Agenda packet, regular meeting — Orinda City Council, January 21, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING

IN PERSON, OR VIEW ON ZOOM OR YOUTUBE AS LISTED BELOW
https://www.youtube.com/@cityoforinda9535/streams
Zoom Webinar:
https://tinyurl.com/OrindaCityCouncil
Phone:669 444 9171
Webinar ID:
810 2271 2723
In Person:

Orinda Library Auditorium
26 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
(925) 351-6676

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 01.21.25
How to follow and/or participate in the meeting:

IN PERSON SPEAKER CARDS: If you would like to speak during the public forum or on an item listed on the agenda, you are invited to submit a speaker card to the City Clerk. You will be permitted to speak even if you elect not to submit a speaker card or decline to provide information requested on the card. After the City Council has heard from everyone who submitted speaker cards, anyone electing not to submit a speaker card may form a line at the lectern. Public comment is generally limited to 3 minutes per speaker per agenda item.

WRITTEN COMMENTS: You may also submit a public comment in advance of the meeting by following instructions below:

Deliver to City Hall at 22 Orinda Way or send an e-mail to [email protected] by 3pm on the day of the meeting. Those comments will be forwarded to the City Council. They will also be made a part of the public record and be available to view in the public review binder at Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way. In addition, they will be available electronically by 5pm on the day of the meeting by selecting the date of the meeting in this Box account link:
https://tinyurl.com/Orinda-Public-Comments
REMOTE COMMENTS: Remote Public Comments have been discontinued for the foreseeable future.
7:00 PM - REGULAR SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Darlene Gee, Cara Hoxie, Janet Riley
Vice Mayor Brandyn Iverson, Mayor Latika Malkani
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
City Council
Agenda Page 2 01.21.25
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Certificate of Recognition to Light Up Orinda - Carol Brovelli and Kim Wirtz Straub, Co-Leaders of Project
E. PUBLIC FORUM
The public forum provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of the City Council that is not on the agenda.

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

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

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. December 17, 2024 Regular Meeting

2. January 7, 2025 Closed Session Meeting

3. January 7, 2025 Regular Meeting
F.2. Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (SB 165) Report
Recommendation:

Accept the Annual Special Tax and Bond Accountability reports for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

F.3. 2024 Impact Fee Report AB 1600
Recommendation:

Receive and file the City of Orinda Annual Report of Development Impact Fee Funds for the year ended June 30, 2024.

F.4. Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 3 01.21.25
Accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR); Report on Internal Controls (ROIC); Appropriations Limit Report; and Transportation Development Act Funds Report (TDA) for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2024.

F.5. Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2022-005 Urban Lot Split at 15 Vallecito Lane
F.5. Accept Work and Approve Record Plans for the San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, City Project No. 4187, and Authorize the City Clerk to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 02-25 to Accept Work and Approve Record Plans for the San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, City Project No. 4187, and Authorize the City Clerk to Sign and File a Notice of Completion with the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder.

G. PUBLIC HEARING
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Final Design Concept for Crossroads Park (CIP project #4103) and Related Actions
Recommendation:

Take the following actions: 1) Receive the presentation; 2) Approve revised design concept; 3) Approve Amendment #2 to the Contract with Gates & Associates; and 4) Approve Budget Change Form #005-25.

H.2. Overview of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s TransitOriented Communities Policy and Orinda's Compliance Status Recommendation:

Receive the Staff presentation and provide feedback and direction on policy options.

H.3. City Council Committee Appointment/Liaison List for 2025 Recommendation:

Approve the remainder of Appointment/Liaison List as proposed or amended.

I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. ADJOURNMENT
M. CLOSED SESSION
City Council
Agenda Page 4 01.21.25

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS of Closed Session Matters

3. CLOSED SESSION

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

N23-0579.

The next meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 at 7:00 PM.

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

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

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

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

City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.1
Date: January 21, 2025
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Minutes Approval
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. December 17, 2024 Regular Meeting

2. January 7, 2025 Closed Session Meeting

3. January 7, 2025 Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND:

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

1. December 17, 2024 Regular Meeting

2. January 7, 2025 Closed Session Meeting

3. January 7, 2025 Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2024 B. City Council Closed Session Minutes of January 7, 2025 C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 Respectfully Submitted by:

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

F.1
Packet Pg. 5
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 5 12.17.24
DECEMBER 17, 2024

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Note: Written communications received from the public prior to the start of this meeting can be viewed on the City’s website meeting calendar. They are also kept in the City Clerk’s Office as part of the public record and available upon request ([email protected]). 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING– GARDEN ROOM, ORINDA LIBRARY A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Brandyn Iverson, Inga Miller, Janet Riley Vice Mayor Latika Malkani, Mayor Darlene Gee
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Gee.

C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Miller, and seconded by Vice Mayor Malkani, to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Mayor's Award of Excellence - Sue Andersen-Berger - For Her Exceptional Work on the Orinda Plant Guide "Plants for a Fire-Savvy Landscape" and Her Orinda Garden Club Work on Landscaping and Maintaining Flowers Beds for the City Library Plaza
Mayor Gee presented the Mayor’s Award of Excellence to Sue Andersen-Berger and described Ms. Andersen-Berger’s exceptional work on the Orinda Plant Guide “Plants for Fire-Savvy Landscape” which she displayed. She also recognized Ms. Andersen-Berger for her Orinda Garden Club Work on landscaping, beautifying Orinda, and maintaining flower beds for the City Library Plaza.

Sue Andersen-Berger thanked the Mayor for selecting her for the Mayor’s Award which is an amazing honor. Her friend, Lisa Hallahan and she worked on beautification of Orinda projects, which she described. Their newest project was just finished which flanks the driveway to the Library underground parking which includes similar plants along with plants from her brochure. She thanked others for helping them and they expect to work more in planting in Orinda. She then spoke about the Fire-Savvy guide and recognized City staff for their assistance.

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2024 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 5 12.17.24
D.2. Mayor's Award of Excellence - Marc Evans - For His Exceptional Work in Founding and Chairing the Fire Safe Moraga Orinda Non-Profit and His Leadership on the Moraga-Orinda Firewise Council
Mayor Gee presented the Mayor’s Award of Excellence to Marc Evans for his work in founding and chairing the Fire Safe Moraga Orinda Non-Profit (FSMO) and his leadership on the Moraga-Orinda Firewise Council. The non-profit provides funding to neighborhoods in the MOFD district for purposes of improving fire safety. She said FSMO was recently awarded a $100,000 grant and is working within the MOFD area to further reduce vegetation. As Orinda continues to grapple with fire prevention and insurance availability, Mr. Evans’ efforts and leadership stand out in working towards community solutions.

Marc Evans thanked Mayor Gee for the recognition and accepted the award on behalf of FSMO, their non-profit, and recognized their Executive Director Rob Schroeder, Board members, City of Orinda staff, MOFD, and the 85 Firewise leaders representing over 4,000 housing units in Moraga, Orinda, Canyon, and Bollinger.

Mayor Gee opened the Public Forum.

Senator Steve Glazer noted the Mayor’s Award for Excellence began in 2007 when he was serving as Mayor and he is pleased this has continued which recognizes volunteerism. He recognized and thanked Sue Andersen-Berger and Marc Evans for their efforts on the issue and great service to the community.

E. PUBLIC FORUM
Nick Waranoff acknowledged the most important action the Council took in the 2024 calendar year, which was the hiring of the new City Manager Linda Smith and hiring of the new Planning Director Lashun Cross. He described their level of professionalism, skills, and personal traits one would want in City staff.

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

F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. October 21, 2024 - Tri Agency Special Meeting

2. November 19, 2024 Closed Session
F.2. Canvass of Votes for November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election Recommendation:

F.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2024 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 5 12.17.24
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 50-24 Accepting Certificate of County Clerk Results of the Canvass for City of Orinda November 5, 2024, General Election, Electing Darlene Gee and Cara Hoxie to the City Council for Four-Year Terms
MOTION by Vice Mayor Malkani, and seconded by Councilmember Riley, to approve Consent Calendar Item F.1.1, F.1.2, and F.2. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

G. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.

H. POLICY MATTER
H.1. Acknowledge Service to the Orinda Community of Outgoing Mayor Darlene Gee
Vice Mayor Malkani expressed genuine gratitude to Mayor Gee for everything she has done as Mayor. She has continued with selfless work and have approached problems with an open mind and grace.

Councilmembers echoed Mayor Gee’s leadership qualities she has brought to the Council, recognized her re-election, spoke of her ability to connect with the community, thanked her for being an incredible volunteer for the City, and presented and read a Proclamation into the record recognizing Mayor Gee.

Vice Mayor Malkani opened the Public Forum.

Senator Steve Glazer said he once interviewed Willie Brown on his podcast who was the Speaker of the Assembly, author, actor, and Mayor and said his favorite title was Mayor.

The reason is a connectedness with the people of the community and this is an indication of what Mayor Gee has experienced being Mayor twice in Orinda. Acknowledging her great work and service to the community, he presented Mayor Gee with a Resolution.

District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen echoed Senator Glazer’s comments about being a Mayor and said Darlene has executed her role in a gracious, kind, and encompassing way. They have served together on SWAT Committee which has been helpful given the Mayor’s engineering background and presented her with a certificate honoring Mayor Gee for her service.

Mayor Gee provided parting words, stating she was honored to fill then Mayor Glazer’s seat on the City Council, thanked her family, community members, staff, and the City Council. She served as Mayor in 2020 and learned how to use Zoom due to COVID, but this year the City experienced many accomplishments and she was able to travel to Orinda’s Sister City which was a special trip. Lastly, she is glad she will be returning to continue with the Council.

H.2. Acknowledge Service to the Orinda Community of Outgoing Councilmember Inga Miller
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2024 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 5 12.17.24
Mayor Gee and Councilmembers acknowledged the service of Councilmember Inga Miller, stating they she has served for eight years on the Council, spoke of her dedication, thoroughness, her mentorship, her work on the Solid Waste Authority Board, and presented her and read a Proclamation into the record.

Mayor Gee opened the Public Forum.

Senator Glazer recognized Councilmember Miller for her service, thoughtfulness, and leadership to the City and community, and presented her with a resolution acknowledging the great work she has done.

District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen recognized Councilmember Miller for her work as Councilmember, service as Chair to the Solid Waste Authority Board, her response and leadership with catastrophic events experienced in the City, and she presented her with a certificate of recognition.

Kayee DeLand, speaking on behalf of Congressman Mark DeSaulnier’s office, thanked Councilmember Miller for her work with public safety, the Fire District, her work to foster a sense of community, thanked her for her incredible work, and presented a certificate.

Cherise Khaund, Field Representative for Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, said she wishes she could be here tonight and shared her best wishes to Mayor Gee for her accomplishments. She presented a resolution to Councilmember Miller to recognize her two terms as a Councilmember and as Mayor.

Nick Waranoff thanked Councilmember Miller for her years of service, said he has been an equal opportunity and frequent critic of the Council. What distinguished her service is that no matter how hard her criticism, she still remained a friend and took his calls which is the highest level of service a government official can provide, and thanked her.

Councilmember Miller thanked everybody for their kind words which are humbling.

Serving on the Council has been a highlight of her life, she thinks all Councilmembers work to make Orinda great, and recognized the support of her family and of public officials.

H.3. Administration of the Oath of Office to Newly Re-Elected Councilmember Darlene Gee and Newly Elected Councilmember Cara Hoxie
City Clerk Smith administered the Oath of Office to newly re-elected Councilmember Darlene Gee and newly elected Councilmember Cara Hoxie.

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

H.4. Selection of Mayor for a Term Beginning December 2024 F.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2024 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 5 12.17.24
Mayor Gee declared the office of Mayor vacant and called for the selection of Mayor for the year 2024-25. Nominations are open for the office of Mayor.

Councilmember Iverson nominated Vice Mayor Latika Malkani for Mayor. There were no further nominations.

MOTION by Councilmember Riley, and seconded by Councilmember Iverson, to close the nomination period and appoint Vice Mayor Malkani as Mayor. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

H.5. Selection of Vice Mayor for a Term Beginning December 2024 Mayor Malkani declared the office of Vice Mayor vacant and called for the selection of Vice Mayor for the year 2024-25. Nomination are open for the office of Vice Mayor.

Councilmember Gee nominated Councilmember Brandyn Iverson for Vice Mayor. There were no further nominations.

MOTION by Councilmember Riley, and seconded by Councilmember Gee, to close the nomination period and appoint Councilmember Brandyn Iverson as Vice Mayor.

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

H.6. Administration of Oath of Office to New Mayor and Vice Mayor City Clerk Smith administered the Oath of Office to new Mayor Malkani and new Vice Mayor Iverson.

I. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS – None.

J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT – None.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – None.

L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:14 p.m. to the next Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 07, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. ______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2024 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) January 7, 2025

CITY OF ORINDA

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

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

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

D. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: ORINDANS FOR SAFE EMERGENCY EVACUATION v. City of Orinda, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N23-0579.

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

F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 PM
_______________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Closed Session Minutes of January 7, 2025 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 6 01.07.25
JANUARY 7, 2025

CITY OF ORINDA

Mayor Gee called the Regular Meeting to order at approximately 7:06 p.m.

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Cara Hoxie
Vice Mayor Brandyn Iverson, Mayor Latika Malkani
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Janet Riley
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Malkani
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Gee, and seconded by Councilmember Hoxie, to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Introduction of New Employees: Katherine Lee, Planning Technician and Ross Volker, Maintenance and Facilities Superintendent Planning Director Lashun Cross introduced new Planning Technician Katherine “Kat” Lee and provided a brief background of Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee thanked the Council and said she is looking forward to working with the City of Orinda.

Public Works Director Scott Christie introduced new Maintenance and Facilities Superintendent Ross Volker and provided a brief background of Mr. Volker. Mr. Volker thanked the Council and said he is looking forward to working with the City of Orinda.

Mayor Malkani and Councilmembers welcomed Ms. Lee and Mr. Volker to the City.

E. PUBLIC FORUM
None.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 6 01.07.25
Mayor Malkani asked and confirmed there were no requests for removal of items and no public comments.

F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. December 3, 2024 Regular Meeting
F.2. Ordinance to Authorize Off-Leash Dogs at Designated Areas of City Parks Consistent with Posted Regulations
Recommendation:

Adopt Ordinance No. 25-01, waiving second reading, amending Section

12.28.230 of Orinda Municipal Code to Authorize Off-Leash Dogs at Designated Areas of City Parks Consistent with Posted Regulations F.3. Stop Sign at the Southern Loop Intersection of Camino Don Miguel Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 01-25 (Traffic Order #233) Approving a Stop Sign at the Southern Loop Intersection of Camino Don Miguel
F.4. Amendment to Contract with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. for Orinda Community Park Master Plan Recommendation:

Approve Amendment No. 4 between the City of Orinda and Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.

F.5. City of Orinda Legislative Platform
Recommendation:

Approve the City's Legislative Platform
MOTION by Vice Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Gee, to approve Consent Calendar Item F.1, F.1.2, F.3, F.4, and F5. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.

G. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.

H. POLICY MATTER
H.1. Discuss Nine Council Subcommittees and Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 04-25 Restating and Memorializing Certain Details Relating to those Subcommittees
Recommendation:

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6 01.07.25
Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 04-25 Restating and Memorializing Certain Details Relating to Council Subcommittees: (1) Affordable Housing Subcommittee, (2) Public Safety Subcommittee, (3) Downtown Planning and Housing Element Subcommittee, (4) Infrastructure Committee, (5) City School 2x2 Subcommittee (with Orinda Union School District), (6) Fire Prevention 2x2 Meeting with MOFD, (7) Library Facility Steering Committee, (8) Wilder Subcommittee, and (9) Inclusion Diversity Equity and Action Subcommittee
City Manager Smith gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation of the nine Council Subcommittees which are advisory to the City Council. Staff recommends the Council discuss modifications and adopt Resolution No. 04-25 restating and memorializing details of subcommittees.

Councilmember Hoxie asked and confirmed that the subcommittees include Councilmembers and can also include attendance by public members; that the 2x2 subcommittee are with other agencies, and the Library Facility Steering Committee has a separate composition which is outlined in the Library agreement.

Mayor Malkani also confirmed the Public Safety Subcommittee consists of Councilmember liaisons and Chief of Police and City Manager. Noticing is included pursuant to the Brown Act and the City Clerk maintains email lists which people can subscribe to.

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

Councilmember Gee suggested eliminating the Public Safety Subcommittee, given it is not widely attended by the public and the Chief of Police can report to the full Council.

Councilmembers voiced support of its elimination.

Vice Mayor Iverson suggested elimination or continuation of the Wilder Subcommittee for another six months as a transition, given resident interests. Council discussion ensued, and City Manager Smith spoke of outstanding issues of property owners to have the property turned over to the GHAD and said the Subcommittee is still interested in meeting with Councilmembers.

After brief discussion, Councilmembers voiced support of sunsetting the Wilder Subcommittee at the end of 2025.

Vice Mayor Iverson suggested having more structure around distinguishing evergreen subcommittees for one- or two-year terms from purpose subcommittees so they time out and be affirmatively renewed given constituents interest.

She thinks the Downtown Planning and Housing Element Subcommittee should be given a two-year time and proposed a name change to the Downtown Revitalization and Planning Subcommittee.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6 01.07.25
Lastly, the City School 2x2 Subcommittee was to meet monthly and Vice Mayor Iverson thinks there should be a goal four times a year and to not meet during the summer when school is out.

Councilmember Hoxie said the meetings would therefore occur every other month during the school year, except December, or four a year. She suggested the School Board President and one other School Board member serve on the Subcommittee and having the Mayor and another Councilmember on the Subcommittee to mirror the positions.

Vice Mayor Iverson cited the number of Committees the Mayor attends and suggested a Councilmember that has the experience or availability.

City Manager Smith summarized the recommendations as amendments to the motion:
• Eliminate the Public Safety Subcommittee;
• Sunset the Wilder Subcommittee at the end of 2025;
• Establish a 2-year limit on the Downtown Revitalization and Planning Subcommittee and incorporate Downtown Precise Plan into the description; and • Amend the City School 2x2 Subcommittee to meet four times per year and to not meet in the summer
MOTION by Councilmember Gee, and seconded by Councilmember Hoxie, to adopt amendments, as described by the City Manager on Subcommittees. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.

City Manager Smith stated staff will return to the Council to make appointments to Subcommittees that remain with a revised Subcommittee list and updated Resolution.

H.2. City Council Committee Appointment/Liaison List for 2025 Recommendation:

Provide any feedback to the Mayor and approve the Appointment/Liaison List as proposed or amended
City Manager Smith stated as part of the January 21st agenda, staff missed a Council Liaison position on the list and will request the Council discuss the need for a liaison appointment to Cal Shakes Theater.

She stated the Council has certain Committees and Boards where Councilmembers serve in an advisory capacity and the Mayor’s recommendations are attached to the staff report.

There were modifications to the staff report that reference sections of the Policies and Procedures Manual to ensure it is correctly identified under local boards.

Mayor Malkani opened the Public Forum.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 6 01.07.25
Juliette Don, Vice President, Orinda Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, said they have appreciated the opportunity to have Mayor Malkani as their liaison and appreciate support of other Councilmembers and City staff. She noted the agenda packet shows their meeting time is on Tuesdays at 8:00 a.m. and the correct time should be on the third Wednesday of the month at 4:00 p.m. The change had conflicted with the Mayor’s Liaison meeting which they wanted to participate in.

Vice Mayor Iverson said if they are redefining the Downtown Planning Subcommittee to be primarily about downtown revitalization and economic development, ideally, she asked that one of the appointments to serve on the Downtown Subcommittee also be the liaison to the Chamber of Commerce.

Mayor Malkani suggested and Councilmembers agreed to hold on the one appointment and bring this back to the January 21st meeting when the Subcommittee appoints are brought forward.

Councilmember Gee asked and confirmed that Councilmember Riley did not express any concerns about moving forward with the proposed appointments.

MOTION by Vice Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Gee, to approve the Appointment/Liaison List, as amended, to defer the appointment of Chamber of Commerce Liaison and note that these meetings are held on the third Wednesday at 4:00 p.m. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.

I. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS – Councilmember Gee reported on the lovely holiday celebration which Parks and Recreation staff worked on in collaboration with their Sister City organization. The Sister City student will be leaving on January 20th and returning to the Czech Republic. Councilmember Hoxie said her family hosted this year’s student, and a host family is needed for next year.

Mayor Malkani reported an MOFD meeting was held on December 18th in recognition for Chief Winnacker, followed by a reception.

Mayor Malkani reported on December 21st the Council held an Eagle Scout Court of Honor with eight new Eagle Scouts who received proclamations and a day named in their honor.

Councilmember Gee said another item enjoyed over the holidays was the pop-up holiday shop. She thinks it would be great if the Council could receive a follow-up report on how that went.

Vice Mayor Iverson recognized the Light Up Orinda program with the trees which was very noticeable in town, and she hoped to be able to recognize the group.

Mayor Malkani thanked the City Clerk and City staff for organizing their reorganization meeting and reception which was very much appreciated.

F.1.c
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 6 01.07.25
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT – City Manager Smith said on her list was to invite the Light up Orinda representatives and thank them. She reported that recruitments are still underway for Commissions and Committee vacant seats. The deadline for submission of applications is January 30th. The Council will hold its Strategic Planning on March 8th and the California League of Cities is hosting the New City Councilmembers and Mayors Academy on January 22-23.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – Councilmember Hoxie said she held a conversation with the City Manager to create a more formalized working relationship within Lamorinda similar to what Tri-Valley has done in the Danville area. She believes many issues Orinda deals with are issues they should be talking with Lafayette and Moraga about, as well.

MOTION by Councilmember Hoxie, and seconded by Vice Mayor Iverson, to bring forth a Council discussion on the possibility of expanding the Lamorinda working relationship between Orinda, Lafayette, and Moraga. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.

Mayor Malkani and Councilmembers lastly welcomed Councilmember Hoxie to the City Council.

L. ADJOURNMENT
M. CLOSED SESSION

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS of Closed Session Matters – None.

3. CLOSED SESSION

4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION – None.

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

City Attorney Wolff announced the Council concluded the Closed Session item earlier and will not meet upon Adjournment.

The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m. to the next Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, January 21, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. ______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.c
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 (25-1 : Minutes Approval) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: January 21, 2025
Department: Finance
AGENDA TITLE: Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (SB 165) Report
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Annual Special Tax and Bond Accountability reports for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

BACKGROUND:

The Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (SB 165) stipulates that a report be filed annually with the governing body of any agency imposing special taxes or issuing bonds subject to voter approval after January 1, 2001. The annual report is required to contain the amount of funds collected and expended as well as the status of any project required or authorized to be funded as identified in subdivision (a) of Section 53410. The annual report must be filed no later than January 1. Previously, the City of Orinda was unaware of the filing requirements but due to changes in Staff and the City’s new auditor, it was determined that these filings would be necessary. In future years, the reports will be filed on time.

DISCUSSION:

The Local Agency Special Tax Bond and Accountability Act, enacted by SB165 and codified in the California Government Code Sections 50075 through 50077 and 53410 through 53412. This Act requires:
• that any local special tax measure subject to voter approval contains a statement indicating the specific single purpose of the special tax. • that the proceeds of the special tax be applied to that purpose. • the creation of an account into which the proceeds shall be deposited. • an annual report containing the following information:
o the amount of special taxes that have been collected and expended. o the status of any project required or authorized to be funded by the special taxes.

The Act imposes similar accountability requirements with respect to any local bond measure that is subject to voter approval that would provide for the sale of bonds by a local agency.

These requirements only apply to local agencies that have imposed special taxes or issued bond measures subject to voter approval after January 1, 2001. The annual report must be filed no later than January 1. The following special taxes are subject to these reporting requirements:

Library Special Tax
On June 3, 2008, voters in the City of Orinda (the “City”) approved Measure E, a special parcel tax to provide revenue for the following services: additional library service hours to supplement those provided by Contra Costa County; utilities, maintenance, insurance and other operating costs; repair of the library building and its systems and equipment; replacement of worn and outdated books and materials; the direct cost of administering and collecting the tax; and library programs for children, families and seniors.

F.2
Packet Pg. 18
In June 2018, the City’s Library Tax was approved by 74.86 percent of the voters. The new Library Tax increased the previous tax from $39 to $69 per parcel, multiplied by a parcel’s rate factor, and will be levied in perpetuity. The annual amount of the special parcel tax is $69 per parcel or equivalent unit and has no escalation factors.

Orinda Road Bonds 2014 Special Tax
On June 3, 2014, voters in the City of Orinda (the “City”) approved Measure J, Orinda Road and Storm Drain Repair Measure, which authorized the City to issue and sell up to $20,000,000 in municipal General Obligation bonds to help fund repairs and improvements of the City’s roadways and storm drains. This measure also authorized the City to levy an additional ad-valorem property tax annually on all taxable property within the City to pay for the principal and interest due on the bonds. Measure J was approved by 75.5 percent of voters.

