structure from post-fire slope
instability shall be recommended by a
qualified engineer and approved by the City
prior to the building permit approval.

Structural engineering
features incorporated into the
design of the structure to
reduce the risk of damage to
the structure from post-fire
slope instability shall be
recommended by a qualified
engineer and approved by
the City
Prior to building
permit approval
Once City of
Orinda
D.1.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 07-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) RESOLUTION NO. 08-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA,

ADOPTING THE DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN (DPP)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals
A. The Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) describes long-range options for Downtown Orinda. The plan provides guidance for downtown development decision-making by offering a cohesive vision that would be implemented through future development, policymaking, and programs.

B. The DPP document is non-regulatory and does not alter or affect the General Plan or zoning. Rather, the content within the DPP will be used to guide future consideration of potential General Plan and zoning text and map amendments. The DPP contains draft Objective Design Standards, which are intended to be finalized and adopted in the future to regulate and support mixed-use and residential development for properties in Orinda’s Theatre and Village districts.

C. As part of the City’s efforts to focus on downtown planning continuum, the City Council expressed an interest in pursuing revisions to downtown development standards by enacting a new, stand-alone downtown plan. At the January 7, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to manage the development of the DPP project in-house and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for specific tasks as necessary.

D. Updates on the DPP including project branding, existing conditions, and stakeholder and community engagement were presented to the Downtown Planning Subcommittee and City Council on February 26, 2020, April 7, 2020, and April 29, 2020.

E. In May 2020, staff launched an online survey to raise awareness on downtown planning and increase participation in the DPP process.

F. On May 26, 2020, staff held the first DPP Community Workshop. Stakeholder interviews were conducted in June 2020 and an update on the stakeholder interviews was presented to the Downtown Planning Subcommittee on June 10, 2020. A second Community Workshop was held on June 23, 2020 and a third Community Workshop was held on July 28, 2020.

G. On August 18, 2020, an overview of objective design standards, residential densities, and building heights was presented to the City Council and a follow-up meeting was held with the Downtown Planning Subcommittee on September 10, 2020.

H. On September 30, 2020, the Downtown Planning Subcommittee interviewed three economic consultant firms to provide on-call economic services and on October 6, 2020, the City Council awarded a contract for economic services.

I. On October 6, 2020 an update on the DPP progress was presented to the City Council.

D.1.c
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 08-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) J. On November 19, 2020, a Character Area Workshop was held with both the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss potential changes to building height, mixed-use, and objective design standards.

K. On March 2, 2021, the Downtown Development Feasibility Memo was presented to the City Council for feedback.

L. On June 10, 2021, the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee held a meeting with PG&E representatives to discuss the PG&E transmission lines that run through downtown.

M. Two Workshops were held to review and discuss the Draft Objective Design Standards on September 27, 2021 and November 17, 2021.

N. In February 2022 a second online survey was conducted to obtain feedback on resident satisfaction with downtown Orinda.

O. On July 18, 2022, the Draft Vision and Guiding Principles of the DPP were presented to the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee, where staff received public comment and Subcommittee feedback on the community’s vision and goals for downtown.

P. On August 9, 2022, the Draft Vision and Guiding Principles of the DPP were presented to the Planning Commission, where staff received public comment and Commission feedback on the community’s vision and goals for downtown.

Q. On September 6, 2022, the Draft Vision and Guiding Principles of the DPP were presented to the City Council, where staff received public comment and Council feedback on the community’s vision and goals for downtown.

R. On September 15, 2022, the City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR to address the specific environmental effects of implementing Plan Orinda, which includes the Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and Downtown Precise Plan. The Plan Orinda EIR analyzed land use changes that would plan for approximately 2,383 new dwelling units and approximately 6,672 new residents. These actions would identify capacity in Orinda to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,359 units (1,506 with 25% buffer). The NOA announced that the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee would hold a public meeting to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

S. On September 15, 2022, the City published and circulated the Draft Plan Orinda EIR for a 45-day public review period, starting September 15, 2022 and ending October 31, 2022.

The Draft EIR analyzed the Project and included an assessment of three alternatives.

T. On December 7. 2022, the City published the Draft DPP for public review.

U. On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to provide feedback on the Draft DPP.

V. On January 10, 2023, the City Council held a public meeting to provide feedback on the D.1.c
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 08-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Draft DPP.

W. On January 18, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and it reviewed and considered the Plan Orinda Final EIR, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council (1) certify the Final EIR for Plan Orinda (which includes the Downtown Precise Plan, Housing Element Update, and Safety Element Update); (2) adopt the CEQA Findings, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (3) adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (4) adopt and incorporate into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project; (5) adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (6) adopt the Downtown Precise Plan; (7) adopt a General Plan Amendment to approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and approve the Safety Element Update; and (8) authorize submittal of the approved 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to HCD for final certification.

X. On January 31, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and reviewed and considered staff reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

Section 2. Project Approval
The Downtown Precise Plan is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of Orinda General Plan.

The City Council hereby adopts the Downtown Precise Plan, dated January 31, 2023, which is incorporated herein by reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on January 31, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Inga Miller, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
D.1.c
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 08-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) RESOLUTION NO. 09-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA, ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO: (1) APPROVE THE 2023-2031 (6TH CYCLE) HOUSING ELEMENT UDPATE AND (2) APPROVE THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals
A. State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of Gov. Code) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Orinda’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 1,359 housing units, comprised of 372 very-low income units, 215 low-income units, 215 moderate-income units, and 557 above moderate-income units. The Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RHNA, affirmatively further fair housing, and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)).

B. Furthermore, Government Code section 65302(g) requires that the Safety Element of the General Plan be reviewed and updated concurrent with the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update.

C. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that the Housing Element Update contain: (i) an assessment of the City’s housing needs and an analysis of the resources and constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, relevant to the meeting of these needs; (ii) an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development and an analysis of the development potential of such sites; (iii) a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and (iv) programs that set forth a schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element Update.

D. On April 20, 2021, the City Council met to discuss the process and schedule for preparing the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update of the Orinda General Plan (“Project”), and directed City staff to solicit proposals from qualified planning firms to assist with preparation of both the Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update.

E. On June 15, 2021, the City Council authorized City staff to enter into a Service Contract with Placeworks to prepare the Housing Element and Safety Element Updates .

F. The City conducted extensive community outreach over the course of 2021 and 2022 that included a diligent effort to engage all segments of the community. To begin this effort, study session meetings were held to provide an overview on Housing Element law, RHNA, and sites inventory on October 18, 2021, November 9, 2021, and November 16, 2021.

G. On November 3, 2021, a community workshop was held to introduce the Safety Element and to obtain feedback on residents’ experience with hazards and natural disasters.

D.1.d
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) H. On November 4, 2021, a Safety Element online survey was launched to obtain resident input on Safety Element issues.

I. On December 15, 2021, the Balancing Act Housing Simulation Tool was made available which allowed members of the public to create their own housing plan.

J. On February 9, 2022, the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission was provided an overview of the Safety Element and the results of the Safety Element online survey was presented.

K. On February 15, 2022, the City Council considered the potential sites inventory and directed staff to proceed will the recommended sites inventory.

L. On March 31, 2022 the initial draft Housing Element was released for public review and on April 5, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed, provided comments, and received public input on the initial draft of the Housing Element Update.

M. On April 19, 2022, the City Council reviewed and received public input on the initial draft of the Housing Element Update and authorized submittal of the document the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The initial draft Housing Element was submitted on May 16, 2022.

N. On June 3, 2022, a Fair Housing online survey was launched to obtain resident input on fair housing issues. A workshop was held with the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee on June 27, 2022 to discuss the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.

O. On June 7, 2022, the first draft Safety Element & Vulnerability Assessment was released for public review. A Planning Commission meeting on June 14, 2022 and a City Council meeting on July 5, 2022 was held to obtain feedback on the first draft Safety Element & Vulnerability Assessment.

P. On July 26, 2022, staff received preliminary verbal comments from HCD via a conference call and in response to the preliminary comments, released the August 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element on August 4, 2022 for a 7-day public review period as mandated by the State prior to resubmittal to HCD.

Q. On August 12, 2022, HCD provided written comments to the City regarding changes that should to be made to the Draft Housing Element in order for it to be in compliance with State Housing law.

R. On September 15, 2022, the City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR to address the specific environmental effects of implementing Plan Orinda, which includes the Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and Downtown Precise Plan. The Plan Orinda EIR analyzed land use changes that would plan for approximately 2,383 new dwelling units and approximately 6,672 new residents. These actions would identify capacity in Orinda to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,359 units (1,506 with 25% buffer). The NOA announced that the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee would hold a public meeting to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

D.1.d
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) S. On September 15, 2022, the City published and circulated the Draft Plan Orinda EIR for a 45-day public review period, starting September 15, 2022 and ending October 31, 2022.

The Draft EIR analyzed the Project and included an assessment of three alternatives.

T. On September 23, 2022, the City published the September 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element Update for public review.

U. On October 10, 2022, the Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee reviewed and provided feedback on the September 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element Update.

V. On November 1, 2022, the City Council reviewed and provided feedback regarding changes made to the September 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element and authorized the submittal of the Revised Draft Housing Element to HCD.

W. On November 4, 2022, the City published the November 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element Update for a 7-day public review period as mandated by the State prior to resubmittal to HCD.

X. On November 9, 2022, the City published the draft Safety Element Evacuation Analysis for public review and on November 15, 2022 the City Council provided feedback on the draft Safety Element Evacuation Analysis.

Y. On November 16, 2022, the City submitted the November 2022 Revised Draft Housing Element Update to HCD.

Z. On December 6, 2022, the Board of Forestry Resource Protection Committee reviewed the Orinda Safety Element Update at a public meeting. On December 8, 2022, the City received formal notice from the Board of Forestry that the Orinda Safety Element Update was reviewed and accepted in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 65302.5, subd. (b).

AA.On December 7, 2022, the Revised Draft Safety Element was released for public review. A Planning Commission meeting on December 14, 2022 and a City Council meeting on January 10, 2022 were held to obtain feedback on the Revised Draft Safety Element.

BB.On January 3, 2023, staff received preliminary verbal comments from HCD via a conference call. In response to the preliminary comments, revisions were made to the Revised Draft Housing Element and the City released the January 5th 2023 Revised Draft Housing Element for a 7-day public review period as mandated by the State prior to resubmittal to HCD.

CC.On January 13, 2023, the City of Orinda received a letter from HCD reviewing the January 5th 2023 draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. The current version of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element Update (dated January 2023) includes updates made in response to comments received from HCD to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element law.

DD.On January 18, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing consistent with Government Code section 65353 on the Housing Element Update and D.1.d
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Safety Element Update, and it reviewed and considered the Plan Orinda Final EIR, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council (1) certify the Final EIR for Plan Orinda (which includes the Housing Element Update and the Safety Element Update as well as the Downtown Precise Plan); (2) adopt the CEQA Findings, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (3) adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (4) adopt and incorporate into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project; (5) adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached and incorporated therein by reference; (6) adopt the Downtown Precise Plan; (7) adopt a General Plan Amendment to approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and approve the Safety Element Update; and (8) authorize submittal of the approved 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to HCD for final certification.

EE.On January 31, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing consistent with Government Code section 65355 on the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update, reviewed and considered staff reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

FF.In accordance with Government Code section 65352, notifications have been sent to the appropriate agencies. No consultations were requested or comments received from said agencies.