In March of 2015, the City issued General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series A, in the amount of $10,000,000. These Bonds are the first series of bonds to be issued from an aggregate authorized amount of $20,000,000 approved in Measure J. The Bonds bear interest at 2.0% - 4.0% and are due semi-annually on March 1 and September 1 commencing September 2, 2015. Principal payments are due annually on September 1 through 2035.

In April of 2017, the City issued General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, Series B, in the amount of $10,000,000. These Bonds are the second series of bonds to be issued from an aggregate authorized amount of $20,000,000 in Measure J. The Bonds bear interest at

1.4% - 5.0%. Interest payments are due semi-annually on March 1 and September 1 commencing September 1, 2017. Principal payments are due annually on September 1 through 2037.

These Bonds are payable from a special ad-valorem property tax rate, the City is authorized by Measure J to levy, for the payment of debt service (principal and interest) on the Bonds when due. The taxes are collected by Contra Costa County and distributed to the City.

The special ad-valorem tax increased the secured tax rate for FY 2023-24 by $ 0.0118 per $100 of secured assessed value (or $11.80 per $100,000 of secured assessed value). Once the bonds are repaid in 2037, this special ad-valorem tax will terminate.

Orinda Road Bonds 2016 Special Tax
On June 7, 2016, voters in the City of Orinda (the “City”) approved Measure L, Orinda Road and Storm Drain Repair Measure, which authorized the City to issue up to $25,000,000 in general obligation municipal bonds for municipal roadways and storm drain improvements.

This measure also authorized the City to levy an additional ad-valorem property tax annually on all taxable property within the City to pay for the principal and Interest due on the bonds.

Measure L was approved by 68.48 percent of voters.

In April of 2017, the City issued General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A, in the amount of $25,000,000. These Bonds are the first and only series of bonds to be issued in an aggregate authorized amount of $25,000,000 of bonds duly approved by Measure L. The Bonds bear interest at 1.4% - 5.0%. Interest payments are due semi-annually on March 1 and September 1 commencing September 1, 2017. Principal payments are due annually on September 1 through 2037.

F.2
Packet Pg. 19
The Bonds are payable from a special ad-valorem property tax rate the City is authorized to levy by the voter approval of Measure L, for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds when due. The taxes are collected by Contra Costa County and distributed to the City.

The special ad-valorem increased the secured tax rate for FY 2023-24 by $0.0176 per $100 of secured assessed value (or $17.60 per $100,000 of secured assessed value). Once the bonds are repaid in 2037, this annual tax will terminate.

NEXT STEPS:

Staff will ensure that next year’s filing requirements of January 1, 2026, are met.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting the special tax and bond accountability reports.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. SB 165 Report FY 2023-24- City of Orinda Library Tax B. SB 165 Report FY 2023-24- City of Orinda Road Bonds 2014 C. SB 165 Report FY 2023-24- City of Orinda Road Bonds 2016 Respectfully Submitted by:

Bhavna Chaudhary
Prepared By: Bhavna Chaudhary,
Approved by:

F.2
Packet Pg. 20
City of Orinda
Fiscal Year 2024/25 Final Levy Summary Report – Special Library Services Parcel Tax 3 SB 165: LOCAL AGENCY SPECIAL TAX AND BOND

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Senate Bill 165, filed with the Secretary of State on September 19, 2000, enacted the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (the “Act”). This Act requires that any local special tax or local bond measure subject to voter approval contain a statement indicating the specific purposes of the special tax, require that the proceeds of the special tax be applied to those purposes, require the creation of an account into which the proceeds shall be deposited, and require an annual report containing specified information concerning the use of the proceeds. The Act only applies to any local special tax measure or local bond measure adopted on or after January 1, 2001, in accordance with Section 50075.1 or Section 53410 of the California Government Code.

1. The amount of funds collected and expended.

2. The status of any project required or authorized to be funded as identified in subdivision (a) of Section 50075.1.”
The requirements of the Act apply to the funds for the following:

City of Orinda
Special Library Services Parcel Tax
Approved June 5, 2018
Purpose of Special Tax
Funds will be used to maintain the existing hours and services at the Orinda Library, replacing worn and outdated books and materials, and ensuring that the Library can continue existing programs for children, families, and seniors.

Collections and Expenditures
Fund Name
06/30/2023
Balance
Amount
Collected (1)
(1) Represents total amount collected for Fiscal Year 2023/24, including interest income of $12,298.

Amount
Expended
06/30/2024
Balance
Measure E $489,967.00 $540,286.00 $516,888.00 $513,365.00 F.2.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: SB 165 Report FY 2023-24- City of Orinda Library Tax (25-2 : Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (SB 165) CITY OF ORINDA ROAD BONDS 2014

LOCAL AGENCY SPECIAL TAX AND BOND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Senate Bill 165, filed with the Secretary of State on September 19, 2000, enacted the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (the “Act”). The Act requires that any local special tax or local bond measure subject to voter approval contain a statement indicating the specific purposes of the special tax, require that the proceeds of the special tax be applied to those purposes, require the creation of an account into which the proceeds shall be deposited, and require an annual report containing specified information concerning the use of the proceeds. The Act only applies to any local special tax measure or local bond measure adopted on or after January 1, 2001, in accordance with Section 50075.1 of the California Government Code.

Some of the requirements of the Act are handled at the formation of the special tax district and others are handled through annual reports. This section of this report intends to comply with Section 50075.3 of the California Government Code that states:
“The chief fiscal officer of the issuing local agency shall file a report with its governing body no later than January 1, 2002, and at least once a year thereafter. The annual report shall contain all of the following:
(a) The amount of funds collected and expended.
(b) The status of any project required or authorized to be funded as identified in subdivision (a) of Section 50075.1.”
The requirements of the Act apply to the Funds for the following Bonds authorized by at least two-thirds of the voters voting on Measure J at an election held on June 3, 2014:

City of Orinda Road Bonds 2014
$10,000,000
General Obligation Bonds Election of 2014 Series A
Issued in March 2015
$10,000,000
General Obligation Bonds Election of 2014 Series B
Issued in April 2017
Purpose of Special Tax
All improvements funded by the General Obligation Bonds Election of 2014 Series A and B are complete.

The amount levied will be used to pay for the debt service (principal and interest) and administrative expenses.

Collections & Expenditures
Fund
06/30/2023
Balance
FY 2023-24
Amount
Collected (1)
Expended
Amount
06/30/2024
Balance Status
City of Orinda
Road Bonds 2014 $1,092,476 $1,198,641 $1,196,633 $1,094,484 Ongoing (1) Amount collected during FY 2023-24 includes interest earned.

F.2.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: SB 165 Report FY 2023-24- City of Orinda Road Bonds 2014 (25-2 : Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (SB CITY OF ORINDA ROAD BONDS 2016

City of Orinda Road Bonds 2016
$25,000,000
General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A
Issued in April 2017
Purpose of Special Tax
All improvements funded by the General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A are complete. The amount levied will be used to pay for the debt service (principal and interest) and administrative expenses.

Collections & Expenditures
Fund
06/30/2023
Balance
FY 2023-24
Amount
Collected (1)
Expended
Amount
06/30/2024
Balance Status
City of Orinda Road
Bonds 2016 $1,480,390 $1,756,857 $1,700,385 $1,536,862 Ongoing (1) Amount collected during FY 2023-24 includes interest earned.

F.2.c
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: SB 165 Report FY 2023-24- City of Orinda Road Bonds 2016 (25-2 : Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (SB City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: January 21, 2025
Department: Finance
AGENDA TITLE: 2024 Impact Fee Report AB 1600
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file the City of Orinda Annual Report of Development Impact Fee Funds for the year ended June 30, 2024.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Orinda, like many other local agencies in California, levies fees (“development fees”) on new development within the City to fund public capital improvements necessitated by such development. The California Mitigation Fee Act, commonly known as AB1600 (California Government Code Sections 66000 and following), regulates how public agencies collect, maintain, and expend impact fees imposed on developers for the purpose of defraying costs of public facilities. It also includes requirements for annual accounting and reporting of the fees. Every five years, the City must make findings describing the continuing need for funds remaining unexpended that have been in the possession of the City for five years or more. If the required findings are not made, the unexpended funds shall be refunded to the current property owners.

Historically, the City of Orinda has satisfied the required review of the impact fees with the City Council’s annual acceptance of a report containing the required information.

This year’s AB 1600 report is included as Attachment A.

DISCUSSION:

The Administrative Services Director has reviewed the fees enacted by the City of Orinda that qualify as Impact Fees under the provisions of the State Code. The following development fees were determined to be covered by the Mitigation Fee Act:
• Transportation Impact Fees
• Drainage Impact Fees
• Park Dedication Fees
As required by law, these fees are segregated from the General Fund and accounted for in Special Revenue funds which are reported discreetly as part of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and audit. Expenditures from these funds were in the form of capital improvement projects to either renovate existing facilities or maintain the existing level of service, consistent with the General Plan and approved Capital Improvement Plan, due to increased demand related to development projects.

F.3
Packet Pg. 24
Government Code Section 66001 requires that the City make available to the public information regarding development impact fees for each fund within 180 days after the end of each fiscal year:
• A brief description of the type of development fee.
• The amount of the development fee.
• The beginning and ending fund balance for the fiscal year. • The amount of development fees collected, and interest earned. • An identification of each public improvement on which development fees were expended together with the amount of such expenditures, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. • Information regarding the schedule for commencement of certain public improvements to be funded with development fees.
• Determination that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement.
• A description of any inter-fund transfers or loans made from the fund. • The amount of any refunds made.

The Annual Report, which is shown as Attachment A, meets the requirements to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Noticing Requirements
Government Code Section 66006(b)(2) requires the report to be included on the City Council meeting agenda at a public meeting not less than 15 days after the information was made available. Staff posted a Notice of Availability on January 2, 2025, indicating that the report was available. The Notice of Availability of the Report was posted in the established City notice posting locations. In addition, the Government Code Section requires that the notice of the meeting shall be mailed, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency. The City provided notice to the Building Industry Association.

NEXT STEPS:

The City Clerk is to retain this report in the official records of the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt and filing of this report. As of June 30, 2024, no refund of development impact fees is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. FY 2024 Orinda Annual Impact Fee Report
Respectfully Submitted by:

Bhavna Chaudhary
Prepared By: Bhavna Chaudhary,
F.3
Packet Pg. 25
Approved by:

F.3
Packet Pg. 26

CITY OF ORINDA

ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
(Report Available to Public January 2, 2025, and
Included on City Council Public Meeting Agenda January 21, 2025)

Page 1 of 4 ends

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY’S IMPACT FEES - Section 66006(b)(1)(A) CGC The City of Orinda has established the following Development Impact Fee Funds which are subject to annual reporting as part of the Mitigation Fee Act provisions in California Government Code (CGC) Section 66000 et seq.:
 Transportation Improvement Program Fee (Local Portion) as described in Chapter 3.20 of the Orinda Municipal Code.

This fund accounts for the Transportation Impact fee imposed on new development to help fund and pay for the construction of needed expansion or offsite capital improvements for roads, bikeways, sidewalks and traffic signals.  Drainage Impact Fees as described in Chapter 3.24 of the Orinda Municipal Code.

This fund accounts for the Drainage Impact fee imposed on new development to help pay for a drainage master plan and the construction of improvements recommended in the plan.
 Park Dedications and Improvement Fees as described in Chapter 3.28 of the Orinda Municipal Code.

This fund accounts for the Park Dedication fee imposed on development to provide funding for acquiring new parklands, building new recreational facilities, and rehabilitating or replacing existing parks and recreation facilities to enable those facilities to provide services to new residents and to offset the loss of private residential recreational and visual open space.

B. AMOUNTS CHARGED BY THE CITY FOR IMPACT FEES - Section 66006(b)(1)(B) CGC
The amounts charged for the impact fees noted above are dependent upon the type and size of a particular development and were based upon related studies, as adjusted over the years by the CPI. The City Council has adopted and imposed the subject fees and the rates applied as of June 30, 2024, are shown in the table on the following page.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: FY 2024 Orinda Annual Impact Fee Report (25-3 : 2024 Impact Fee Report AB 1600)

CITY OF ORINDA

ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
(Report Available to Public January 2, 2025, and
Included on City Council Public Meeting Agenda January 21, 2025)

Page 2 of 4 ends

AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT FEES
(Resolution # 31-24 effective September 16, 2024 – Drainage and Park Dedication Fee; Resolution # 69-23 Effective January 1, 2024 – Transportation Impact Fee) FEE CALCULATION METHOD $ AMOUNT
Transportation
(Local Portion)
Regional Portion is a
pass-through
administered by JPA.