Section 2. Project Approval
The City Council has considered the findings made by HCD included in the Department’s letter to Orinda dated January 13, 2023, as required by Government Code Section 65585(f). The City has revised the Housing Element Update submitted to HCD on January 5, 2023 to address each of the findings in the HCD letter. The Housing Element Update substantially complies with all requirements of State Housing Element Law as interpreted by HCD. The revisions, and the manner in which they address the HCD comment, have been listed in Exhibit A (Response to HCD Findings) to this Resolution, which is incorporated herein by this reference.

The City Council finds that the Housing Element Update substantially complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq. and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law, as detailed in Exhibit B (Conformance with State law Requirements, Article 10.6) to this Resolution, incorporated herein by this reference and which identifies where each applicable requirement of the Government Code is addressed in the Housing Element Update.

The City Council finds that based on substantial evidence provided on pages 144, 146- 147, 157-158, and in Table 5-6 (DPP Sites to Meet the RHNA – Additional Site Discussion) of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the lower income RHNA are likely to be either discontinued, repurposed, or there is land/space available for additional on-site development during the planning period. Furthermore, Section 5.7.5. (Development of Nonvacant sites) on pages 165- 166 details the City’s track record of developing both affordable and market-rate housing on non-vacant sites. Therefore, the fact that the properties are currently non-vacant does not constitute an impediment to planned residential development during the planning period D.1.d
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) covered by the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update.

The City Council finds that the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update meet the requirements of State law. They are also consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of Orinda General Plan.

The City Council hereby adopts a General Plan Amendment to approve the following:

1. The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, dated January 2023.

2. The Safety Element Update, dated January 18, 2023.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update are incorporated herein by this reference. The prior 2015-2023 5th Cycle Housing Element and Safety Element are repealed and replaced in their entirety.

Furthermore, the Safety Element Update incorporates herein by this reference the current Contra Costa County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 2018, as required by Assembly Bill 2140 to increase opportunities for financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act.

Section 3. Submittal to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development
The City Council hereby directs staff to submit the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for review and certification. The Planning Director or designee is hereby directed to file all necessary material with HCD so they may find that the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update is in conformance with State Housing Element Law. The Planning Director of designee is further directed and authorized to make all non-substantive changes to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to make it internally consistent or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by HCD to achieve certification.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on January 31, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Inga Miller, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
1605723.1
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Orinda Housing Element – Responses to HCD Comment Letter 2 – January 13, 2023 Comment Page # 1. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoningand public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites and Small Sites: While the element was revised to include examples of development on sites smaller than 0.5 acres to support assumptions in the sites inventory, it must include analysis to demonstrate the suitability of these sites to facilitate development affordable to lower income households. The element should provide specific examples with the densities and affordability. For sites expected to be aggregated, the element must describe circumstances leading to consolidation, such as common ownership, the City’s role or track record in facilitating small lot consolidation, policies or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation, specific examples of projects that were built for lower-income households on similarly sized sites, densities and affordability and relate those examples back to the sites inventory.

Analysis added to Section 5.7.6 Development on Small Sites, pages 153 – 156 Action 1.L – Lot Consolidation, page 201 CalTrans Site: The element was revised to include estimated timing and the process for decertification on the CalTrans site. HCD also received additional revisions to Action 1.C (Caltrans Gateway Site Development); however as these changes were not made available to the public pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), HCD could not fully consider them as part of this review. In addition, HCD had received several third-party comments related to the suitability of this site for development. In order to demonstrate the availability of this site for residential development, the element should include evidence from CalTrans to determine that the site will be available for development within the planning period, and demonstrate that decertification of this site by Caltrans will happen within two years from the start of the planning period or that if this does not occur by that timeframe, the City will identify additional sites in the inventory to accommodate the lower-income housing need by January 31, 2026. The element must include a clear steps to analyze whether decertification will occur by January 2025 and when the Analysis added to pages 144- 145 Action 1.C – Caltrans Gateway Site Development, pages 195 - 196

EXHIBIT A

RESPONSE TO HCD FINDINGS
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 Comment Page # site will be available for residential development or identify additional sites to meet by-right shortfall requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h) and (i). Suitability of Sites: Please note, that the East Bay for Everyone comment letter notes several sites which may be inaccurately depicted. The City should verify the status of the sites and amend the sites inventory and analysis accordingly.

Table A-1 Moderate and Above Moderate Capacity was revised, pages 224- 231 Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs.

The following actions were modified: Actions 1.C – Caltrans Gateway Site Development, pages 195 – 196 Action1.D – Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designation, page 197 Action 1.L – Lot Consolidation, page 201Action 4.G – Monitor Development Fees, page 212

2. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …land use controls… …fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) Land Use Controls: While the element was revised to analyze lot width and depths in the RM and SH overlay as a constraint, analysis is needed regarding heights limited to 27 feet. Heights that limit development to two stories in multifamily zones are a constraint on development and a program must be added to allow at least three stories in zones allowing multifamily developments, including but not limited to the RH-25 zone. Based on the outcome of the analysis, the element should add or modify programs to address the constraint.

Analysis added to page 161 Action1.D – Residential Zoning Districts and Land Use Designation, page 197 Program 4.G (Monitor Development Fees): While the element was revised to add an analysis of multifamily development fees, it demonstrated that multifamily development fees are significantly higher than single family fees as total development cost. The City must revise program 4.G to commit to modifying standards and reducing fees based on conversations with developers and applicants.

Action 4.G – Monitor Development Fees, page 212
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 990052\01\3407083.1

EXHIBIT B
CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS, ARTICLE 10.6
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Section 65583
The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Chapter 4 Population, Employment and
Housing Characteristics
Chapter 7 Goals, Policies and Actions
The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
The element shall contain all of the following: N/A
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following:

Chapter 4 Population, Employment and
Housing Characteristics
Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Chapter 6 Housing Constraints
(a)(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections
Section 4.2 Population Trends
Section 4.4 Employment Trends
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues, Subheading:

Employment Opportunities
(a)(1) A quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 50105 and Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low income households allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as extremely low income households. The local agency may either use available census data to calculate the percentage of very low income households that qualify as extremely low income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low income households qualify as Section 4.3.3 Household Income
Section 4.6.3 Housing Affordability
Section 4.8.7 Extremely Low-Income
Households
Table 5-1 Regional Housing Needs
Allocation, Orinda 2023-2031
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
extremely low income households. The number of extremely low income households and very low income households shall equal the jurisdiction’s allocation of very low income households pursuant to Section 65584.
(a)(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay,
Section 4.3 Household Characteristics
Section 4.3.3 Household Income
Table 4-8 Housing Overpayment,
Orinda
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues, Subheading
Distribution of Income and Subheading
Overpayment
(a)(2) housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and Section 4.5 Housing Stock Characteristics
Section 4.3.2 Overcrowding
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues, Subheading
Overcrowding
(a)(2) housing stock condition. Section 4.5.5 Housing Condition Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues, Subheading Housing
Condition
(a)(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Section 4.11.4 Sites Inventory Analysis
Section 6.3.2 Land
Availability/Environmental Constraints
Section 6.3.3 Infrastructure Capacity
[Note that AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022) amended Section 65583(a)(4). It does not apply to ABAG-area housing elements unless the first draft of the housing element is submitted to ABAG after January 31, 2023 or a draft is submitted after April 1, 2023. Therefore the sections below include the statutory provisions of N/A
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Section 65583(a)(4) effective in 2022. Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why AB 2339 is not applicable to them.] (a)(4)(A) The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.

Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues and Subheading:

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types and Subheading
Emergency Shelters
(a)(4)(A) If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element. The local government may identify additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit.

N/A
(a)(4)(A) The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.

Section 6.2.3 Residential Development
Standards
Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types and Subheading:

Emergency Shelters
(a)(4)(A) Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all of the following:
(i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility.
(ii) Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. (iii) The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas. (iv) The provision of onsite management.
(v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
(vi) The length of stay.

Section 6.2.3 Residential Development
Standards
Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types and Subheading
Emergency Shelters
Implementation Action 4.A Amend
Development Standards to Remove
Constraints (Bullet 1 to achieve
compliant parking standards)
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 4 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(vii) Lighting.
(viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation. (a)(4)(B) The permit processing, development, and management standards applied under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be discretionary acts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

N/A
(a)(4)(C) A local government that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department the existence of one or more emergency shelters either within its jurisdiction or pursuant to a multijurisdictional agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with the zoning requirements of subparagraph (A) by identifying a zone or zones where new emergency shelters are allowed with a conditional use permit.

N/A
(a)(4)(D) A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances that comply with this paragraph shall not be required to take additional action to identify zones for emergency shelters. The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances, policies, and standards are consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.

Section 6.2.3 (Residential Development
Standards)
Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types and Subheading:

Emergency Shelters
Implementation Action 4.A Amend
Development Standards to Remove
Constraints (Bullet 1 to achieve
compliant parking standards)
(a)(5) An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and [Note: The types of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1) include multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.]
Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types
(a)(5) for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types and Subheading
Constraints on Persons with Disabilities
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 5 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(a)(5) including land use controls, Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
(a)(5) building codes and their enforcement, Section 6.2.6 Building Code Requirements
(a)(5) site improvements, Section 6.2.7 Site Improvement Requirements
(a)(5) fees and other exactions required of developers, Section 6.2.8 Development and Permit Fees
(a)(5) local processing and permit procedures, Section 6.2.5 Local Processing and Permit Procedures
(a)(5) and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

Section 6.2.5 Local Processing and
Permit Procedures
(a)(5) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584
Section 6.2.10 Removal of
Governmental Constraints
Action 4.A: Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(a)(5) and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7).

Section 6.2.10 Removal of
Governmental Constraints
Action 4.A: Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(a)(6) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing,
Section 6.3 Non-Governmental
Constraints
(a)(6) the price of land, Section 6.3.1 Land Costs
(a)(6) the cost of construction, Section 6.3.5 Construction Costs (a)(6) the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2,
Section 5.7 Sites Inventory and
subheading Capacity Assumptions
(a)(6) and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.

Section 6.2.5 Local Processing and
Permit Procedures
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 6 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(a)(6) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.

Section 6.3 Non-Governmental
Constraints
(a)(7) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
Section 4.8 Persons with Special Needs
(a)(7) elderly; Section 3.1 Efforts to Address Special
Housing Needs
Section 4.8.1 Senior Households
(a)(7) persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code;
Section 4.8.2 Individuals with
Disabilities
Section 4.8.3 Developmental
Disabilities
(a)(7) large families; Section 4.8.4 Large Families
(a)(7) farmworkers; Section 4.8.6 Farmworker Housing
(a)(7) families with female heads of households; Section 4.8.5 Single-Parent Households (a)(7) and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. Section 4.8.8 Homeless Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues, Subheading: Persons
Experiencing Homelessness
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions.

Section 4.8.8 Homeless
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues, Subheading: Persons
Experiencing Homelessness
Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types, Subheading:

Emergency Shelters
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter may be reduced by the number of supportive housing units that are identified in an adopted 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified to allow construction during the planning period.

Section 4.8.8 Homeless
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues, Subheading: Persons
Experiencing Homelessness
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 7 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types, Subheading:

Emergency Shelters
(a)(7) An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services. (a)(8) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects.

This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system.

Section 4.10 Energy Conservation and
Housing
(a)(9) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. “Assisted housing developments,” for the purpose of this section, shall mean multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section 65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. “Assisted housing developments” shall also include multifamily rental units that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915.

Section 4.7 At-Risk Housing
Orinda does not have any at-risk units.
(a)(9)(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by project name and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality’s low-income housing stock in each year during the 10- year period. For purposes of state and federally funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need only contain information available on a statewide basis.