Residential – Per Unit
Transit Oriented MF – Per Unit
Non-Residential – Per Sq. Ft.

Other – Per Trip Generated
Single Family $5,045.11
Multi-Family / 2nd Unit $3,531.37
Multi-Family / Transit $1,871.87
Non-Residential $5.39 / sq. ft.

Other $555.25 per trip
Drainage Fee Impervious surface added by
new development
$1.65 per square foot in excess of 100
feet
Park Dedication
Fee
Per Residential Unit Single Family (SF) Detached $22,418 SF Attached or Townhouse $15,232
Multi-Family Duplex or Condominium
$15,644 per unit

C. ACCOUNTING FOR IMPACT FEE REVENUE - Section 66006(b)(1)(C-D) CGC As provided for under State Law the City must account in each of the Impact Fee Funds for:

Beginning Balance; Fees Collected, Interest and other Revenue; Expenditures; and the Ending Balance. If there were any inter-fund loans or transfers those must also be disclosed. The City did not have any loans or inter-fund transfer transactions in the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2024. The following table displays the accounting information required.

Fiscal Year 2023-24 Impact Fee Beginning and Ending Balances (Including Revenue by type and Total Expenditures)

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: FY 2024 Orinda Annual Impact Fee Report (25-3 : 2024 Impact Fee Report AB 1600)

CITY OF ORINDA

ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
(Report Available to Public January 2, 2025, and
Included on City Council Public Meeting Agenda January 21, 2025)

Page 3 of 4 ends

D. Fund Expenditures By Project - Section 66006(b)(1)(E) CGC The Mitigation Fee Act requires the City to disclose additional information related to the project expenditures from each of the Impact Fee Funds. Specifically, the report must identify:
 each public improvement on which fees were expended;
 the amount of the expenditures on each improvement; and  the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with impact fees.

The tables below provide additional details for each of the funds.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: FY 2024 Orinda Annual Impact Fee Report (25-3 : 2024 Impact Fee Report AB 1600)

CITY OF ORINDA

ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
(Report Available to Public January 2, 2025, and
Included on City Council Public Meeting Agenda January 21, 2025)

Page 4 of 4 ends

E. IMPACT FEE LOANS / TRANSFERS AND REFUNDS Section 66006(b)(1)(G-H) CGC As provided for in Government Code Sections 66006(b)(1)(G and H) the City is also required to disclose:
 Any inter-fund transfers or loans made from the Impact Fee Fund. o Including how transferred or loaned fees were expended; and o If the transaction is a loan when it will be repaid and the rate of interest.

 Any refunds of fees granted.

There were no inter-fund transfers or loans involving the listed Impact Fees. Likewise, the City did not issue any refunds for the year ending June 30, 2024.

F.3.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: FY 2024 Orinda Annual Impact Fee Report (25-3 : 2024 Impact Fee Report AB 1600) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.4
Date: January 21, 2025
Department: Finance
AGENDA TITLE: Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR); Report on Internal Controls (ROIC); Appropriations Limit Report; and Transportation Development Act Funds Report (TDA) for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2024.

BACKGROUND:

The Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), which contains the Auditor’s Opinion and audited financial statements, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, is complete and ready for City Council acceptance. In addition to the ACFR, there are three other compliance reports being presented for acceptance.

DISCUSSION:

The audited ACFR and other required audit compliance reports are being presented to the City Council in accordance with the Orinda Municipal Code §2.08.070(I). This year’s audits were performed by the City’s independent auditors, Badawi & Associates, Certified Public Accountants, who have vast experience in auditing local government agencies. The auditors have given an unmodified or “clean” opinion on the ACFR. This is shown as the Independent Auditors’ Opinion letter in the audit report (page 1). A weblink to a pdf version of the ACFR document is noted as Attachment A.

Government Code §37208 provides that a city council is not required to approve payroll and other budgeted demands prior to issuing payment, they may be presented to the City Council for ratification and approval, in the form of an ACFR.

The City is planning to submit the FY 2023-24 ACFR for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting award program. Orinda has received the GFOA award for the last 10 consecutive years and believes that this year’s ACFR also meets the stringent requirements to merit GFOA recognition. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management.

The City must also file the ACFR in accordance with disclosure agreements that were included in debt financing transactions. The deadline for submitting debt financing disclosures is March 31st. The City will meet all the required legal deadlines.

In addition to the ACFR, there are four other reports for review:

F.4
Packet Pg. 31
• Agreed Upon Procedures for Compliance with the Proposition 111 2023-24 & 2024-25 Appropriation Limit Increment is required by Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. These reports show the auditors applied specific procedures, which were suggested by the League of California Cities and presented in their Article XIIIB Appropriation Limitation Uniform Guidelines, to validate the City’s calculation of the Appropriations Limit. No exceptions were noted. Due to the timing involved with rotating to a new audit firm, two fiscal years of Proposition 111 compliance reports are being presented for acceptance (Attachments D & E).
• Report on Internal Control
In planning and performing the audit of the financial statements, Badawi & Associates considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing opinions on the financial statements. The auditors are required to communicate to the City Council any internal control matters that come to their attention during the audit. Under generally accepted auditing standards, the City’s external auditors are required to formally communicate with the governing body to convey audit matters, the scope of work, difficulties, adjustments to financial statements, or any possible disagreements with management. The City’s auditors have provided these reports in their Report on Internal Control (ROIC) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 (Attachment C). • Transportation Development Act Financial Statements (TDA) The City spent $65,100 in TDA funds administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The funding was used for the RRFB Crosswalk Moraga Way project. Expenditure of these grant funds results in the need for the Auditors to prepare a separate report that is filed with MTC (Attachment B).

The Single Audit, also known as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-133 audit, is an examination of an entity that expends $750,000 or more in federal grant awards during a fiscal year. The City expended $876,088 in federal grant awards during the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2024, and therefore is required to undergo a Single Audit conducted in accordance with the 2 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 200.

The Single Audit Report is not presented at that time as it was still being completed.

The Single Audit is required to be completed nine months after the fiscal year end, which makes its deadline March 31, 2025.

The Director of Administrative Services will provide a summary presentation of the yearend results as comprehensively presented in the ACFR at the City Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact in accepting the FY2023-24 audit reports. Total audit and report preparation costs of $34,990 are within budget. The total fee also includes preparation costs of certain reports not requiring City Council acceptance that are F.4
Packet Pg. 32
transmitted directly to the California State Controller.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Weblink: City of Orinda Annual Comprehensive Financial Report FY 2023-24 B. City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24
C. Report on Internal Control for FY 2023-24
D. Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24
E. Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2024-25
Respectfully Submitted by:

Bhavna Chaudhary
Prepared By: Bhavna Chaudhary,
Approved by:

F.4
Packet Pg. 33
City of
Orinda
Orinda, California
Transportation Development
Act Article III Fund
Financial Statements
For the year ending June 30, 2024
F.4.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) F.4.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Transportation Development Act Article III Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024
2 Page
Independent Auditor’s Report .............................................................................................................................. 1 Financial Statements:

Balance Sheet .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balances ............................................................................................................................. 4 Notes to Financial Statements .............................................................................................................................. 5 Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, and on Compliance with the Transportation Development Act and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards....................... 7 Independent Auditor’s Report on Transportation Development Act Compliance ......................................9 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) This page intentionally left blank.

F.4.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR)

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinions
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the City of Orinda (City) Transportation Development Act Article III Fund (TDA Fund), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2024 and the related notes to the financial statements as listed in the table of contents In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the TDA Fund, as of June 30, 2024, and the change in financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirement relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the TDA Fund and do not purport to, and do not present fairly the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2024, the changes in its financial position for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

Responsibilities of Management’s for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
1 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California

Page 2 ends

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

Misstatements are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
 Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the TDA Fund’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.  Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 31, 2024, on our consideration of the TDA Fund’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters.

The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the TDA Fund’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the TDA Fund’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Badawi & Associates, CPA’s
Berkeley, California
December 31, 2024
2 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Transportation Development Act
Article III Fund
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2024
2024
ASSETS
Due from MTC $ 129,101
Total assets 129,101

LIABILITIES
Accounts payable $ 7,821
Due to the City 121,280
Total Liabilities 129,101
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Unavailable revenues 129,101
Total deferred inflows of resources 129,101

FUND BALANCES
Unassigned (129,101)
Total Fund balances (129,101)
Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources and fund balances $ 129,101 See accompanying notes to financial statements
3 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Transportation Development Act
Article III Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balance
For the years ended June 30, 2024
2024
REVENUES:

TDA Article 3.0 (Note 2)$-
Total revenues-

EXPENDITURES
RRFB Crosswalk Moraga Way 65,100
Total Expenditures 65,100
Net change in fund balances (65,100)
FUND BALANCES:

Beginning of year, as previously presented-
Error correction (Note 3) (64,001)
Beginning of year, as restated (64,001)
End of year $ (129,101)
See accompanying notes to financial statements
4 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Transportation Development Act Article III Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024

1. DESCRIPTION OF REPORTING ENTITY
The City of Orinda, California (City), Transportation Development Act Article III Fund (TDA Fund) includes the financial activities associated with projects funded by the State of California Transportation Development Act (TDA). The State of California created a local transportation fund for each County funded by a portion of the State sales tax.

The TDA Fund is distributed through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) which is the agency responsible for allocation of funds to eligible claimants within the greater San Francisco Bay Area.

A. Fund Accounting
The operations of the TDA Fund are accounted for with a separate set of self- balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in the fund based upon the purpose for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled.

TDA Fund is presented as a separate Special Revenue Fund in the annual comprehensive financial report of the City.

B. Basis of Accounting
The accounting and reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurements focus.

All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending or “current financial resources” measurement focus. Accordingly, only current asset and current liabilities generally are included on the balance sheet. Operating statements of governmental funds present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in fund balance.

All governmental fund types are accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting wherein revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become measurable and available to pay liabilities of the current period. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the fund liability is incurred.

C. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. 5 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Transportation Development Act Article III Fund
Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024

2. TDA ARTICLE 3.0 REVENUE
For the year ended June 30, 2024 the City did not recognize revenues because none of the receivables met the availability criteria and were therefore reported as deferred inflows of resources. The City grant award amounts based on the allocation instructions from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission were for the following projects:

Grant For the year ended
Instruction # Project Name Award 2024
24001121 Camino Pablo Pathway $ 120,000 $ -
Rehabilitation
24001017 Moraga Way Pathway 150,000 -
24001025 Camino Pablo Bicycle Route 40,737 -
Totals $ 310,737 $ -

3. RESTATEMENTS
The City’s prior period adjustments in the TDA funds were to correct receivables that were not collected within the availability period.

Summary of the restatements are as follows:

TDA Fund
Fund Balance as previously
reported at June 30, 2023 $ -
Error corrections (64,001)
Fund balance, as restated
at June 30, 2023 $ (64,001)
6 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR)

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND

OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Transportation Development Act Fund (TDA Fund) of the City of Orinda, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2024, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 31, 2024.

Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of Transportation Development Act Fund (TDA Fund) of the City of Orinda, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
7 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California

Page 2 ends

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the TDA Fund’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi & Associates, CPA’s
Berkeley, California
December 31, 2024
8 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION

DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS COMPLIANCE
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California
Report on Compliance
Opinion
We have audited the City of Orinda’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in Section 6666 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act) and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission applicable to the City’s Transportation Development Program (TDA Program) for the year ended June 30, 2024.

In our opinion the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that are applicable to the TDA Program for the year ended June 30, 2024.

Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; Section 6666 of the Act; and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Our responsibilities under those standards and the Act are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for the Act. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City of Orinda’s TDA Program.
9 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California

Page 2 ends

Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on City of Orinda’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, and the Act will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about City of Orinda’s compliance with the requirements of the TDA Program as a whole.

In performing an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, and the Act, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Act, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Report on Internal Control over Compliance
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. 10 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California

Page 2 ends

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.

Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on Section 6666 of the Rules and Regulations of the California Administrative Code in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and Administrative Code for 1987 (the Act), and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Badawi & Associates, CPA’s
Berkeley, California
December 31, 2024
11 F.4.b
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: City of Orinda TDA Report FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of
Orinda
Orinda, California
Report on Internal Control over Financial
Reporting and on Compliance and Other
Matters based on an Audit of Financial
Statements Performed in Accordance with
Government Auditing Standards
For the year ended June 30, 2024
F.4.c
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Report on Internal Control for FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) F.4.c
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Report on Internal Control for FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR)

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND

OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Orinda (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2024, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated December 31, 2024.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. We identified certain deficiencies in internal control, described in the accompanying schedule of finding and response as item 2024-001 that we consider to be significant deficiencies.