Section 4.7 At-Risk Housing
Orinda does not have any at-risk units.
(a)(9)(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from lowincome use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for each five-year period and does not have to contain a project-by-project cost estimate.

Section 4.7 At-Risk Housing
Orinda does not have any at-risk units.

D.1.d
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 8 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(a)(9)(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the local government that have legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing developments.

Section 4.7 At-Risk Housing
Orinda does not have any at-risk units.
(a)(9)(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs that can be used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing authority operating within the community. In considering the use of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify the amounts of funds under each available program that have not been legally obligated for other purposes and that could be available for use in preserving assisted housing developments.

Section 4.7 At-Risk Housing
Orinda does not have any at-risk units.
(b) (1) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Chapter 7 Goals, Policies and Actions
(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing units by income category, including extremely low income, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period.

Section 7.3 Summary of Quantified
Objectives
(c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element Chapter 7 Goals, Policies and Actions
(all programs)
(c) through the administration of land use and development controls, Chapter 7 Actions 1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 1.D,

1.E, 1.F, 1.G, 1.H, 1.I, 1.J, 1.K, 1.L,
(c) the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, Chapter 7 Actions 1.E,1.F,1.G,1.I,1.K,

1.L
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 9 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c) the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available,
Chapter 7 Action 2.A, 2.B, 2.C, 2.D,

2.E, 3.A, 3.B, 3.C, 3.D,
(c) and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code).

N/A
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the following:

N/A
(c)(1) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(c)(1) Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing Section 4.11 Assessment of Fair Housing
(c)(1) and to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types
(c)(1) factory-built housing, Section 6.2.2 Zoning Districts Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types
(c)(1) mobilehomes, Section 6.2.2 Zoning Districts
Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types
(c)(1) housing for agricultural employees, Section 4.8.6 Farmworker Housing Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(1) supportive housing, Section 6.2.2 Zoning Districts Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types, Subheading:

Supportive/Transitional Housing
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 10 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(1) single-room occupancy units, Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(1) emergency shelters, Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types, Subheading:

Emergency Shelters
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(1) and transitional housing. Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types, Subheading:

Supportive/Transitional Housing
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(1)(A) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, for jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element planning period pursuant to Section 65588, shall be completed no later than three years after either the date the housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65585 or the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65585, whichever is earlier, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to subdivision (f). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(c)(1)(B) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 11 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2.

The identification of sites shall include all components specified in Section 65583.2.

Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory and conformance with subdivision (h).

Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(c)(1)(C) Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for farmworker housing, the program shall provide for sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits farmworker housing use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of the development of farmworker housing for low- and very low income households.

Section 4.8.6 Farmworker Housing
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(c)(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(3) and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.

Action 4.F Reasonable
Accommodations
(c)(3) Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types, Subheading:

Supportive/Transitional Housing
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(3)Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650).

Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types, Subheading:

Supportive/Transitional Housing
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 12 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c)(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private action.

Action 1.G Support Affordable Housing
Development
Action 2.B Housing Rehabilitation
(c)(5) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.

Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
Goals 5: Fair Housing
Policy 5.1 Promote Mixed-Income
Neighborhoods
Policy 5.2 Prohibit Discrimination
Action 5.A Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
(c)(6) Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a).

Action 2.E Replacement Housing
(c)(6) The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available.

Section 4.7 At-Risk Housing
Action 2.A: Preservation of At-Risk
Housing Units
(c)(6) The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance.

Action 2.A: Preservation of At-Risk
Housing Units
(c)(7) Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2.\ Section 5.7.7 Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) Potential
Policy 1.3 Promote Accessory Dwelling
Units.

Action 1.E Promotion of Accessory
Dwelling Units
(c)(8) Include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals.

Section 1.3 General Plan Consistency
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 13 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(9) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.

Chapter 2. Public Participation
(c)(10)(A) Affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following components:

Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
Goals 5: Fair Housing
Policy 5.1 Promote Mixed-Income
Neighborhoods
Policy 5.2 Prohibit Discrimination
Action 5.A Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
(c)(10)(A)(i) A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(i) and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity.

Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(ii) An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(ii)racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(ii) disparities in access to opportunity, Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(ii) and disproportionate housing needs, Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(ii) including displacement risk. Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(ii) The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction.

Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(ii) and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) and Section 65008.

Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 14 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(10)(A)(iii) An assessment of the contributing factors, including the local and regional historical origins
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(iii) and current policies and practices, for the fair housing issues identified under clauses (i) and (ii).

Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(iv) An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance,
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(iv) and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved.

Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
(c)(10)(A)(v) Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
Goals 5: Fair Housing
Policy 5.1 Promote Mixed-Income
Neighborhoods
Policy 5.2 Prohibit Discrimination
Action 5.A Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
(c)(10)(A)(v) and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity,
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
Goals 5: Fair Housing
Policy 5.1 Promote Mixed-Income
Neighborhoods
Policy 5.2 Prohibit Discrimination
Action 5.A Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
(c)(10)(A)(v) as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing,
Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair
Housing Issues
Goals 5: Fair Housing
Policy 5.1 Promote Mixed-Income
Neighborhoods
Policy 5.2 Prohibit Discrimination
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 15 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Action 5.A Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
(c)(10)(A)(v) and protecting existing residents from displacement. Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
Goals 5: Fair Housing
Policy 5.1 Promote Mixed-Income
Neighborhoods
Policy 5.2 Prohibit Discrimination
Action 5.A Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
(c)(10)(B) A jurisdiction that completes or revises an assessment of fair housing pursuant to Subpart A (commencing with Section 5.150) of Part 5 of Subtitle A of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as published in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, Number 136, page 42272, dated July 16, 2015, or an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice in accordance with the requirements of Section 91.225 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect before August 17, 2015, may incorporate relevant portions of that assessment or revised assessment of fair housing or analysis or revised analysis of impediments to fair housing into its housing element.

N/A
(c)(10)(C) The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to housing elements due to be revised pursuant to Section 65588 on or after January 1, 2021.

N/A
(d)(1) A local government may satisfy all or part of its requirement to identify a zone or zones suitable for the development of emergency shelters pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one year-round emergency shelter within two years of the beginning of the planning period.

N/A No multi-jurisdictional agreement
for emergency shelters
(d)(2) The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element.

N/A No multi-jurisdictional agreement
for emergency shelters
(d)(3) Each member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement shall describe in its housing element all of the following:

N/A No multi-jurisdictional agreement
for emergency shelters
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 16 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(d)(3)(A) How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction’s emergency shelter need. (d)(3)(B) The jurisdiction’s contribution to the facility for both the development and ongoing operation and management of the facility.
(d)(3)(C) The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction contributes to the facility.

N/A No multi-jurisdictional agreement
for emergency shelters
(d)(4) The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating jurisdictions in their housing elements shall not exceed the actual capacity of the shelter.

N/A No multi-jurisdictional agreement
for emergency shelters
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to this article that alter the required content of a housing element shall apply to both of the following: [Note that this provision is applicable to AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022), which amended Section 65583(a)(4). Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why this amendment is not applicable to them.] N/A
(1) A housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when a city, county, or city and county submits a draft to the department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90 days after the effective date of the amendment to this section.

N/A
(2) Any housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and county fails to submit the first draft to the department before the due date specified in Section 65588 or 65584.02.

N/A
(f) – (j): Not applicable N/A
Section 65583.1(a) N/A
(a) The Department of Housing and Community Development, in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for substantial compliance with this article, … may also allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units based on the number of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department.

Section 5.7.7 Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU) Potential
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a military base undergoing closure or conversion as a result of action pursuant to the Defense Authorization N/A No Military base in Orinda
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 17 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526), the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), or any subsequent act requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be identified as an adequate site if the housing element demonstrates that the housing units will be available for occupancy by households within the planning period of the element. No sites containing housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or conversion to nonresidential uses shall qualify as an adequate site.

Note: If communities are using the provisions of Section 65583.1(c), which allow RHNA credit for conversion of non-affordable to affordable housing and for preservation of existing affordable housing at risk of loss, the applicable provisions need to be added to this table.

N/A Not being used
Section 65583.2 N/A
(a) A city’s or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with paragraph (10) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583,
Section 5.7.7 Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) Potential
(a) that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584. As used in this section, “land suitable for residential development” includes all of the following sites that meet the standards set forth in subdivisions (c) and (g):

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
(a)(1) Vacant sites zoned for residential use. Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory (a)(2) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development. Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory (a)(3) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
(a)(4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, rezoned for, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
(b) The inventory of land shall include all of the following: N/A (b)(1) A listing of properties by assessor parcel number. Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory D.1.d
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 18 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(b)(2) The size of each property listed pursuant to paragraph (1), and the general plan designation and zoning of each property.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(b)(3) For nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property. Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(b)(3) If a site subject to this paragraph is owned by the city or county, the description shall also include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the city or county will comply with Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(b)(4) A general description of any environmental constraints to the development of housing within the jurisdiction, the documentation for which has been made available to the jurisdiction. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
Section 6.3.2 Land
Availability/Environmental Constraints
(b)(5)(A) A description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities.

Section 6.3.3 Infrastructure Capacity
(b)(5)(B) Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development. This paragraph does not impose any additional duty on the city or county to construct, finance, or otherwise provide water, sewer, or dry utilities to parcels included in the inventory.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
Section 6.3.3 Infrastructure Capacity
(b)(6) Sites identified as available for housing for above moderate-income households in areas not served by public sewer systems. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

N/A
(b)(7) A map that shows the location of the sites included in the inventory, such as the land use map from the jurisdiction’s general plan, for reference purposes only.

Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(c) Based on the information provided in subdivision (b), a city or county shall determine whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period, as determined pursuant to Section 65584. The inventory shall specify for each site the Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 19 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing.
(c) A nonvacant site identified pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) in a prior housing element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality’s housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current housing element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. An unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) shall not be subject to the requirements of this subdivision to allow residential use by right.

Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning pursuant to this subdivision shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(c) The analysis shall determine whether the inventory can provide for a variety of types of housing, including multifamily rental housing,
Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(c) factory-built housing, mobilehomes, Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
(c) housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, Section 4.8.6 Farmworker Housing Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c) single-room occupancy units, Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 20 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c) emergency shelters, and Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types, Subheading:

Emergency Shelters
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c) transitional housing Section 6.2.4 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types, Subheading:

Supportive/Transitional Housing
Action 4.A Amend Development
Standards to Remove Constraints
(c) and whether the inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing . Section 4.11.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
Goals 5: Fair Housing
Policy 5.1 Promote Mixed-Income
Neighborhoods
Policy 5.2 Prohibit Discrimination
Action 5.A Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing (AFFH)
(c) The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:

N/A
(c)(1) If local law or regulations require the development of a site at a minimum density, the department shall accept the planning agency’s calculation of the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density. If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(c)(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583,
Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(c)(2) the realistic development capacity for the site, Section 5.5 Realistic Capacity D.1.d
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 21 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(2) typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction,
Section 5.6 Approved Projects
(c)(2) and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

Section 6.3.3 Infrastructure Capacity
(c)(2)(A) A site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing.

Section 5.7.6 Development on Small
Sites
(c)(2)(B) A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.

N/A
(c)(2)(B) For purposes of this subparagraph, “site” means that portion of a parcel or parcels designated to accommodate lower income housing needs pursuant to this subdivision.

Section 5.7.8 Meeting the RHNA
(c)(2)(C) A site may be presumed to be realistic for development to accommodate lower income housing need if, at the time of the adoption of the housing element, a development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for development on the site.

N/A
(c)(3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph (2), a city or county shall do either of the following:

Section 5.7.8 Meeting the RHNA
(c)(3)(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
(c)(3)(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households:

Orinda is a suburban jurisdiction and all
of its lower income sites allow for 20
units per acre.

D.1.d
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 22 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i):
sites allowing at least 10 units per acre.
(iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre. (4)(A) For a metropolitan jurisdiction: N/A
(4)(A)(i) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing, but not more than 100 units per acre of housing.

Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
The moderate-income sites meet these
criteria.
(4)(A)(ii) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for above moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing.

Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
The above moderate-income sites meet
these criteria.
(B) The allocation of moderate-income and above moderate-income housing to sites pursuant to this paragraph shall not be a basis for the jurisdiction to do either of the following:
(i) Deny a project that does not comply with the allocation. (ii) Impose a price minimum, price maximum, price control, or any other exaction or condition of approval in lieu thereof. This clause does not prohibit a jurisdiction from imposing any price minimum, price maximum, price control, exaction, or condition in lieu thereof, pursuant to any other law.
(iii) The provisions of this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law with regard to the allocation of sites pursuant to this section.

Orinda’s 2023-2031 Housing Element is
consistent with this requirement.
(C) This paragraph does not apply to an unincorporated area. N/A (D) For purposes of this paragraph: N/A
(i) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.

N/A
(ii) “Unit of housing” does not include an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that could be approved pursuant to Section 65852.2 or Section 65852.22 or through a local ordinance or other provision implementing either of those sections. This paragraph shall not limit the ability of a local government to count the actual production of accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units in an annual progress ADUs are calculated separately from the
housing opportunity sites.

D.1.d
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 23 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
report submitted pursuant to Section 65400 or other progress report as determined by the department.
(E) Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude the subdivision of a parcel, provided that the subdivision is subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land.

N/A
(d) For purposes of this section, a metropolitan county, nonmetropolitan county, and nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area shall be as determined by the United States Census Bureau. A nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area includes the following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada, Tehama, and Tuolumne and other counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future.

N/A Contra Costa County is a
metropolitan county.
(e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, in which case it shall be considered metropolitan. A county, not including the City and County of San Francisco, shall be considered suburban unless the county is in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case the county shall be considered metropolitan.

N/A
(2)(A)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a county that is in the San FranciscoOakland-Fremont California MSA has a population of less than 400,000, that county shall be considered suburban. If this county includes an incorporated city that has a population of less than 100,000, this city shall also be considered suburban. This paragraph shall apply to a housing element revision cycle, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 65588, that is in effect from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2028, inclusive.

N/A
(2)(A)(ii) A county subject to this subparagraph shall utilize the sum existing in the county’s housing trust fund as of June 30, 2013, for the development and preservation of housing affordable to low- and very low income households.

N/A
(2)(B) A jurisdiction that is classified as suburban pursuant to this paragraph shall report to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, the Senate Committee on Housing, and the Department of Housing and Community Development N/A
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 24 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
regarding its progress in developing low- and very low income housing consistent with the requirements of Section 65400. The report shall be provided three times: once, on or before December 31, 2019, which report shall address the initial four years of the housing element cycle, a second time, on or before December 31, 2023, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle, and a third time, on or before December 31, 2027, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle and the cycle as a whole. The reports shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 9795.
(f) A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements for “suburban area” above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is less than 25,000 in which case it shall be considered suburban.
(g)(1) For sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) [non-vacant sites], the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential.

Orinda is considered “suburban” under
this definition.
(g)(1) The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Sites Inventory Details
(g)(1) the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development,
Section 5.4 Sites Appropriate for
Lower-Income Housing
(g)(1) the current market demand for the existing use, Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory (g)(1) an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
(g)(1) development trends, Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory (g)(1) market conditions, Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory (g)(1) and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 25 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(g)(2) In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

Chapter 5 Housing Sites Inventory
(g)(3) Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2), sites that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low income, subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or occupied by low or very low income households, shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(h) The program required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 shall accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for very low and low-income households allocated pursuant to Section 65584 for which site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) on sites that shall be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households during the planning period.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(h) These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least
Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 26 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(h) 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(h) shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c)
Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(h) and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b).

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(h) At least 50 percent of the very low and low-income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need on sites designated for mixed uses if those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
(i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583, the phrase “use by right” shall mean that the local government’s review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act.

Action 1.A; Downtown Price Plan
Action 1.B: Housing Opportunity Sites
Action 1.C: Caltrans Gateway Site
Development
Action 1.D: Residential Zoning Districts
and Land Use Designations
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 27 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(i) A local ordinance may provide that “use by right” does not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

The Housing Element is consistent with
this requirement.
(i) Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.

N/A
(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, within one-half mile of a Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit station, housing density requirements in place on June 30, 2014, shall apply.

N/A
D.1.d
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Proposed City Council Resolution 09-23 (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) D.1.g
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (January 13, 2023) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) D.1.g
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (January 13, 2023) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) D.1.g
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (January 13, 2023) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) D.1.g
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (January 13, 2023) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 1 of 6 1.18.2022
TUESDAY, January 18, 2023

CITY OF ORINDA

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair Parnigoni.

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Robert Hubner, Marian Jelinek, John Smith, Willy Mautner and Ann Parnigoni
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lina Lee

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Commissioner Smith made a motion for adoption of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mautner. The motion passed by a unanimous (5-0-1) vote.

3. PUBLIC FORUM
Chair Parnigoni opened the floor to any member of the public wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda.

Caroline Utz asked why many vacancies are at the Theatre Square. Drummond Buckley replied he and the City Manager has met with the property owner with the leasing manager. He added they are struggling with getting and keeping tenants. He said Starbucks is leaving too.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of December 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Hubner made a motion to approve the minutes of December 14, 2022.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mautner and the motion carried by a majority (5-0-1) vote.

Ayes: Hubner, Jelinek, Smith, Mautner and Parnigoni
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Lee
D.1.j
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: DRAFT January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 2 of 6 1.18.2022

5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS – No report.

6. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation for Adoption of Plan Orinda including the Environmental Impact Report, Downtown Precise Plan, 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and Safety Element Update.

RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 23-01 recommending that the City Council:

1. Take the following actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
a. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for Plan Orinda, which includes the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and the Downtown Precise Plan;
b. Adopt Findings under CEQA;
c. Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable;
d. Adopt and incorporate into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project;
e. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, 2.

Adopt the Downtown Precise Plan;

3. Adopt a General Plan Amendment to: (1) Approve the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and (2) Approve the Safety Element Update; and

4. Authorize submittal of the approved 2023-2031 Housing Element Update to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for final certification.

Chair Parnigoni introduced the project.

Leslie Trejo from Rincon, Darin Hughes, Jennifer Gastelum from Placeworks, Cynthia Walsh from Placeworks, Eli Krispi from Placeworks and Drummond Buckley provided the Commission with an overview of the project.

Chair Parnigoni asked for questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Hubner asked for clarification regarding the small site development that was mentioned in correspondence in the packet where staff talked about a particular parcel, and maybe add that to the small sites but it seemed like the small sites questions were only addressing parcels within the Downtown Precise Plan. He asked how does a small site outside of that impact the Housing Element, or is that something we need to consider.

Winnie Mui replied I think Mr. Hubner is asking about the two sites on Rae Drive. Drummond Buckley responded that's different than small sites, and explained small sites has to do with criteria that apply to small sites under certain size in the downtown area and the viability of D.1.j
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: DRAFT January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 3 of 6 1.18.2022
development of those sites. He added that's not what the Rae Drive sites are as one of them is quite small, but the other one is like seven acres.

Drummond Buckley added he believed that property owner is saying is that they want they would like those two sites to be included in as opportunity sites but It's just a little bit late for the city to add sites to be rezone because they were not included in the environmental analysis. He added he wanted to clarify, it's not a small site issue.

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

Nick Waranoff is concerned that the schedule is flawed. He added the Housing Element is due on January 31 yet the proposed schedule is for the City Council to adopt it until the night of January 31. He added Drummond just said it'll be submitted a few days later and stated he is concerned that it will be late.

He said there's no explanation and there's no justification. of why Country Club Plaza DPPS site one through six should have the density higher than the 30 dwelling units per acre elsewhere.

And certainly not to go to 55 dwelling units per acre. This will create a monstrosity at the north end of the village, which is the most beautiful block in Orinda downtown.

He explained the height limit if any of you are familiar at all with the density bonus law, the height limit proposed will be waived virtually as a matter of right under the density bonus law. He said Drummond has already received an email from Sam Greason a broker representing Toll Brothers stating that they're interested in developing that site and invoking the density bonus law. He added we're going to end up there and up with there is a building six or seven stories high based on the 55 dwelling units per acre density. I urge you to protect that block.

Nick Waranoff stated he opposed the Downtown Precise Plan and said there's no need to adopt it prior to the Housing Element. The EIR found that the congestion that would be added by the DPP is a significant and unavoidable impact which cannot be mitigated. He added human life is more important than the objective of the DPP. He said the density in the DPP could be moved to the Caltrans site which is proposed to be underutilized and we could still meet our RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) if we went to 80 units an acre at the Caltrans site and had a lower density downtown and that alternative was not considered in the EIR. The alternative considered in the EIR was to use Bart which would have just as much congestion downtown and an evacuation impact.

Darien Key said he submitted public comment yesterday as Commissioner Hubner noted in support of the city's draft Housing Element, with one minor request that we could add the Rae Drive sites as additional opportunity sites, which is currently listing them under housing update table 5-7. He added the housing element update notes that the inventory must identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the type of development.

He explained the properties are currently completely surrounded by RL-10 zoning and both sites were previously zone residential. He explained in both the general plan and zoning ordinance in the past, one of them has been changed to open space. And those are prime sites to be turned into residences. There would be only minor changes that are needed to the General Plan and zoning.

D.1.j
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: DRAFT January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 4 of 6 1.18.2022
He added public services and facilities already exist since its residential community around them. Additionally, it would have increased the buffer that HCD recommends. And it's currently sitting about 18% in the current draft, so given that surplus, we just wanted to put forth our request. The plan will be to eventually hopefully develop these properties into residences and at least put this forward as an option to potentially get added to that list.

Chair Parnigoni closed the floor the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion.

Drummond Buckley said it looks like a member of the public has raised their hand, so I don't know if you want to open it back up. Chair Parnigoni asked does that create an issue with completely opening it back up. Or just opening it to this one person.

Osa Wolff, City Attorney, said I think Michele Jacobson was a little late on raising her hand, but you could reopen it to allow her to speak. And if somebody else, while the comment period has been reopened, wants to raise their hand to speak and they haven't already, they will be allowed to.

Chair Parnigoni reopened the floor for public comment. A summary of the public comments (not verbatim) are as follows.

Michele Jacobson said she was on the Planning Commission 20 years ago, so I know how it feels to make decisions that affect your community and neighbors. And at that time, we only dealt with single family homes. We didn't have to contend with documents that are guiding the community's future. She believed the Planning Commission was underutilized to expect the City Council members to be experts on planning and design topics along with everything else is just unrealistic. The Council needs to hear the particular perspective of its Planning Commission.

Further to expect the Planning Commission to be a rubber stamp the Council is a very sad waste of talent, knowledge and experience. So, I urge you all to consider whether you as Planning Commissioners, truly believe that the proposed building heights densities zoned uses parking and traffic impacts and are good for this community. A downtown village like character has long been a strong preference by the residents of Orinda.

Consider this question with the understanding that an allowed building height of 45 feet will almost certainly result in a height of 75 feet when density bonus laws are applied. And the density of 55 units an acre, which is already very high can increase significantly using those same laws.