F.4.c
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Report on Internal Control for FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California

Page 2 ends

Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

City’s Response to Findings
Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City’s response to findings identified in our audit and described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses. The City’s response was not subjected to the other auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
December 31, 2024
F.4.c
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Report on Internal Control for FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Schedule of Findings and Responses
For the year ended June 30, 2024

Current Year Findings
2024-001: Restatements of Previously Issued Financial Statements – Significant Deficiency Criteria
The City is responsible for the fair presentation of the financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. This includes having controls in place to detect and address errors, omissions, and misstatements in a timely manner.

Condition
The City recorded various prior period adjustments including the following:
 To correct accounting for loans receivable, which had previously been offset by a corresponding deferred inflow of resources, rather than reporting it as part of the City’s fund balance.  To remove compensated absences from the general fund which had been incorrectly recognized in both the governmental funds and the government-wide statements.  To adjust various overstated revenues and receivables.

Cause
The misstatement relating to loans receivable appears to be a misinterpretation of how to apply the accounting standards at the time the loans were given, and the City’s control procedures did not extend to review previously adopted accounting practices. All other misstatements were because the City control procedures were not effective in detecting and identifying them in a timely manner.

Effect
The City’s previously issued financial statements were not fairly stated in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Recommendation
We recommend that the City expand its year-end closing to include formalized procedures for identifying, investigating, and correcting errors or misstatements in previously issued financial statements such as review of all accounts in the City's general ledger to ensure that amounts can be supported, are complete and are derived by correctly applying accounting standards.

Management Response
The City currently has robust internal controls in place to identify and correct errors and mistakes in financial reporting. Furthermore, the City continually evaluates its internal controls and policies to guarantee compliance with applicable legislation and standards. When City staff had previously discovered a loan receivable not reported in the financial statements, the City reached out to its auditors to seek advice on how to report this loan receivable and recorded the loan receivable in accordance with their guidance. The loan receivable misstatement noted in the condition above resulted from previous auditors' guidance on how to record the loan receivable transaction. The other two instances mentioned in the condition above were also uncovered by City staff as part of the City's current year-end closing and reconciliation procedures only because those procedures clearly do extend to include the review of previously adopted accounting practices.

F.4.c
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Report on Internal Control for FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR)

City of
Orinda
Orinda, California
Independent Accountants’ Report on
Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to
Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the year ended June 30, 2024
F.4.d
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) F.4.d
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below on the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule of the City of Orinda (City) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. The City’s management is responsible for the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule.

The City has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate to meet the intended purpose of the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution.

Additionally, the League of California Cities (as presented in the publication entitled Agreed-upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution) has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes. This report may not be suitable for any other purpose. The procedures performed may not address all the items of interest to a user of this report and may not meet the needs of all users of this report and, as such, users are responsible for determining whether the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes.

The procedures performed and our findings are described below:

1. We obtained the completed worksheets used by the City to calculate its appropriations limit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and determined that the limit and annual calculation factors were adopted by resolution of City Council. We also determined that the population and inflation options were selected by a recorded vote of City Council.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule, we added the prior year’s limit to the total adjustments, and agreed the resulting amount to the current year’s limit.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

3. We agreed the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to corresponding information in worksheets used by the City.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

4. We agreed the prior year appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to the prior year appropriations limit adopted by the City Council during the prior year.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

F.4.d
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California
2 We were engaged by the City to perform this agreed-upon procedures engagement and conducted our engagement in accordance with attestation standards established by the AICPA. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination or review, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the accompanying Appropriation Limit Schedule. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements related to our agreed-upon procedures engagement.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this report is a matter of public record, and its distribution is not limited.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
January 14, 2025
F.4.d
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the year ended June 30, 2024
Amount Source
A. Appropriations limit for the year ended June 30, 2023 24,941,095 $ Prior year report B. Calculation factors:

1. Population increase % 0.9964 State Department of Finance

2. Inflation increase (deflation decrease) 1.0444 State Department of Finance

3. Total adjustment factor % 1.0406 B1 * B2
C. Annual adjustment increase 1,013,606 $ [(B3-1)*A)]
D. Other adjustments:

Loss responsibility (-) - N/A
Transfers to private (-) - N/A
Transfers to fees (-) - N/A
Assumed responsibility (+) - N/A
E. Total adjustments 1,013,606 (C+D)
F. Appropriations limit for the year ended June 30, 2024 25,954,701 $ (A+E) 3 F.4.d
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Notes to Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the year ended June 30, 2024
4 1. PURPOSE OF LIMITED PROCEDURES REVIEW
Under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution (the Gann Spending Limitation Initiative), California governmental agencies are restricted as to the amount of annual appropriations from proceeds of taxes.

Effective for years beginning on or after July 1, 1990, under Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB, the annual calculation of the appropriations limit is subject to this agreed upon procedures engagement.

2. METHOD OF CALCULATION
Under Section 10.5 of Article XIIIB, for fiscal years beginning on or after July 1990, the appropriations limit is required to be calculated based on the limit for the fiscal year 1986-1987, adjusted for the inflation and population factors discussed in Notes 3 and 4 below.

3. INFLATION FACTORS
A California governmental agency may use as its inflation factor either the annual percentage change in the 4th quarter per capita personal income (which percentage is supplied by the State Department of Finance), or the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the change of local nonresidential construction. The factor adopted by the City of Orinda for the fiscal year 2023-2024 represents the change in per capita income in the State of California.

4. POPULATION FACTORS
A California governmental agency may use as its population factor either the annual percentage change of the jurisdiction’s own population, or the annual percentage change in population in the County where the jurisdiction is located. The factor adopted by the City of Orinda for fiscal year 2023-2024 represents the population change in the County of Contra Costa.

5. OTHER ADJUSTMENTS
A California government agency may be required to adjust its appropriations limit when certain events occur, such as the transfer of responsibility for municipal services to, or from, another government agency or private entity. The City had no such adjustments for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024.

F.4.d
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2023-24 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR)

City of
Orinda
Orinda, California
Independent Accountants’ Report on
Agreed-Upon Procedures Applied to
Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the year ended June 30, 2025
F.4.e
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2024-25 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) F.4.e
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2024-25 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California
We have performed the procedures enumerated below on the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule of the City of Orinda (City) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. The City’s management is responsible for the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule.

The City has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate to meet the intended purpose of the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution.

The procedures performed and our findings are described below:

1. We obtained the completed worksheets used by the City to calculate its appropriations limit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, and determined that the limit and annual calculation factors were adopted by resolution of City Council. We also determined that the population and inflation options were selected by a recorded vote of City Council.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule, we added the prior year’s limit to the total adjustments, and agreed the resulting amount to the current year’s limit.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

3. We agreed the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to corresponding information in worksheets used by the City.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

4. We agreed the prior year appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to the prior year appropriations limit adopted by the City Council during the prior year.

Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures.

F.4.e
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2024-25 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Orinda
Orinda, California
2 We were engaged by the City to perform this agreed-upon procedures engagement and conducted our engagement in accordance with attestation standards established by the AICPA. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination or review, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the accompanying Appropriation Limit Schedule. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements related to our agreed-upon procedures engagement.

Badawi & Associates, CPAs
Berkeley, California
January 14, 2025
F.4.e
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2024-25 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the year ended June 30, 2025
Amount Source
A. Appropriations limit for the year ended June 30, 2024 25,954,701 $ Prior year report B. Calculation factors:

1. Population increase % 1.0012 State Department of Finance

2. Inflation increase (deflation decrease) 1.0362 State Department of Finance

3. Total adjustment factor % 1.0374 B1 * B2
C. Annual adjustment increase 971,822 $ [(B3-1)*A)]
D. Other adjustments:

Loss responsibility (-) - N/A
Transfers to private (-) - N/A
Transfers to fees (-) - N/A
Assumed responsibility (+) - N/A
E. Total adjustments 971,822 (C+D)
F. Appropriations limit for the year ended June 30, 2025 26,926,523 $ (A+E) 3 F.4.e
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2024-25 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City of Orinda
Notes to Appropriations Limit Schedule
For the year ended June 30, 2025
4 1. PURPOSE OF LIMITED PROCEDURES REVIEW
Under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution (the Gann Spending Limitation Initiative), California governmental agencies are restricted as to the amount of annual appropriations from proceeds of taxes.

Effective for years beginning on or after July 1, 1990, under Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB, the annual calculation of the appropriations limit is subject to this agreed upon procedures engagement.

3. INFLATION FACTORS
A California governmental agency may use as its inflation factor either the annual percentage change in the 4th quarter per capita personal income (which percentage is supplied by the State Department of Finance), or the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the change of local nonresidential construction. The factor adopted by the City of Orinda for the fiscal year 2024-2025 represents the change in per capita income in the State of California.

4. POPULATION FACTORS
A California governmental agency may use as its population factor either the annual percentage change of the jurisdiction’s own population, or the annual percentage change in population in the County where the jurisdiction is located. The factor adopted by the City of Orinda for fiscal year 2024-2025 represents the population change in the County of Contra Costa.

F.4.e
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Report on Appropriations Limit FY 2024-25 (25-4 : Annual Comprehensive Financial Audit Report for June 30, 2024 - ACFR) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.5
Date: January 21, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Accept Work and Approve Record Plans for the San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, City Project No. 4187, and Authorize the City Clerk to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND:

On April 30, 2024, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Bugler Construction, Inc. of Pleasanton, California for the bid amount of $ $1,986,400 for performance of San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, City Project No. 4187. The City Council also authorized expenditure to allow change orders up to 15% of the original contract amount, for a total construction budget of $2,285,000.

A Notice to Proceed was issued to Bugler Construction, Inc. to commence work on June 3, 2024 for a 165 working day contract time of completion. A material substitution and two items of work were deleted from the contract by change order, as described below, which reduced the total cost of the project. The project was completed within the required number of working days and no liquidated damages were assessed to the Contractor upon substantial completion of the project, which occurred on October 31, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

In order to issue the payment of the final retention and close out the contract, it is presented for acceptance by the City Council.

There were minor changes to the project during construction. There was one substitution of material and two items that were determined not needed. The following elements of work were part of the Contract Change Order 1:
• Item No. 4 “Remove and Replace Chain Link Fence” reduction in quantity as less fence required repair.
• Item No. 8 “Abrasion Resistant Concrete (ARC)” was not used. Prior to placement of ARC, Bugler Construction, Inc. confirmed their supplier no longer provides ARC. Alternate accepted product used was a High Strength (9000psi) Concrete Mix.

F.5
Packet Pg. 66
• Item No. 11 “Non-Shrink Grout to Fill Voids” was not used. During construction no voids found in need of grout filling.
• Item No. 12 “High Performance Concrete” had a small increase in quantity. • Item No. 13 “Injection Epoxy for Concrete Cracks” was not used. During construction, team reviewed conditions and concluded no injection necessary. • Item No. 19 “High Strength Concrete” (9000psi). This mix was used in lieu of Item No. 8 “Abrasion Resistant Concrete (ARC)” locations of project. A slight increase in quantity was needed to provide a flat cross slope in the box culvert.

The final contact value, including the alternate material is $1,919,112.50, which represents a decrease of 3.4% under the original contract value of $1,986,400.

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

NEXT STEPS:

Upon City Council approval, the City Engineer will sign the Notice of Completion and the City Clerk will record it with Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder’s office. Retention (5% of the contract value) will be released in accordance with the contract documents and the Public Contract Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The construction associated with this project was funded from several sources as approved in the CIP:
• Fund 704, Road/Drainage Stabilization
• Fund 106, Orinda Add-on Sales Tax, Measure R
As noted above, the construction contract was completed for less than the authorized budget. The remaining unused construction funds will be returned to the fund balances and available for the City Council to authorize as expenditures on future projects. This will be accounted for when the CIP is updated.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Notice of Completion - San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair (Bugler) B. San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Drawings
C. Resolution Accepting Work and Approving Record Plans for the San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, and Authorize the City Clerk to Sign and File a Notice of Completion with the County
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
F.5
Packet Pg. 67
Prepared By: Ryan Okane, Senior Engineer
Approved by:

F.5
Packet Pg. 68

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:

City Clerk/Public Works Dept.

City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563

NO FEE DOCUMENT
(Government Code section 27383)
TITLE:

Notice of Completion for
San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, City Project No. 4187 (Contractor: Bugler Construction, Inc.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the undersigned, those certain improvements, to wit:

San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, City Project No. 4187 Project location: The subject concrete box culvert conveys San Pablo Creek from the Safeway parking lot to Orinda Way, in the City of Orinda, Contra Costa County, California.