Finally, the EIR concluded that the significant increase in the downtown population proposed by Plan Orinda could substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan for emergency evacuation plan and understand that this conclusion did not assume the increased development allowed the density bonus laws but even so, the impact was determined by the EIR to be significant and unavoidable. One mitigation that wasn't considered was to reduce the number of units downtown and thereby the number of new residents there to a level that pitch the topographic restraints of Orinda.

She said tonight you're being asked to recommend that the City Council adopt a statement of overriding considerations and thereby accept this wildfire related risk to the lives of existing and future Orinda residents. She strongly urged the Planning Commission to not accept the level of D.1.j
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: DRAFT January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 5 of 6 1.18.2022
risk proposed and plan around nor to accept the DPP severe urbanization of Orinda downtown and to decline to recommend adoption of the current plan are into by the City Council.

Chair Parnigoni closed the floor the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion.

Osa Wolff responded to a couple of legal issues raised during public comment. She replied to Mr. Waranoff’ s questions about the concerns about the schedule. January 31, 2023, is the deadline for adoption of the Housing Element by the City. If the City Council adopts by that date, we believe we will be in compliance. The adopted Housing Element will then be sent to HCD and they then have a set amount of time, which she believed is 90 days, but they may act more quickly, to certify the City's Housing Element as compliant. She explained just to reiterate, the January 31 deadline is an adoption deadline.

She noted there was another concern regarding the significant unavoidable environmental impact that was raised both by Mr. Waranoff and Ms. Jacobson. She explained that significant unavoidable impact which the EIR calls out as associated with the project is not specifically associated with development downtown, but for the project as a whole which of course includes several sites.

She added the commenter was correct that the environmental analysis is supposed to look at mitigation that's feasible and alternatives. The environmental impact report has done both of those things. She stated the proposed alternative that Mr. Waranoff suggested was not evaluated in EIR, and the feeling among staff and the consultants is that it is not a feasible one.

She explained they believed based on the feedback received from HCD, it's very unlikely that they would accept that alternative as meeting RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation). And furthermore, it would not carry out the stated goals of the DPP regarding revitalization. And, moreover, we don't think it would effectively mitigate the identified wildfire evacuation issue. So, for those reasons, it's not evaluated the EIR, and we don't recommend that.

She referenced Mr. Key’s comments which is a law firm representing the owner of 3 Rae Drive.

She explained while we did not include those sites in the environmental analysis, and as Mr.

Buckley points out, it's now too late to make that sort of change. The applicant is of course free to apply to the City for a general plan amendment and zoning change. She added just because it's not part of this housing element, does not mean those sites can't be considered for housing.

It just would be through a different process that they can commence if that's what they'd like to do.

Commissioner Hubner complimented the team for a fantastic job of putting in a very thorough and comprehensive document for us to review. He added a lot of work has gone into this and thinks it should be recognized.

Chair Parnigoni second Commissioner Hubner comments. She added also what a long process this has been and it hasn't been something that came about in the last couple of weeks and there have been so many meetings with the public and meetings we've had with the Planning Commission. She said the City Council had this has been a very long, inclusive process and I really commend them for how they've conducted.

Commissioner Hubner concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Mautner on how this has been a tremendous process, and we've as a group been involved with many of the steps along the way. He expressed why his personal reservation with the DPP has always been D.1.j
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: DRAFT January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Page 6 of 6 1.18.2022
the density issues at the point where the old 1920s bridge is located, and as was mentioned by one of the comments from the public, that Geppetto’s caffe area of Orinda, and that tree line view across the street to the to the golf course.

He added the overriding concerns of trying to manage and organize the development of downtown improvements will be beneficial in the long run have kind of outweighed some of those anxieties of that particular item of the DPP. He is anxious about it, but recognize that people of Orinda will thrive and succeed in the long run and comply with the law that's been given to us by the state. He added these are difficult but necessary decisions and he fully supports the resolution and the efforts that have gone into what we are now voting on. He thanked the staff and the consultants for their hard work.

ACTION: Commissioner Hubner made a motion to approve Resolution 23-01 with the attendant text.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mautner and the motion carried by unanimous (5-0-1) vote as follows:

Ayes: Hubner, Jelinek, Smith, Mautner and Parnigoni
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Lee
Commissioner Hubner thanked Drummond for the very well put together comments in regarding the Cal Tran site, which was extremely difficult. He added it has been extremely difficult in the minds of a lot of folks but your response and your categoric answers to the concerns, in particular transit and or a better way to link that site. Beyond the car, getting on the freeway, alleviated a tremendous amount of my concerns, and I want to thank you that for that particular slide.

7. OTHER COMMISSION MATTERS – No report.

8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS – No report.

9. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S UPDATE – Drummond Buckley said there are no SB9 approvals since the last meeting.

10. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Chair Parnigoni to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 pm. The next Planning Commission meeting will be Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:00 pm by teleconference via zoom webinar.
1611142.1
D.1.j
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: DRAFT January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 22 ORINDA WAY, ORINDA, CA 94563
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE – RECEIVED PRIOR TO JANUARY 18, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Name
Ross Bernet
Chris Chelberg
Will Finch
Paul
Rosa Grundig
Andrew Collins
Rohit Sarathy
Steve Spiker
Kevin Diggs
East Bay for Everyone
Nick Waranoff
Caryn Graves
Lizzie Siegle
Gina Gotsill
Elizabeth Porter
Courtney Coon
AJ Cho
Nick Waranoff
Alfred Twu
Shreyas Parthasarathy
Max Davis
Sarah Bell
Bret Peterson
Shahin Saneinejad
Eric Johnson
Tommaso Sciortino
David Stanislowski
Seth Mazow
Allison Bakke
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Randall O’Connor
John Calmeyer
Beatrice Winslow
Gabriela IIabaca
Cynthia Walsh
Kevin Burke
Darien Key
Kevin Burke
Michele Jacobson
Andy Lynch
Chris Lu
Nick Waranoff
Nick Waranoff
Cynthia Walsh
Caroline Utz
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Ross Bernet
To: Orinda Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Oppose Caltrans gateway parcel
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2023 3:18:06 PM
Can we please produce housing near transit (at the BART station for example!) that provides potential new residents with access to transit and a little dignity.

It’s shameful to propose new housing so cutoff from the community.

A concerned Nearby resident,
Ross Bernet
Sent from my iPhone
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Chris Chelberg
To: Orinda Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2023 4:28:04 PM
Hi there,
I’m writing in opposition to siting new housing, especially low income housing at the Caltrans Gateway parcel. New housing should be near public transit - say at or near the BART station instead of on this inaccessible, fire endangered site.

Thanks.

Best,
Chris Chelberg
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Will Finch
To: Orinda Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2023 9:12:44 PM
Hello,
I wanted to write to express my opposition to the Caltrans owned property site for housing. Please choose a site near transit (BART) rather than sequestering low income housing isolated from all other neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Will Finch
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Paul
To: Orinda Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Sunday, January 8, 2023 12:41:24 AM
People deserve better than the low income housing development proposed. It is blatant class segregation, with all the harmful effects—especially health disparities due to proximity to a freeway. Whoever waved this through should be ashamed!
The proposed program of a shuttle service (sure to be cancelled by the HOA as soon as they legally can), and pointing out that people could walk/bike an extra two miles (uphill!) out of the way to get to town are not solutions. You should know better! D.1.k
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Sheri Smith
To: Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; David Biggs
Subject: FW: Resending with corrected email address Re: Housing Element Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 9:15:22 AM
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:07 AM Rosa Grundig-Hürlimann <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Council,
An Orinda resident for over 40 years, I have long been concerned with the lack of affordable housing.

I am glad this issue is being addressed now. However, high-density housing needs to be situated close to public transportation and the downtown.

Therefore, please use a site near the BART station and rezone as necessary.

Thank you for your invaluable work.

Sincerely,
Rosa Grundig
24 Donna Maria Way
Orinda CA 94563
c 925-708-9109
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Andrew Collins
To: Orinda Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:58:34 PM
Dear neighbors,
I like Orinda a lot and think that downtown would be a hundred times better if it increased walkability and density. The proposed low income housing near the Caldecott Tunnel is an embarrassing, perhaps even bad-faith effort to address the affordability crisis affecting every part of California.

Businesses across the Bay Area (and nation) are struggling to hire retail, hospitality, and customer service roles because so many people are priced out of their communities by ludicrous rent prices. I don’t think Orinda businesses will be helped at all by isolated affordable units whose residents are told to buy a car, bicycle along Hwy 24, or walk miles out of their way if they want to take a job in downtown. This rationale—‘think of the small-tomedium business owners’—is only one of many arguments to be made, of course.

Please build affordable housing downtown. Build it at BART. Build where it serves the greater community, not where it does the bare minimum to address the crisis immiserating us all.

Pleadingly,
Andrew Collins
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Rohit Sarathy
To: Orinda Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Opposed to Caltrans Gateway Parcel in Orinda
Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 11:04:23 PM
To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposed location of the new Housing Element.

The location of the 200 housing units relegates residents to a corner isolated from every other neighborhood in Orinda. As a result, the modal share will be practically 100% private automobile, which disenfranchises low income residents that are more likely to favor public transportation as a means for mobility instead.

Nearby destinations such as grocery stores, schools, and restaurants are a 3+ mile commute from the proposed location with a 300 ft elevation gain. This discourages residents from biking to and from downtown.

While the neighboring Wilder HOA has the option to extend its BART shuttle to the proposed location, there are also provisions for the HOA to cancel the service in 18 months.

This proposal does not advance fair and equitable housing. Please reconsider the location of the Housing Element, perhaps in a much more adjacent area to other neighborhoods, amenities, and BART.

The Orinda BART station is flanked by more than 10 acres of surface parking lots. With the passing of AB 2097 and abolishment of parking minimums near major transit interchanges, it would serve as a much better location for an infill housing development or the new Housing Element.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Neighbor
Rohit Sarathy
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Spike
To: Orinda Planning; [email protected]
Subject: Oppose Caltrans Gateway parcel
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 12:30:11 PM
Dear Orinda planning team & HCD,
I'm an affordable housing advocate who lives and owns in Moraga, I want more housing in the Lamorinda area but the plan by the City of Orinda to dump lower income residents out along the freeway is a cynical, dehumanizing plan that should be rejected. The location is completely isolated from public transit, shopping facilities and any useful community services. All of Wilder is private and inaccessible.

Having taken my life in my hands and ridden down the freeway each way once before, it's disingenuous that your plan suggests this as an option. There are so many vehicle accidents on those stretches, it's a death trap for cyclists.

Build housing by BART. Make it make sense. Do the right thing here, this development is not an honest solution with any integrity. I would support affordable housing next door to me, anytime, anywhere, we need it, and we can do better than this plan.

Steve Spiker
stevespiker.com
stealingbeautyphotography.com
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Keith Diggs
To: Orinda Planning; [email protected]
Subject: YIMBY Law comment on Orinda"s latest draft housing element Date: Thursday, January 12, 2023 4:55:14 PM
Attachments: 221110 CFHE_YL Letter to Orinda.pdf
Hello,
As we wrote in November (see attached), we still do not believe that the City of Orinda's proposed CalTrans Gateway site (draft housing element, pp.211-12) is feasible for development. In order for the housing element to accomplish the objectives of the statute, the City should allow an additional 200 units of lower-income capacity by upzoning the places in Orinda where, unlike the Gateway site, people currently live.

Keith Diggs ♂
Legal Manager
703-409-5198
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of Orinda
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
November 10, 2022
Re: Orinda’s Revised Draft Housing Element
To the City of Orinda:

YIMBY Law disputes that “[t]he City is in compliance with SB 9.” (Revised Draft Housing Element, p.215; see also id. p.191.) As the City admits on its website, “the City Council has adopted an ordinance that does not permit an ADU … on a parcel that is created through an SB 9 lot split.” But according to HCD guidance, “SB 9 and ADU Law [citations] are complementary,” and “ADUs can be combined with primary units … to achieve the [four-unit] maximum … under SB 9.” (Pp.5–6.) The city must commit to allow ADUs on SB 9 lots in its housing element.

We also share East Bay for Everyone’s concern (pp.2–3) that the Caltrans Gateway Site Development (Draft, p.211–12) is not feasible for development. The City’s program should designate 200 extra units (see id. p.164)—now, not in 2026—by upzoning the places in Orinda where, unlike the Gateway site, people currently live.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Winnie Mui and Drummond Buckley
Orinda Planning Department
22 Orinda Way, 1st Floor
Orinda, CA 94563
Summary
- Caltrans Gateway parcel would be 200 low-income homes more than a half mile from any other Orinda residential parcel. It does not advance fair housing and should be removed. - Housing at BART is feasible if Orinda commits to the same level of effort it plans to put into development of the Gateway parcels. Orinda should listen to its residents, who also ask for BART TOD, and commit to adding housing on part of the BART parking lots. - Orinda should adopt a missing middle program to permit some more affordable units in single family zones.
- A large percentage of RL-6 "opportunity sites" are incorrectly marked as vacant, or have questionable assumptions about affordability, and are not suitable sites for housing.

Honorable Members of the Orinda Planning Department and Orinda City Council:

We appreciate that you have incorporated our feedback on the last draft. We are still concerned that the draft contains a number of questionable sites and does not advance fair housing.

5.1 Sites Inventory
The Caltrans Gateway parcel is an inappropriate site for housing and especially low income housing. This parcel is separated from the rest of Orinda by a freeway and the next closest non-low-income home is over a half mile away. It is in a Very High Severity fire zone. The residents will breathe brake exhaust and tire particulates from 8 lanes of traffic. This site would have close to 100% of its trips to and from via private car.

Site will not be competitive for low-income funding
Funding applications for low income housing score sites based in part on their proximity to amenities. This site will not score well. This site has only one amenity (a park) across the freeway and everything else is at least a mile away. A Bay Area nonprofit housing developer we spoke with said, “we wouldn’t touch this site in an RFP.”
East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 Orinda should provide evidence that atleast one nonprofit developer would consider bidding on an RFP before including this site in the Housing Element.

Orinda’s comments on site access
Our last letter
1 noted that this parcel is only accessible via the freeway, which would require residents to have cars or pay for cabs to get around. In response, Orinda makes a number of very speculative arguments:
2 - Residents can ride their bikes on Highway 24: There is no separation between the freeway shoulder and cars going 70mph. It is an uncomfortable, loud, and dangerous ride for the most experienced bike riders, let alone children under 16 or people who may not be able to afford or drive a car. The freeway shoulder also disappears on both Camino Pablo onramps. - Residents can walk or ride to Moraga Road: This adds 2 miles and 300 feet elevation gain to any trip. There are no bike lanes on the route between Moraga Road and Gateway. The Safeway in Downtown Orinda is 1.1 miles as the crow flies, but 3.5 miles via this route, the only bike/ped route to downtown. It is not realistic to suggest people will use this for everyday trips.
- Gateway site may have shuttle access: The HOA across the freeway, for a community of 200 single family homes worth $2-4m each, is supposed to offer a BART shuttle as part of the development agreement. The HOA is currently out of compliance on the developer agreement. It is speculative to suggest the HOA will agree to run 1) a shuttle, 2) a shuttle to the Gateway parcel. The HOA also has the right to cancel the shuttle after 18 months of operation.

Decertification istoo low a standard for mid-cycle review Orinda commits to a mid-cycle review of its low income housing inventory if Caltrans does not decertify the parcel by 2026.
3 Caltrans has already told Orinda it has no plans for this parcel; decertification is the easy part of developing the site. If Caltrans decertifies the site but Orinda cannot attract developer interest or does not make any concrete plans to use the site, Orinda essentially gets to skip the need to site 200 low income apartments.

If this site remains in the inventory, Orinda must use bids on an RFP (step 5) as the threshold for a mid-cycle review, instead of the much lower “decertification”threshold. We believe affordable housing developers will share our concerns about this site and may not bid on an RFP. If that happens, low income residents should not be left in the lurch.

Site will not have community support
3 Page 159 by the on-page numbers, page 171 of the PDF. 2 Page 158-159 via the on-page numbers, pages 170-171 of the PDF. 1 https://eastbayforeveryone.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-11-10-orinda-second-draft.pdf East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 While we advocate strongly for low-income housing on more feasible sites in Orinda and throughout the East Bay, we would likely not support an application for development on this location at the time of a Planning Commission or City Council vote. Given Orinda’s lack of history developing low income projects of this size we are concerned that a certified Housing Element including this site will mean housing here exists only on paper.

Contingencies
The Gateway site does not advance fair housing and should not be in the inventory. One of our volunteers compared it to the creation of a new Marin City in 2023. However, if Orinda is committed to keeping it and HCD will certify a Housing Element that includes it, the following conditions must be met:

1. Change threshold for mid-cycle RHNA recycling from “Caltrans fails to decertify” (step 2 on page 159) to “RFP not submitted, or RFP exists and no bids received” (step 5).

2. At least one nonprofit developer telling the City of Orinda they would consider bidding on an RFP for this site

3. The Wilder HOA developer agreement should be amended to require shuttle pick up at the Gateway site.

4. Orinda should commit to operating the BART shuttle on an ongoing basis, ie. no shut down after 18 months.

5. The “Quarry House,” a fitness center and pool currently open only to Wilder HOA residents, must permit access to Gateway residents. This is one of the only amenities within walking distance of the Gateway parcel, will help the application score better, and will help ensure low income residents are not segregated from the rest of Orinda’s population.

Orinda should put housing at BART instead
On its BART parking lots, Orinda has a site that is much richer in amenities as well as an agency that is very interested in adding affordable housing. Compared with the Gateway parcel which would be almost 100% car mode share, a substantial number of trips from housing at BART would be expected to be completed by car, bike, or public transit. These would help Orinda reduce its average carbon footprint. We are extremely disappointed that Orinda continuesto discourage development of these parcels.

For the Gateway site, Orinda is clearly interested in working with Caltrans and sponsoring decertification to make that site feasible. We are very confused why they are unwilling to put in the same amount of effort to work with Caltrans on decertifying the BART parking lots, which are a much more desirable housing site.

The objections raised by Orinda all seem surmountable."It is assumed that BART would request that both parking lots are considered together as one"for example could be resolved with a phone call or meeting with BART about what they’d find acceptable. Similarly, concerns about parking East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 4 could be resolved by asking BART if they were willing to preserve some surface parking (for example north of Camino Pablo and under the power lines) at least for development that occurs this decade.

A BART letter submitted to Concord on the same topic - Housing Element inclusion - on July 25 makes clear that BART is willing to work with cities that are “committed to working closely with BART” and provide dedicated staff time. The letter did not mention anything about a requirement to develop the entire site all at once. What BART is asking for is a commitment similar in scope to what Orinda says it is prepared to do for the Gateway property. 4 Orinda’s complaints about a lack of development standards precluding development at BART also ring hollow because Orinda is concurrently updating its Downtown Precise Plan which lays out a wide range of development standards for parcels on both sides of BART. The development standards could easily be extended to apply to the BART parcels. Orinda has discussed the possibility of BART TOD since at least 2012. We are concerned that failure to include BART will result in further talk and no action. Now is the time to take action on these parcels. 4 First comment available at
https://stream.ci.concord.ca.us/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/Supporting%20Docum ent%20for%20-%205%20-%20ATTACHMENT%205%20-%20PUBLIC%20COMMENTS%20SINCE%20JU NE%2025.pdf?meetingId=924&documentType=Agenda&itemId=15591&publishId=18272&isSection=fals e
East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 5 Whatever Orinda is saying in its Housing Element about the BART parcels, the “Guiding Policies” for its draft Downtown Precise Plan
5 as of January 10, 2023 state that a “guiding policy” for the BART lots is “Limit development at the Orinda BART station to ground level and underground parking.” It could say, for example, “Pursue opportunities for housing at this site,” or “Come up with a plan to move/underground power lines,” but instead the plan precludes the possibility of development altogether.

By refusing to put housing at BART, Orinda is not listening to its community. At an April 19, 2022 City Council meeting, Orinda received about 80 items of public correspondence 6 from residents,
many of which asked Orinda to build housing at BART.

Comment 1 - BART is “the most rational” place for dense multifamily housing.

Comment 3 - Include BART in the Housing Element.

Comment 4 - Include BART in the Housing Element.

Comment 5 - Realtor. “The City Council should reconsider putting housing on the BART lots… We need to do it now.” “The demand for ‘walk to town and BART’ properties has become one of the top 5 requests from buyers.”
Comment 9 - Why isn’t BART included? That area “could be revitalized.” Comment 11 -“There is plenty of land at Orinda BART.”
Comment 13 -“INCLUDE BART IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT”
Comment 14 - Include the BART parking lots in the Housing Element.

Comment 16 - “The BART property is the perfect location for concentrated housing.” Comment 17 - “BART SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT!” Comment 18 - “We find it hard to understand why Orinda does not build high density housing near BART”
Comment 19 - “High-density housing makes sense at BART, where it is close to shopping and public transportation”
Comment 20 - “we need infill development, especially within walking distance (½ mile or less) to transit stations”
Comment 22 - “why would the City Council not put housing on BART parking like so many other cities are proposing.”
Comment 23 - Support for another commenter who asked to put BART in the Housing Element Comment 24 -“Orinda Watch,” a neighborhood community group, wants to put BART in the Housing Element
6 http://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=1642&Inline=True 5 https://www.planorinda.com/downtown-precise-plan#DraftDPP East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 6 Comment 26 - “The BART parking lot and adjacent area would be excellent candidates [for housing]”
The non-summarized comments were about other topics (ie, not opposed to BART housing). There are 40 more comments also expressing support for BART housing. Orinda should listen to its residents and plan for dense housing at BART.

Downtown core
Orinda should rezone the entire downtown core for 55-60 DUA. We do not understand the rationale for some downtown sites to receive a 55 DUA density while adjacent parcels do not. In particular, three parcels that are currently gas stations and 25-30 DUA should receive a high density (and lower parking) in order to increase the chance of redevelopment (and help accelerate a climate transition, by encouraging redevelopment as a non-gasoline use).

ADUs
Orinda’s median family income is $324,649, almost triple the Contra Costa County median family income. It is not appropriate for Orinda to use the ABAG estimates of ADU affordability (48 out of 80 ADU’s are assumed to be rented at Very Low or Low incomes), because Orinda is so much wealthier than the average ABAG community. HCD’s recent letter to Atherton also expressed skepticism about similar low income ADU calculations.
7 Orinda could for example cite current
rental rates for ADU’s in town to justify its conclusions.

5.1/Appendix 1, Table A-1, Moderate/Above Moderate Site Capacity RL-6 sites
We remain skeptical about many of the RL-6 sites that Orinda is including in the Sites Inventory.

Every site that contains more than one unit requires discretionary Planning Commission approval of a subdivision. Orinda does not describe the process for obtaining a subdivision or the likelihood that the Planning Commission will grant one to applicants. These may hinder the ability to achieve the proposed densities.