Property Owner: The project stretches over multiple properties owned by various entities and through the Right of Way owned by City of Orinda (a municipal corporation, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda CA 94563) as right-of-way. The City exercised its established easement rights at each affected property to maintain and repair the culvert in locations outside of the public right of way and to bring the necessary workmen, tools and equipment to complete the work.

The contract which has heretofore been let to Bugler Construction, Inc., and which contract was filed for record in the City Clerk’s office in the City of Orinda, Contra Costa County, California, was actually completed in accordance with the plans and specifications, and the work was completed and accepted by the City of Orinda, on 1/21/2025.

Information pertaining to the estimate of cost, names of bidders with prices bid, changes in adopted and approved plans and specifications, and the total cost of work is on file at the City Clerks’ office of the City of Orinda.

CITY OF ORINDA,
a municipal corporation
Date: ________________ By: ____________________________________ Sivakumar Natarajan, City Engineer,
R.C.E. #74789
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the above Notice of Completion was duly accepted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting thereof held on 1/21/2025. ______________________________
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
F.5.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Notice of Completion - San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair (Bugler) (25-6 : Accept Work and Approve Record Plans for the San Pablo

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:

Accept Work and Approve Record
Plans for the San Pablo Creek
Culvert Repair Project, City Project
No. 4187, and Authorize the City
Clerk to sign and file a Notice of
Completion with the Contra Costa
County Clerk-Recorder
)
) Resolution No. 02-25
)
)
)
)
)
)
WHEREAS, Bugler Construction, Inc., has completed the work in accordance with the construction contract documents for the San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, City Project No. 4187; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has recommended that the work be accepted as complete.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Orinda accept the work, under the terms and conditions of the above-referenced construction contract documents and approve record plans for the San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project (City Project No. 4187).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to sign and file the Notice of Completion with the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Administrative Services Director is hereby authorized to release all withheld project retention in accordance with the contract documents and the Public Contract Code.

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.5.c
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Resolution Accepting Work and Approving Record Plans for the San Pablo Creek Culvert Repair Project, and Authorize the City City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: January 21, 2025
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Final Design Concept for Crossroads Park (CIP project #4103) and Related Actions
RECOMMENDATION:

Take the following actions: 1) Receive the presentation; 2) Approve revised design concept; 3) Approve Amendment #2 to the Contract with Gates & Associates; and 4) Approve Budget Change Form #005-25.

BACKGROUND:

At the October 1, 2024, meeting, the City Council reviewed options for completion of the Crossroads Park project. The City Council supported the “Baseline” case design (Attachment A), which involved the least amount of flatwork/sidewalk removal and minimal re-landscaping, given the reduction in donation from the Orinda Community Foundation. The City Council also supported the “fin” style ORINDA monument sign (from the 2018 design concept) and requested that additional trees (approximately 10), with string lights, be added to help screen the building.

It should be noted that the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Arts in Public Places Committee, who were involved in developing the project, had previously recommended a different sign type, with a wavy shape and mosaic tiles, with a conceptual design provided by artist Angelina Duckett. That sign was considered at the October 1 meeting. In response to the outcome of the October 1 meeting, the artist provided comment via an email (Attachment B).

The City Council also asked Staff to contact the Orinda Community Foundation to determine if they would consider increased funding, and to seek potential funding from the Orinda Garden Club.

DISCUSSION:

Staff consulted with the Orinda Community Foundation regarding this project, and they confirmed their plan to donate $50,000 for this project. They were not interested in increasing the amount at this time but were open for further consideration after the outcome of tonight’s meeting.

With respect to the Orinda Garden Club, Staff discussed the latest versions of the project with them, and they indicated interest in providing funding, especially if the landscaping replacement were to be more extensive. The Garden Club would be interested in reviewing the plant selections for the new landscaping. Given the likelihood of receiving additional funding, Staff is now recommending full landscaping H.1
Packet Pg. 71
rehabilitation; similar the original project (refer to draft 2022 plan sheet L4.01, Attachment C) but without the changes in the fountain or courtyard hardscape areas.

Design Concept
Staff worked with Gates & Associates, the landscape architect engaged for this project, to provide an updated concept design (Attachment D) to reflect the addition of trees to screen the building per direction received at the October 1, 2024 meeting. Staff presented this concept to the Parks & Recreation Commission on November 13, 2024, and the Arts in Public Places Committee on November 18, 2024. Also attached are images of typical plants being considered for the new landscaping (Attachment E), and, for reference, a photo of the current view of the Crossroads Park (Attachment F).

Funding and Cost Estimate
The construction cost estimate for the proposed project, with full landscaping, limited flatwork removal (no replacement) and the “fin” sign, is approximately $320,000. A preliminary cost estimate breakdown is provided as Attachment G. The design cost to complete detail plans and specifications for this concept is approximately $28,000.

Additionally, $15,000 is estimated for construction administration by Gates (refer to Gates proposal dated June 2024, Attachment H). Their proposal assumed at the time that flatwork in the plaza would be replaced, which is not currently proposed. The final plans would be revised to remove such scope of work. Including construction and consultant work, expenditure of $363,000 is estimated to complete the project.

The CIP project #4103 budget (see Attachment I) has $106,000 available, and therefore additional funding of $257,000 is needed, as shown in the table below. As previously noted, the Orinda Community Foundation and the Orinda Garden Club plan to contribute financially to this project. Staff recommends the additional funding be appropriated from the Capital Improvement Fund 700, which has sufficient available balance. Staff proposes that donation amounts, once received, will be booked as revenue to Fund 700 to offset the expenditures. A budget change form is included as Attachment J.

Funding/Shortfall to Complete Project
Construction Cost $320,000
Landscape & Irrigation $ 125,000
Signage (incl. foundation & wall) 120,000
Demo, lighting, misc. 20,000
Contingency 55,000
Design Cost 28,000
Construction Administration 15,000
Total: $363,000
Available Balance in CIP (106,000)
Shortfall Needed (CIP Fund 700 and donations from
OCF and Garden Club.)
$257,000
Sign/Public Art Options
H.1
Packet Pg. 72
As described above, the proposed Orinda monument sign is based on the fin design, developed by Gates, the landscape architect, under contract with the City. It is not considered “public art” and can be modified or changed in the future as the City may decide. It was supported by the City Council at their October 1, 2024 meeting. It should be noted that the City Council could reconsider the use of public art at this location and can defer the fin sign design. Public art has other considerations including intellectual property and ongoing maintenance, in consultation with the artist. If City Council decides to consider a sign designed by an artist, Staff would recommend that the City follow a more typical public art process, including a call for artists. Alternatively, if the City Council is interested in other design matters related to the fin sign option, including color and/or font selection, Staff can bring back additional options for consideration.

Amendment to Gates Contract
The professional services contract with Gates & Associates requires an amendment to complete the above-described design work and contract administration. Gates provided conceptual work related to this project’s development in 2014 and 2015, apparently under an informal contract, and the cost of that work, amounting to approximately $33,000, did not get charged to the subject CIP project.

After that work, a formal contract with Gates was executed on December 5, 2016, for an amount of $35,000. A proposed Amendment #1 was considered at the October 16, 2018, City Council meeting, but it was not approved. On June 4, 2019, Staff updated the City Council on the project and discussed the need for amending the Gates contract.

On October 22, 2019, City Council approved an amendment of $43,000 (the staff report denoted it as Amendment #2; however, it should be Amendment #1). Therefore, the amended contract value at that time was $78,000. To date, actual expenditures under this contract amount to $51,500. For accounting purposes, it is recommended that the contract value to date be adjusted to $51,500.

Gates’ proposal to complete the remaining work (Attachment H) is for a not-to-exceed amount of $43,445. Staff recommends authorizing Amendment #2 (Attachment K) to provide for completion of the project. The total amended Gates contract value, including the subject Amendment #2, will be $94,945 ($51,500 + $43,445).

NEXT STEPS:

Upon approval of the design concept, Staff will finalize Amendment #2 with Gates & Associates to complete plans and specifications. Upon completion of this process, including required PG&E review of the plans, Staff will solicit bids for construction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

To date, $82,428 has been charged to Project #4103, for design services, fountain and irrigation repairs and some plant replacements. With the cost to complete the project as described above, the total project cost is forecast to be approximately $445,000. An additional appropriation of $257,000 is necessary to complete Project #4103, and H.1
Packet Pg. 73
approval of Budget Change Form #005-25 (Attachment J) will provide this additional budget allocation from the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 700).

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Minimal Landscape Baseline Scope of Work
B. October 29, 2024 Email Communication from Artist Angelina Duckett C. Full Landscaping Layout Plan from 2022
D. Concept Design - Fin Sign Streetview Photosimulation E. Images of New Landscape Plantings
F. Image of Current Area
G. Construction Cost Estimate
H. Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024
I. CIP Detail Page - Project Number 4103 Crossroads Park J. Amendment #2 to Contract with Gates and Associates
K. Budget Change Form #005-25
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

H.1
Packet Pg. 74

1. Baseline
• New scope limited to area
immediately adjacent tonew signage.
• Remove portion of
sidewalk along CaminoPablo.
• Courtyard paving to
remain
13 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Minimal Landscape Baseline Scope of Work (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) From: Angelina Duckett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 10:39 AM
To: Todd Trimble <[email protected]>
Subject: Crossroads sign
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.

Dear Todd,
I viewed the city council meeting and felt compelled to express my concerns regarding the presentation of the sign.

The budget I submitted was not $170,000 as indicated to the council; in fact, that figure exceeds my proposal by $120,000.

After receiving approval for the design and enduring a two-year wait for the contract, I noticed that the presenter was advocating for an alternative approach. Could you please clarify why a design from 2018 is being considered, especially since it does not align with the guidelines I was asked to adhere to in 2022, and why there is such a significant increase in costs compared to my original proposal? It is importantly to address this matter quickly to ensure that the council's decision is not influenced by inaccurate information.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,
Angelina
Angelina Duckett Mosaics
www.angelinaduckett.com
H.1.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: October 29, 2024 Email Communication from Artist Angelina Duckett (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) H.1.c
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Full Landscaping Layout Plan from 2022 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) H.1.d
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Concept Design - Fin Sign Streetview Photosimulation (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval)

CROSSROADS PARK
1 SCREENING PLANTINGS
Manzanita Trailing Rosemary Bee’s Bliss Sage
Coffeeberry Indian Hawthorne Creeping Variegated Coprosma Trailing Lantana

LOW ACCENT PLANTINGS
landscape character
H.1.e
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Images of New Landscape Plantings (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) H.1.f
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Image of Current Area (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Gates + Associates Opinion of Probable
Landscape Architecture Construction Costs
Orinda Mini Park Created by: EG
Preliminary Cost Estimate
12/19/2024
Item Quantity Unit Cost Item Cost Subtotal
Signage + Full landscape
Concrete demo 510 SF $10.00 $5,100
Landscape Clear + Grub 4580 SF $5.00 $22,900
Planting + Irrigation 5090 SF $20.00 $101,800
Lighting 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000
Signage 1 LS $120,000.00 $120,000
Contingency (20%) 1 LS $52,960.00 $52,960
Sub-Total $317,760

Page 1 of 1 ends

H.1.g
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Construction Cost Estimate (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) June 05, 2024 rev
Todd Trimble
Parks and Recreation Director
City of Orinda
28 Orinda Way, Orinda CA 94563
[email protected]
Dear Todd,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following proposal for landscape architectural, civil and electrical design services for Crossroads Park (Orinda Mini Park), Orinda. We have based the scope on the concept that was approved by City Council in October 2019. See image below.

If the attached work scope is acceptable, please sign a copy of this letter and return to us for our files.

Sincerely,
Erik Gellerman
Senior Associate
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Crossroads Park (Orinda Mini Park)
June 05, 2024

Page 2 ends

SCOPE OF SERVICES
This agreement is made as of June 5, 2024 by and between Gates + Associates, (GATES) [California License No. 6032], a California corporation, and The City of Orinda (Client).

As provided in this Agreement, GATES will provide landscape architectural services for the following project (the "Project"):

Crossroads Park
I. BASIC SERVICES
A. Construction Documents
This proposal will complete the construction documents set based on the work provided in the 65% submittal from February 2022.

1. Work with the Client and consultant team to review schedule, construction costs and refinements of design documents to be shown in the construction documents.

2. Finalize construction documents including:
a. Layout plans for landscaped and hardscaped areas
b. Grading plan
c. Planting plans and details
d. Irrigation plans, details and water budget calcs
e. Landscape construction items (which might include such items as monument signage, site furniture, landscape walls)
f. Electrical plans for site lighting. Including photometrics, fixture and control schedules, details and energy compliance.

3. Design team shall coordinate site grading and utility conflicts.

4. Planting and Irrigation specifications using the standard C.S.I. format.

5. Provide electronic plans for City Submittal at (95%, 100%).

6. Updated cost estimate.

7. Day-to-day coordination with design team and other consultants as required.

Max 16 hours.

8. Prepare written response to comments on revisions to the Construction Documents based on three sets of consolidated comments provided by the Client.

PRODUCTS:

Plans and Specifications 95%, and Final (electronic)
B. Construction Administration

1. Bid assistance (Max 12 hours)
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Crossroads Park (Orinda Mini Park)
June 05, 2024

Page 3 ends

2. Review of submittals shop drawings and respond to RFIs. Preparation of clarifications drawings, coordination with Contractor and Design Team. (Max 12 hours) Construction schedule is assumed to be a maximum of 6 months.

3. A representative of GATES shall make up to 3 visits to the site (4 hours each) during and at the completion of construction to ascertain if the landscape work is generally proceeding in conformance with the drawings and specifications. On the basis of such on-site observations, as landscape architect, GATES shall keep the Owner informed of the progress and quality of the work. Additional construction observation requested by the Client shall be billed as additional services.

4. T&M allowance for up to 1 site visit, review of RFIs and submittals related to civil engineering work ($2,600)

5. T&M allowance for up to 1 site visit, review of RFIs and submittals related to electrical engineering work ($2,800)

6. Provide as built drawings to the City on mylar.

C. Meetings

1. Meetings are not in the scope of this proposal and would be billed at the hourly rates described in Item IV.

II. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
A. Subconsultant fees have been marked up 10% and included in the fees below.

B. Client shall provide all existing information necessary for the completion basic services as described in this letter of agreement.

C. The work described in basic services part B shall be performed as one set of Construction Documents. Splitting the project into more than one phase of construction or more than one project may require an increase in the fee shown in Item IV.

D. Opinions of Probable Construction Cost prepared by GATES are approximate only and do not take into account future market conditions or contractor's bidding methods. GATES has no control over costs of labor, materials or equipment and GATES estimates cannot be guaranteed.

E. GATES is not responsible for means, methods, sequences, techniques and procedures of construction or for safety precautions associated with construction.

F. GATES will coordinate the surface grading and drainage work with the work of the project Civil Engineer as part of this contract.

G. Regarding site lighting, GATES shall evaluate existing site condition; provide site design for electrical, etc. from the source to the necessary locations.

H.1.h
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Crossroads Park (Orinda Mini Park)
June 05, 2024

Page 4 ends

H. Regarding Geo Technical Soils Services, GATES has determined that a geotechnical report is not necessary for this project. Geotechnical services are not part of this contract.

I. Regarding Agency and City Submittals, GATES will submit plans to necessary agencies on behalf of the city.

III. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
A. The fee for the services indicated in Item I of this proposal shall be:

A. Construction Documents $27,955
B. Construction Administration $15,490
TOTAL 43,445
+ reimbursables
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Crossroads Park (Orinda Mini Park)
June 05, 2024

Page 5 ends

IV. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
A. Any extra services, including additional work or meetings, requested by the Client in addition to those indicated in this proposal shall be billed at the hourly rate listed below in addition to the fee indicated in Item III above.

Hourly Fees for Services of: Rate Per Hour:

Partner $225.00-$240.00
Principal $210.00 - $225.00
Associate Principal $195.00 - $210.00
Senior Associate $175.00 - $195.00
Associate Planner $165.00 - $185.00
Job Captain $155.00 - $175.00
Planner $135.00 - $165.00
Irrigation Designer $195.00 - $210.00
Marketing Coordinator $125.00 - $175.00
Administrative/Drafter $125.00 - $150.00
Note: The hourly rates shown may be revised as described in Appendix A, but would not affect the amount of compensation shown in Item III.

B. Additional services shall include but are not limited to the following:

1. Revisions to the design following commencement of the Construction Documents Phase.

2. Additional meetings to those described above.

3. Preparation of front end (boilerplate) non-technical specifications.

4. Horticultural consulting and soils analysis.

Accepted by:
__________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Todd Trimble,
City of Orinda
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Gates + Associates May 31, 2024
Job# 19-1045-11 Crossroads Park

Page 1 of 5 ends

Erik Gellerman
Gates + Associates
1655 N Main Street, Suite 365
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
RE: Letter Agreement for Engineering Support Services
Crossroads Park - Orinda, CA
Dear Erik:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our professional engineering services. We understand that the plans for Crossroads Park shall be finalized for City of Orinda approval. We understand that you wish to have the following services:

I. Scope of Services
A. Engineering Services

1. Grading Plan
Finalize Grading Plan for street level that includes dimensions, grading limits, slopes, existing top of curb grades, grade breaks, finish contour lines, screened existing topography, and grading quantities on subject property. Coordinate fine grading within landscaped areas, which will be prepared by the landscape architect. Assumes two (2) rounds of City plan checks.

2. Site Plan Coordination (T&M)
Coordinate site layout with landscape architect. Attend meetings and conference calls with client, City of Orinda, and project team consultants throughout the final design process. This task will be billed on a time-and-materials basis and assumes a maximum of 10 hours of a Project Manager’s time. Any additional support will be charged on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached Standard Charge Rates.

3. Construction Administration (T&M)
Provide support during the construction phase including attending meetings, answering Requests for Information (RFIs), reviewing Contractor’s submittals, site visits, coordination with Contractor, and plan revisions. This task will be billed on a time-and-materials basis and assumes a maximum of 10 hours of a Project Manager’s time. Any additional support will be charged on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached Standard Charge Rates.

H.1.h
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Gates + Associates May 31, 2024
Job# 19-1045-11 Crossroads Park

Page 2 of 5 ends

Fees

1. Grading Plan $ 4,000.00

2. Site Plan Coordination (T&M) $ 2,350.00

3. Construction Administration (T&M) $ 2,350.00
Engineering Phase Total $ 8,700.00
Items not listed above are excluded from this agreement. Specifications are excluded from this contract. The scope and fees will be valid for 60 days from the date listed above.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this contract. We look forward to our continued relationship and working with you on this project.

CONSULTANT: CLIENT:

By By
(Signature) (Signature)
Name Stacey Gella Name
(Print) (Print)
Title Project Manager Title
Date May 31, 2024 Date
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval)

Page 3 of 5 ends

Standard Provisions of Agreement
Client and Consultant agree that the following provisions shall be part of their agreement:

1.0 AGREEMENT

1.1 This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of Client and Consultant.

1.2 This agreement shall not be assigned by either Client or Consultant without the prior written consent of the other.

1.3 This agreement contains the entire agreement between Client and Consultant relating to the project and the provision of services for the project. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations or representations not expressly set forth in this agreement are of no force or effect. Subsequent modifications to this agreement shall be in writing and signed by both Client and Consultant.

1.4 Consultant's or Client’s waiver of any term, condition or covenant, shall not constitute the waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Consultant’s or Client’s waiver of any breach of this agreement shall not constitute the waiver of any other breach of the agreement.

1.5 If any term, condition, or covenant of this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this agreement shall be valid and binding on Client and Consultant.

1.6 This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

1.7 The fee(s) quoted in this contract is valid 60 days from the contract date and unless stated otherwise is approximate only.

2.0 SERVICES

2.1 Client acknowledges all reports, plans, specifications, field data and notes and other documents, including all documents on electronic media, prepared by Consultant are instruments of service, and shall remain the property of Consultant. Upon request and payment of all costs involved, Client is entitled to a copy of all final plans and specifications for use in connection with the project for which the plans and specifications have been prepared. Client acknowledges that its right to utilize final plans and specifications and the services of Consultant provided pursuant to this agreement will continue only so long as Client is not in default, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this agreement, and Client has performed all its obligations under this agreement.

2.2 In accepting and utilizing any drawings, reports and data on any form of electronic media generated and furnished by Consultant, Client covenants and agrees that all such electronic files are instruments of service of Consultant, who shall be deemed the author, and shall retain all common law, statutory law and other rights, including copyrights.

2.3 Client agrees not to use or permit any other person to use plans, drawings, or other work product prepared by Consultant, which plans, drawings or other work product are not final and which are not signed and stamped or sealed by Consultant and waives liability against Consultant for their use. Client further agrees that final plans, drawings or other work product are for the exclusive use of Client and may be used by Client only for the project described on the face hereof. Such final plans, drawings or other work product may not be changed nor used on a different project without the written authorization or approval by Consultant.

2.4 Client agrees not to reuse these electronic files, in whole or in part, for any purpose or project other than the project that is the subject of this agreement. Client agrees not to transfer these electronic files to others without the prior written consent of Consultant. Client further agrees to waive all claims against Consultant resulting in any way from any unauthorized changes or reuse of the electronic files for any other project by anyone other than Consultant.

2.5 Client is aware that differences may exist between the electronic files delivered and the printed hard copy construction documents. In the event of a conflict between the signed construction documents prepared by Consultant and electronic files, the signed and stamped or sealed hard copy construction documents shall govern.

2.6 In addition, Client agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its officers, directors, employees, agents and subconsultants against all damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and defense costs, arising from any changes made by anyone other than Consultant or from any reuse of the electronic files without the prior written consent of Consultant.

2.7 Client acknowledges that the design services performed pursuant to this agreement are based upon field and other conditions existing at the time these services were performed. Client further acknowledges that field and other conditions may change by the time project construction occurs and clarification, adjustments, modifications and other changes may be necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions. Such clarifications, adjustments, modifications and other changes shall be paid for by Client as extra services in accordance with Section 5.0 Extra Services.

2.8 Consultant shall only act as an advisor with respect to all contact with governmental agencies.

3.0 TERMINATION, SUSPENSION, DELAY, DEFAULT

3.1 Client acknowledges Consultant has a right to complete all services agreed to be rendered pursuant to this agreement. In the event this agreement is terminated before the completion of all services, unless Consultant is responsible for such early termination,Client agrees to release Consultant from all liability for services performed. In the event that all or any portion of the services by Consultant are suspended, abandoned, or otherwise terminated, Client shall pay Consultant all fees and charges for services provided prior to termination, not to exceed the contract limits specified herein, if any. Client acknowledges if the project services are suspended and restarted, there will be additional charges due to suspension of the services which shall be paid for by Client as extra services pursuant to Section 5.0 Extra Services.

3.2 This agreement shall not be construed to alter, affect or waive any design professional’s lien, mechanic’s lien or stop notice right which Consultant may have for the performance of services pursuant to this agreement. Client agrees to provide to Consultant the present name and address of the record owner of the property on which the project is to be located. Client also agrees to provide Consultant with the name and address of any and all lenders who would loan money on the project and who are entitled to receive a preliminary notice.

3.3 Either party may terminate this agreement if the other party is in material breach of the provisions of this agreement. In addition, either party may terminate the agreement for its convenience and without cause by giving 1 5 days written notice to the other party. In the event of any termination, Client shall pay Consultant for all services rendered, in accordance with this agreement.

3.4 Consultant is not responsible for delay caused by activities or factors beyond Consultant's reasonable control, including but not limited to, delays by reason of strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns or stoppages,accidents, acts of God, failure of Client to furnish timely information or approve or disapprove Consultant's services or instruments of service promptly, faulty performance by Client or other contractors or governmental agencies.When such delays beyond Consultant's reasonable control occur, Client agrees Consultant shall not be responsible for damages nor shall Consultant be deemed to be in default of this agreement. Further, when such delays occur, Client agrees that, to the extent such delays cause Consultant to perform extra services, such services shall be paid for by Client as extra services in accordance with Section 5.0 Extra Services.

H.1.h
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval)

Page 4 of 5 ends

4.0 COMPENSATION

4.1 Invoices will be rendered monthly for the work done in the preceding month and will be due and payable upon receipt. All accounts not paid within thirty (30) days after date of invoice will bear a FINANCE CHARGE OF 1.5% per month, or the legal rate of interest, whichever is less, on the unpaid balance until paid in full. In the event any action is brought in this agreement concerning any amounts due hereunder, the prevailing party shall be reimbursed for all litigation and collection expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees.

4.2 If Client fails to pay Consultant within thirty (30) days after invoices are rendered, Consultant shall have the right in its sole discretion to consider such default in payment a material breach of this entire agreement and upon written notice the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of Consultant under this agreement may be suspended or terminated.

In such event Client shall promptly pay Consultant for all outstanding fees and charges due Consultant at the time of suspension or termination. If Consultant elects to suspend or terminate Consultant’s services pursuant to this provision, Consultant is entitled to reasonable suspension or termination costs or expenses.