New single family homesin Orinda are not affordable at “moderate” income levels Orinda assumes 114 homes in RL-6 parcels will be affordable to residents making “moderate” incomes, which in Contra Costa County is around $99,000. Using the Zillow search tool, we cannot find a single family home built in Orinda since 2017 that sold for less than $1.9 million. The monthly mortgage payment on a $1.9 million single family home would be about $8,400 per month or $100,800 per year.
8 After making this mortgage payment a household making a “moderate” income would have negative $1800 per year for all other necessities like food, utilities, and property tax payments.
8 Using the mortgage calculator on Bankrate.com, assuming 30 year fixed rate, 20% down and the best possible credit.
7 https://atherton.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=247&type=2 East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 7 Orinda should provide justification for its “moderate” income assumption, evidence that new construction in the RL-6 zone is affordable to moderate incomes, or assume that all new RL-6 homes are affordable to “above moderate” incomes only.

Alternatively, Orinda could permit fourplexes in this zone, which likely would be affordable to moderate incomes.

Orinda says nonvacantsites are vacant and includes other infeasible sites We did not have time to examine the whole list, but here is a sample of sites Orinda is including.

None of these sites are feasible for inclusion.

Parcel 270470002 is described as "unbuildable"in the county parcel database. 99% of the parcel by land area is located in Moraga, which is why the acreage is reported as 0.00 acres. We don't understand how Orinda can count one home here.

Parcel 271020013: is described as "unbuildable"in the county parcel database, likely because it contains a driveway to an adjoining parcel. The remainder of this site is landscaped. It should not be described as "vacant" and Orinda should provide evidence the use will discontinue during the planning period.

Parcel 262043019: This site is not vacant, there is an existing single family home covering part of the structure. Orinda should include evidence the use will discontinue or that the existing owner has plans to build housing here.

Parcel 264130007: This 0.07 acre parcel is owned by Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. It appears to be occupied by some sort of utility facility so is not vacant. Orinda should describe the property owner’s plans to discontinue the existing use and comply with the Surplus Land Act.

Parcel 264091006: Described as “unbuildable” in the County database, site has no road access, was acquired in 2022 for $2000 which is far below the going rate for buildable single family lots.

Parcel 262042019: Appears to be being used as a backyard for the house up the hill, no evidence the use will discontinue.

Parcel 260012001: Triangle shaped, steep parcel described as “unbuildable” and is not vacant because it includes a tennis court. No evidence the use will discontinue or adjacent property owner is interested in adding a unit.

Parcel 267020005: 60 acre parcel marked as “agricultural preserve” in the County database, which means the owner receives tax benefits for preserving it under the Williamson Act. Has had same owner since 1981. No evidence that the owner is interested in building housing now.

We could easily go on, but we feel we have demonstrated the point. Likely 20-60% of the sites in this table are infeasible and/or are not actually vacant. Inclusion of sites marked as “unbuildable” or that are in other cities suggest that Orinda has not actually vetted the list of homes in this table. 3 and 7 Rae Drive
East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 8 The owner of these parcels asked for them to be included in the Housing Element. 9 This site is
walking distance to a fitness club and parkland as well as elementary, middle and high schools. This is an ideal location for “missing middle” housing and Orinda should consider rezoning these parcels for 15 density units/acre.

4.11 Fair Housing
Orinda excludes all of its single family zones from the Housing Element. Orinda notes that many areas in the town were covered by racial covenants before 1968, but does not propose making housing more feasible or more affordable on any single family parcel that has racial covenants in the CC&R’s.

Orinda should adoptthe missing middle program from San Ramon, which proposes rezoning several single family areas for 15 DUA with a goal of adding 50 units. 10 It is currently legal to build
very large homes throughout Orinda for one family only, but not legal for multiple, less wealthy families to share a building with the same footprint but 2/3/4 kitchens. Given existing race and wealth gaps in Contra Costa County, as well as Orinda’s past history of excluding nonwhite residents, a zoning code that permits mansions but not fourplexes does not advance fair housing.

Educational Opportunities
The document fails to include recent context on racial bias in Orinda. From 2010 to 2015, the Orinda school district hired a private investigator to determine whether seven students lived in the school district or not
11 . A seven-year-old daughter of a Latina live-in nanny was kicked out of Orinda schools and forced into school in Bay Point. Of the seven students investigated, only two were White, despite Orinda being an overwhelmingly White area. Many suspect that the Orinda school district was investigating minority students based on their race. This is a constraint to diversifying Orinda and a reason why people of color may not want to move there.

6.2 Governmental Constraints
Parking
Mandatory parking minimums increase pollution, increase building heights, increase the cost of apartments by $50k-150k per space, make ground floor retail less viable, and increase driving, which increases the risk of fatal collisions involving cyclists or pedestrians. Orinda should commit 11 https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/11/27/orinda-district-hires-private-investigator-kicks-live-in-nannys -daughter-out-of-school/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/01/09/orinda-school-district-hired-private-investigators-for-seven-r esidency-issues/
10 “Program 18” here:
https://www.sanramon.ca.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20City/Departments/Comm unity%20Development/Planning/General%20Plan%202040%20Update/Revised%20San%20Ramon%20H E%20(December%202022).pdf
9 http://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=1721&Inline=True East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 9 to waiving parking minimums throughout the downtown core, which will help promote a walkable, bikeable city, the availability of ground floor retail, shorter buildings, and more affordable apartments. Developers can always choose to add parking, they just would no longer be required to.

At the time of writing Northern California is in the middle of a rain storm that has been brought on by unusual weather patterns from a warming climate. Statewide, one of the biggest obstacles to meeting our climate goals is achieving reductions in the amount of driving. Asking developers to subsidize the inclusion of new parking spaces does not help shift mode share away from cars and toward walking, scootering, cycling, or taking public transit.

HCD’s letter asks Orinda to commit to specific parking revisions by a specific date. Orinda commits to reducing minimums for one bedroom apartments but should also specify reductions for 2-3 bedroom apartments and the downtown core.

Setbacksin RH-40 zone
Orinda commits to a 50 foot height limit in its new RH-40 zone, which we appreciate. Other development standards such as FAR and setbacks will also play a role in the feasibility of development. Orinda should specify its planned setback requirements for this zone (we think zero or 5 feet is good, especially in the downtown core). A zero front setback will encourage walking, which should reduce car dependence and reduce Orinda's impact on a warming climate.

SB 9 implementation on “small and narrow lots” isillegal On "small and narrow lots," Orinda restricts SB 9 units to 200 square feet maximum. 12 Orinda cannot find any basis in law for restricting SB 9 units to this size on these parcels. The rationale given in the planning code for this limitation is "to reflect Orinda's semi-rural character and the visual context of the neighborhood" which is neither an objective rationale nor a standard related to health and safety.
13 Checklist bullet 7 requires the total lot area to be below a maximum FAR which again may preclude development of a 800 square foot unit under SB 9 rules and also cannot find any basis in state law.

Orinda should amend its SB 9 ordinance to remove these restrictions as part of its Housing Element.

Design Guidelines
13 https://library.municode.com/ca/orinda/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.30DERE_17.30 .8SPDEREMANALO
12 See checklist bullet 6 here:
https://www.cityoforinda.org/DocumentCenter/View/3639/SB-9-Lot-Split-Application?bidId= East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 10 Orinda continues to list non-objective standards as mandatory design review findings, including “compatibility… with its surroundings,” “design elements are visually harmonious,” “balances the sensitivity of its design.” Orinda describes a process by which neighbors can request design review.

While we are encouraged that Orinda eliminated its Design Review Board, and limited the number of buildings subject to design review, these criteria are not legally enforceable on “housing development projects,” which include any application to build more than one unit. 14 The Housing
Accountability Act was passed because the housing crisis is an urgent matter of statewide concern, and requiring subjective findings is a way to stall, increase the cost of, or prevent the construction of new housing.

Orinda describes a program to adopt objective multifamily design standards for all housing development projects, which we appreciate.

Orinda should clarify whether any “housing development projects” are or could be subject to design review, or whether they are limited to like-for-like redesigns (teardowns, remodels, additions).

Disputes relating to light, air and views between neighboring properties are best resolved with the purchase (or non-purchase) of an easement, which could be purchased by a property owner to preserve views or light in situations where those infringe on a neighbor’s development rights. 15 Neighbors frequently disagree over, and have private mechanisms for resolving, disputes over things like trees, runoff, trash, and animal waste. We do not understand why Orinda’s Design Review should get involved in a private dispute between neighbors.

7.2 Goals, Policies and Actions
Action 1.J: We do not understand why this will take three years to implement; this should be completed by the end of 2023.

Public Participation
We appreciate that the Orinda planning department read our previous letters and incorporated feedback from them. We look forward to continuing to engage with Orinda throughout the Housing Element process.

Signed,
The 2500 members of East Bay for Everyone
15 For example, an easement could forbid the construction of a building above a certain height, or construction on a certain part of the lot.
14 Page 6:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/hcd-me mo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf
East Bay for Everyone - [email protected]
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Brandyn Iverson; Janet Riley; Latika Malkani Cc: David Biggs; Sheri Smith; Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; Orinda Planning; Ann Parnigoni; John Smith; Willy Mautner; Robert Hubner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek
Subject: RE: Housing Element and DPP: Reflections on Council"s meeting Tuesday January 10, 2023 and thoughts re upcoming Planning Comm meeting January 18, 2023
Date: Friday, January 13, 2023 9:29:58 PM
Don’t be confused by the first line, referring to a “draft email.” I sometime, as I did in this case, draft an email before sending it. I forgot to delete the first line when I sent it.

From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 2:56 PM
To: 'Inga Miller' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee'' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Latika Malkani' <[email protected]> Cc: 'David Biggs' <[email protected]>; 'Sheri Smith' <[email protected]>; 'dbuckley' <[email protected]>; 'Winnie Mui' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: Housing Element and DPP: Reflections on Council's meeting Tuesday January 10, 2023 and thoughts re upcoming Planning Comm meeting January 18, 2023 Draft email to council after Jan. 10, 2023 meeting re DPP I have a few criticisms of the council’s handling of the DPP at its meeting on Jan. 10, 2023.

My biggest criticism is that there was no substantive discussion of the policies and choices reflected or implied in the DPP. No councilmember had a single comment about any specific aspect of the DPP. Am I to assume you all consider the DPP to be perfect?
Rather than discuss the basis policies, or specific aspects -- at a meeting advertised as seeking feedback – the DPP was approached as if it were a binary choice: either approve 100% of the staff’s proposed DPP or approve nothing, even though as staff stated, there was no deadline.

The council could have and should have discussed the policies and choices.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Councilmember Iverson’s notion of playing offense vs. defense was unhelpful.

The city is playing offense by preparing both a Housing Element and a DPP.

The HE covers more than downtown; it addresses housing at sites throughout the city, including but not limited to sites in the DPP. The HE includes the Caltrans site, church sites south of downtown, and literally hundreds of other sites. The DPP only covers downtown, and isn’t limit to housing. They overlap. One isn’t “offense” and one isn’t “defense.”
Here is a list of some of the policy decisions/choices contained in the DPP that were and still are worthy of discussion.

1. How much housing do we actually want downtown? Early discussions about downtown “revitalization” focused on retail and restaurants, with some discussion of adding housing. The magnitude of housing units then proposed was much less than currently contemplated.
a. Recognizing the likely reality of density bonus projects (the EPS study found that only density bonus projects were likely feasible), how much housing are we reasonably likely to end up with? b. Should more housing be designated for the CalTrans parcel (and such housing be mixed income, not just lower income) and less downtown to reduce the traffic jam that will occur in the event of an emergency evacuation, and for other reasons such as parking and traffic?
c. Should more affordable housing be designated for the large church sites south of downtown, where it is most likely to actually be built?

2. At the start of the DPP presentation, Drummond mentioned surveys showing that residents wanted to preserve the village character. How does the DPP do that, given the increases in density and heights beyond what is needed for the HE?

3. What kind of housing do we want? There was mention of residents wanting to downsize. How does the DPP further that goal? There are no requirements that a project contain any specific percentage of studios, one bedroom, two bedroom, etc. Nor any requirements re size of units.

4. Why are there two (or three) different zones: Downtown Core, Downtown General, and Downtown General Enhanced. (Packet Pgs. 151- 152.)
a. Why is the north end of the Village – the most beautiful block downtown, and the furthest from BART – designated for the highest density and height?
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) b. Generally, why is density and height lower closer to BART?

5. My plan, which I think is better, is attached. The “read me” tab has the key inputs.

Nick Waranoff
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 1 Julie Tamayo
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Ann Parnigoni; John Smith; Willy Mautner; Robert Hubner; Lina Lee; Marian Jelinek Cc: Orinda Planning; Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Brandyn Iverson; Janet Riley; Latika Malkani Subject: FW: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 -- opposition to resolution adopting DPP Attachments: Nick's Plan B housing element using only sites likely to be redeveloped.xlsx; Blackwell to Lafayette re density bonus law.pdf
Also, the EIR failed to consider an alternative of lower density downtown, WITHOUT BART. Per my spreadsheet.

Re density bonus law: Councilmember IVERSON wanted a real life example of density bonus law in action. This is a real, on the ground example of how density bonus, waivers, height increases, etc. work. And it puts to rest the BS from our city manager, Biggs, about low height limits from construction above podium.

See pp 10-12. Height goes from 35 to 63 feet.
https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=23&event_id=1048&meta_id=158938 From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:36 PM
To: 'Orinda Planning' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]>; 'Winnie Mui' <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Jan. 18, 2023 ‐‐ opposition to resolution adopting DPP I oppose the resolution adopting the DPP for these reasons:

A. Per EIR: “Finding: The City finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measure WFR-1, congestion induced from additional residents at these Housing Element Sites during an evacuation may be reduced. However, it is not possible to ensure that the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, despite implementation of mitigation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, Plan Orinda that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to the extent feasible. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.” In fact, the City could reduce density downtown below the density proposed in the DPP, and thereby further mitigate this risk, and still meet its RHNA. See attached D.1.k
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 2 spreadsheet. Start with the read me tab. The spreadsheet is based on a spreadsheet provided to me by Ms. Mui, with only inputs changed.

The 10 acre CalTrans site across from Wilder should be an 80 d.u./acre, mixed income, mixed use site so that a small village with local amenities can be developed there, including a cleaner, casual restaurant, small pharmacy, etc.

It is reckless to adopt the DPP as proposed with its significant wildfire risk.

B. The single biggest flaw of the DPP is that it ignores the Density Bonus Law and impliedly assumes that the density, height, and design limits and standards are enforceable. In fact, under the Density Bonus Law, developers will obtain, virtually as a matter of right, greater density, higher height, and will be able to ignore step-back requirements for upper floors.

1. The density and height limits, and step-backs for upper floors (included in the Objective Design Standards [“ODS”]) impliedly assume, incorrectly, that these limits and requirements will be enforceable. In fact, under the Density Bonus Law, the density and height limits will be substantially increased, and any step-back requirement will be waived virtually as a matter of right. As a result, the DPP presents an unrealistic, unduly rosy picture of what a redeveloped downtown would look like. Worse, these densities and heights will become the base from which they are increased under the density bonus law. If the purpose of the DPP is propose the densities and heights that are the goals, then the DPP needs to set lower limits, so that when a developer presents a project and obtains increases, the end point will be the desired densities and heights. The higher you start, the higher you end up.
a. The EPS Economic Feasibility study determined that only Density Bonus projects were “likely feasible.” See Figure 6 on page 13 here
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo
b. Under the Density Bonus Law, a developer can obtain unlimited waivers, which can waive height limits. See https://www.meyersnave.com/california-densitybonus-law-2022-update/ and within that doc, the hyperlink to the more general analysis, copied here: https://www.meyersnave.com/wpcontent/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2022.pdf c. Step-backs are also subject to waiver. See page 5, Section II, C, of the attached letter to Lafayette. Yet step-backs of upper floors above 35 feet are a key aspect of the ODS.
d. Therefore, the likely densities and heights (without step-backs) will exceed the DPP.
e. Here is a real, on the ground example of how density bonus, waivers, height increases, etc. work. See pp 10-12 at this link, showing how despite a height limit of 35, the project will be 63 feet
high. https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=23&event_id=1048 &meta_id=158938 [developer did agree to some step-backs]. This project also D.1.k
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) 3 puts to rest the notion, stated by our city manager, Biggs, and others, regarding practical height limits from construction above podium. f. A better DPP would generally set 20 d.u./acre and 35 feet as the limits throughout downtown. These would mitigate the increases under the density bonus law. I have shown that our RHNA can be met by doing so, with a sizeable buffer. See attached spreadsheet. It has a “read me” tab that explains what it contains. g. Note: there is no algorithm that links densities and heights. Merely reducing the height limit to retain the current 35 foot limit will NOT be sufficient, as the Lafayette experience cited above demonstrates.
h. The concept of separate zones is outdated in light of AB2011, which allows residential construction as of right in any commercial zone. Moreover, the areas closest to the freeway and BART should have higher density and heights, not lower. Yet the DPP proposes the greatest density at the north end of the Village – furthest from BART – and the lowest density closest to BART. Perhaps the area closest to the freeway and BART could be a different zone from the rest of downtown with higher density and height.

2. The DPP’s assumptions about mixed-use, including “horizontal” mixed use, fail to reflect the reality of AB2011, effective January 1, 2023. A city can not require mixed use. A developer can build a residential project anywhere that commercial is specified, and the city cannot require more than half of the ground floor to be retail. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220A B2011 AB2011 can be challenging to read and understand, but a word search for “half” yields this provision from new Govt Code Section 65912.123: “A development project shall not be subject to the streamlined, ministerial review process provided by Section 65912.124 unless the development project meets all of the following objective development standards:
“[(j … ]
“(3) The applicable objective standards may include a requirement that up to one-half of the ground floor of the housing development project be dedicated to retail use.”

3. Oddly, the DPP allows greater heights further from BART and the freeway than closer. This is backwards.

4. In light of the foregoing, the existing height limit of 35 feet should be maintained, and the overall density downtown set at 20 d.u./acre, with a higher density at the BevMo/CVS block. This would preserve our village character while still complying with RHNA.

Nick Waranoff
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Note: purpose of this spreadsheet is to show that Orinda can meet RHNA by generally adopting 20 d.u./acre and maintaining current 35 foot height limit THIS SPREADSHEET assumes "BevMo full block" is ONLY DPP SITE included in Housing ElementPrepared by: Nick WaranoffDated: Dec. 22, 2022 density units/acre height limit
InputsDPP generally 20 35 not included in housing elementBevMo/CVS 80 55 included in housing elementParker - part of BevMo full block 80 55 included in housing elementPine Grove 45 55 not included in housing elementN end village 10 35 not included in housing elementOpp SitesCalTrans 80Miramonte 30Churches 30Notes re inputsDPPBevMo warrants higher density and height because owners and developers are interested; the theater marquess is tall; and there is a lot of concrete/paving around it already.Parker property (Europa, Orinda Hardware, etc.) owners - part of "BevMo full block" - assumed to desire developmentMoreover, because of interest, development of BevMo Full Block should be encouraged to minimize risk of mid-cycle consequences from lack of issued bldg permitsPine Grove is not included in HE but warrants higher density and height because it is located away from heart of downtown, and is close to BART and freewayN end of village should be preserved by maintaining current density of 10 d.u./acre and current height limit of 35 feetOpp SitesCalTrans warrants higher density and height because it is not adjacent to lower bldgs, and has no neighbors who might not welcome the density/height.Also, because the CalTrans site is vacant, it is highly likely to be developed which would mininmize risk of SB 35 consequencesBy designating it for mixed income, rather than 100% lower income as staff has proposed, we avoid the risk of HCD objecting based on an argument that we are moving lower income housing out of town.Proposal includes modest increases to density at Miramonte and Churches south of downtownOther sites downtown not included in Housing ElementAccording to staff, "For all other sites not included in the Housing Element, the DPP proposes: in the DC district a density of 30 du/ac with a max 45’ building height and in the DO district a density of 25 du/ac with a max 35’ building height."A better plan would be to abandon the notion of separate DC and DO districts. AB 2011 renders the conceptual difference meaningless.Also, if anything, greater density and higher heights are appropriate closer to BART and the freeway, but the DO and DC designations do the reverse.I therefore suggest that the same densities and heights specified above for the DPP generally be used throughout the DPP (i.e., for both what are now called the DC and DO districts).EvacuationMoving some new housing out of downtown will facilitate emergency evacuation.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) Current Capacity
RHNA Current Capacity Pending Projects Projected ADUs Total Capacity Surplus Very Low 372 ‐226.5
Low 215Moderate 215 114 13 24 151 (64)
Above Moderate 557 457 39 8 504 (53)
Total 1359 618 90 80 788 (571)
587
Meeting the RHNA
RHNA Current Capacity Pending Projects Projected ADUs Total Capacity DPP Rezone
Capacity
Opp Site Rezone
Capacity
Total Capacity
w/Rezone Surplus Buffer
Very Low 372Low 215 18%Moderate 215 114 13 24 151 51 157 359 144 67%Above Moderate 557 457 39 8 504 131 403 1038 481 86% Total 1359 618 90 80 788 318 983 2090 731
This table not updated Adjustment Factor Number of Units Proposed Project 38ADU Capacity 48Capacity of vacant site 48Total Capacity 134RHNA on Non Vacant Sites 587-134= 453Percent of RHNA Accomodated on Nonvacant 453/587= 77% 48 38 48 134 (453)
48 38 48 134 137 423 694 107
D.1.k
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111-4074 Telephone: 415.837.1515 | Facsimile: 415.837.1516
www.allenmatkins.com
David H. Blackwell
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 415.273.7463 File Number: 390728-00001/SF1156749.05 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail ([email protected])
January 8, 2021
Hon. Susan Candell, Mayor
and City Council Members
City of Lafayette
3675 Mount Diablo Blvd., #210
Lafayette, CA 94549
Re: January 11, 2021 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item No. 11.A
3483/3491 Golden Gate Way
(DR22-19 & TP49-19)
Mayor Candell and Council Members:

This firm represents 3483 Golden Gate Way, LLC, the owner and developer of the abovereferenced multi-family residential project, and submits this correspondence to provide the City and the public with guidance regarding the regulatory landscape that applies to the above-referenced Agenda Item.

The project is subject to the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 [“DBL”]), as well as other pro-housing statutes and recent legislation, including SB 330, which amended the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65889.5 [“HAA”]), the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq.), and created the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code, § 66300). This statutory framework, which expressly preempts any conflicting local laws, sets forth strict criteria that this Council must apply when considering the project for approval, as set forth below.

Moreover, the statutes are clear that they should be interpreted to produce “the maximum number of housing units” (Gov. Code § 65915(r)) and “to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) With regard to the subject project, the Council’s Staff Report and the record are clear that the project must be approved by the City, and that there are no legal bases upon which the City could do otherwise.

We appreciate the hard work of City Staff and the Planning Commission, both of which recommend approval of the project, and urge this Council to comply with the applicable law and approve this much-needed housing for the City.

D.1.k
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Public Correspondence (Received Prior to January 18, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting) (3007 : Adoption of Plan Orinda) Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
City Council
January 8, 2021