4.3 Client agrees that the periodic billings from Consultant to Client are correct and binding on Client unless Client, within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of such billing, notifies Consultant in writing of alleged inaccuracies, discrepancies, or errors in the billing.

4.4 Client agrees that if Client requests services not specified in the scope of services description within this agreement, Client will pay for all such additional services as services under a contract change order in accordance with Consultant’s billing rates utilized for this agreement.

4.5 In the event of any increase in costs due to the granting of wage increases and/or other employee benefits for field or office employees per the terms of any labor agreement, or rise in the cost of living, during the lifetime of this Agreement, such percentage increase shall be applied to all remaining compensation.

5.0 EXTRA SERVICES

5.1 Client agrees that if Client requests services not specified in the scope of services described in this agreement, Client will pay for all such additional services as extra services. Items specifically noted as time-and-materials shall be in accordance with Consultant’s billing rates utilized for this agreement.

6.0 LITIGATION / LIABILITY / INDEMNITY / WAIVER

6.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, neither the Client nor the Consultant, their respective officers, directors, partners, employees, contractors or subconsultants shall be liable to the other or shall make any claim for any incidental, indirect or consequential damages arising out of or connected in any way to the Project or to this Agreement. This mutual waiver of consequential damages shall include but is not limited to, loss of use, loss of profit, loss of business, loss of income, loss of reputation or any other incidental, indirect or consequential damage that either party may have incurred from any cause or action.

6.2 In the event of any litigation arising from or related to the services provided under this agreement, if any action at law or equity, including an action for declaratory relief,is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of all reasonable costs incurred, including staff time, court costs, attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees and other related expenses

6.3 Client agrees that in the event that Consultant institutes litigation to enforce or interpret the provisions of this agreement, such litigation is to be brought and adjudicated in the appropriate court in the county in which Consultant's principal place of business is located, and Client waives the right to bring, try or remove such litigation to any other county or judicial district.

6.4 If the scope of services requires Consultant to estimate quantities or provide its opinion of probable cost, such estimates are made on the basis of Consultant’s experience and qualifications and represents Consultant’s best judgment as a professional generally familiar with the industry. However, such estimates are only estimates and shall not constitute representations, warranties or guarantees of the quantities of the subject of the estimate. However, since Consultant has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the contractor’s method of pricing, such opinions of probable construction costs do not constitute representations, warranties or guarantees of the accuracy of such opinions, as compared to bid or actual costs.

6.6 In the event (1)Client agrees to, permits or authorizes changes in the plans, specifications, reports and documents prepared by Consultant which changes are not consented to in writing by Consultant, or (2)Client agrees to, authorizes, or permits construction of unauthorized changes in the plans, specifications or documents prepared by Consultant, which changes are not consented to in writing by Consultant, or (3)Client does not follow recommendations prepared by Consultant pursuant to this agreement, which changed recommendations are not consented to in writing by Consultant: Client acknowledges that the unauthorized changes and their effects are not the responsibility of Consultant, and Client agrees to release Consultant from all liability arising from the use of such changes, and further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its officers, directors, agents, employees, and subconsultants from and against all claims, demands, damages or costs, including attorneys’ fees, arising from the unauthorized changes.

6.7 Client agrees to require its contractor and subcontractors to review the plans, specifications and documents prepared by Consultant prior to the commencement of construction-phase work. If the contractor and/or subcontractors determine there are deficiencies, conflicts, errors, omissions, code violations, improper uses of materials, or other deficiencies in the plans, specifications and documents prepared by Consultant, contractors and subcontractors shall notify Client so those deficiencies may be corrected by Consultant prior to the commencement of construction-phase work.

6.8 In the event Client discovers or becomes aware of changed field or other conditions which necessitate clarification, adjustments, modifications or other changes during the construction phase of the project, Client agrees to notify Consultant and engage Consultant to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes to Consultant’s work before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. Further, Client agrees to have a provision in its construction contracts for the project which requires the subcontractor to notify Client of any changed field or other conditions so that contractor may in turn notify Consultant pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph.

7.0 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS SECTIONS

7.1 Client agrees that in accordance with generally accepted construction practices, construction contractor and construction subcontractors will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of the project, including safety of all persons and property, and that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours. Neither the professional activities of Consultant nor the presence of Consultant or his or her employees or subconsultants at a construction site shall relieve the contractor and its subcontractors of their obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending or coordinating all portions of the work of construction in accordance with the contract documents and applicable health or safety requirements of any regulatory agency or of state law.

H.1.h
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Gates + Associates STANDARD CHARGE RATES May 31, 2024
Job # 19-1045-11 (Effective January 2024) Crossroads Park

Page 5 of 5 ends

PERSONNEL CHARGES
Charges for personnel engaged in professional and/or technical work are made for the actual hours directly chargeable to the project. Rates are subject to change.

Rates are as follows:

CHARGE

OFFICE SERVICES RATES
Principal Engineer $ 275.00/hr
Senior Project Manager $ 245.00/hr
Project Manager $ 235.00/hr
Senior Engineer $ 220.00/hr
Sr. Associate Engineer $ 215.00/hr
Associate Engineer $ 210.00/hr
Engineer $ 190.00/hr
Junior Engineer $ 165.00/hr
Senior Planner $ 195.00/hr
Associate Planner $ 190.00/hr
Planner $ 185.00/hr
Senior Project Designer $ 200.00/hr
Project Designer $ 190.00/hr
Designer $ 155.00/hr
Graphic Artist $ 115.00/hr
Administrative $ 90.00/hr

FIELD SERVICES
One-Man Field Party $ 235.00/hr
Two-Man Field Party / GPS Crew $ 310.00/hr
Three-Man Field Party $ 360.00/hr
Survey Manager $ 245.00/hr
Senior Land Surveyor $ 215.00/hr
Land Surveyor $ 205.00/hr
Senior Survey Technician $ 200.00/hr
Survey Technician II $ 185.00/hr
Survey Technician $ 170.00/hr
Construction Site Monitor $ 160.00/hr

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES

1.) Reimbursable charges for in-house expenses including printing, photographic work, plotting, reproductions, and deliveries will be charged at the dk rate for those services.

2.) Outside vendor services including printing, photographic work, courier services, subcontractors, rental of vehicles or special equipment, will be reimbursed at their respective costs plus 10%.

3.) Lodging, travel expenses including airline tickets, etc. will be charged at their respective costs as a pass through. Travel expenses related to meals will be invoiced at the allowable per diem meal limitation in accordance with the GSA – U.S. General Services Administration.

DELIVERIES AND MILEAGE
Mileage will be invoiced at the current Federal rate at the time of reimbursement.

ACCELERATED SCHEDULE/OVERTIME RATES
Overtime for accelerated schedule will be charged to the Client at a rate of 1.5 times the Standard Charge Rate for the personnel engaged in professional and/or technical work.

H.1.h
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 417, San Ramon, CA 94583
May 31st, 2024
David L. Gates & Associates, Inc. (dba GATES + ASSOCIATES, Gates and Associates) 2671 Crow Canyon Rd., San Ramon, CA 94583
Attention: Erik Gellerman
Subject: Orinda Mini Park (a.k.a Crossroads Park) - Exterior Lighting Location: NW Corner at Camino Pablo and Brookwood Rd., Oridna, CA 94563 Proposal Number: GAA2019-001-ASR-001
ADD SERVICE REQUEST - 001
This Add Service Request (“ASR”) is required to update our Hourly Rates from those reflected on our original Proposal GAA2019-001 from 2019. This project was put on hold in March of 2022 and has now become active in 2024. As a courtesy our 2023 Hourly Rates shall be used. This Add Service Request is proposed under Vektor Engineering and Consulting Services (“Vektor”), Inc. Standard Terms and Conditions (“STCs”) with 2023 Hourly Rates. The project was completed to 65% CD level as reflected further in Section 2.

Remaining Design Scope as follows:

1. Scope of Work.

1.1 General Description of Remaining Service
Gates + Associates (“GAA”) is seeking Electrical Engineering and Design Services of Vektor for the remaining Tasks of this project. The remaining Tasks are further described in Section 2.

1.2 Electrical Engineering:

Electrical Engineering and Design
Perform the following tasks:
a. Provide Electrical Construction Documents, Specifications, and other items as further broken down by Electrical Tasks in Section 2.
b. Continue the Construction Administration effort and attend construction site as needed during milestone completion and for functional demonstration by Electrical Contractor. c. Continue coordination with PG&E and the City of Orinda to get existing power source details, such as Arc Flash Assessment, and other necessary electrical information, as needed.

H.1.h
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Vektor Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc.

GAA2019-001-ASR-001 - Orinda Mini Park
2 of 3
d. Participate in coordination meetings with the Design and Construction Teams as needed.
e. Provide Bid Assistance, as needed.

1.3 Dependencies:
a. Allow for a minimum of 48 hr. notice to attend the construction site. b. Allow for a minimum of 24 hr. to respond to Requests for Information (“RFI”) and a minimum of 72 hr. to respond to Submittal or Shop Drawings review, actual time to review is dependent on the complexity of the information being requested. c. Mutually agreed upon milestones schedule from GAA Project Manager.

2. Fee.

Vektor will complete the Revised Services in accordance with Vektor’s STCs for the following Fixed Cost and T&M NTE Fee with the following breakdown:

The Revised total Fixed Cost Fee (Electrical Task Numbers 4-6) will be $6,138.

The Revised total T&M NTE Fee (Electrical Task Numbers 7-8) will be $2,559.

Total estimated Fee will be $8,697.

The Fee will be invoiced at the end of each month or when the remainder of the Fee has been used, consistent with NET30 terms.

3. Assumptions and Exclusions.

1. All Assumptions and Exclusions from the original GAA2019-001 Proposal shall be inclusive to this ASR.

The Consultant will fully support the design effort with their services and assist the Client with resolving any adverse conditions, some of which are mentioned above, and do so to their best ability, but for a revised Fee as these conditions of the project have changed.

H.1.h
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Vektor Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc.

GAA2019-001-ASR-001 - Orinda Mini Park
3 of 3

4. Notice to Proceed.

A written notice to proceed is required for the Consultant to begin the Scope of Work described by this Proposal. This can be accomplished by signing and giving authorization to proceed below.

Thank you very much for this opportunity! Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns regarding this Proposal, please call me at (925) 698-8067.

Sincerely,
Sergey Korolev, P.E.

President
The undersigned gives Vektor Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. authorization to provide the limited services as generally described herein and agrees to the Vektor Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. Standard Terms and Conditions as part of the original Proposal:

Name/Title: __________________________ Date: _______________ Signature: __________________________
Attachments: Vektor Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. Standard Terms and Conditions H.1.h
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) VEKTOR ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS – 2024
David L. Gates & Associates, Inc. (dba GATES + ASSOCIATES, Gates and Associates) 1 of 2
PROJECT NO.: GAA2019-001-ASR-001 – Orinda Mini Park – Exterior Lighting
In consideration of the matters described in the Statement of Work (“SOW”) above and the Letter of Agreement (“LOA”) between DAVID L.

GATES & ASSOCIATES, INC. (DBA GATES + ASSOCIATES, GATES AND ASSOCIATES) (“Client”), Inc. and Vektor Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. (“Consultant”), and of the mutual benefits and obligations set forth in these Standard Terms and Conditions, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the Client and the Consultant (individually “Party” and collectively the “Parties” to these Standard Terms and Conditions) agree as follows:

1. Services: The Client engages Vektor Engineering and Consulting Services, Inc. (“Vektor”) for the scope of services described in the cover letter (the Letter of Agreement) in accordance with the following terms and conditions. These Standard Terms and Conditions and rate sheet along with the Letter of Agreement represent the entire agreement (“Agreement”) between the Client and Vektor and cannot be changed or modified unless done so in writing and signed by both Vektor and the Client.

Vektor’s services shall be limited to those expressly set forth in this Agreement. Vektor shall have no other obligations or responsibilities to the Client or the Project except as agreed to in writing. Nevertheless, all of Vektor’s actions and communications relative to the Project shall be subject to this Agreement.

2. Standard of Care: Vektor shall perform its services consistent with and limited to the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by electrical engineers practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances (“Standard of Care”). Vektor shall perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. Such Standard of Care is not a warranty or guarantee, and Vektor shall have no such obligation, express or implied.

3. Client Representative: The Client will appoint a representative to act on their behalf, with the authority to provide or obtain any necessary information and approvals that may be required by Vektor (“Client Representative”). The Client and/or Client Representative shall provide in a timely manner all services, materials, and/or information necessary for Vektor to adequately perform its services.

4. Services: Vektor services will be based on the initial information provided by Client and may evolve over time. Client understands that the services provided for in this Agreement will not and cannot be completed until all services, including the Construction Administration phase services, have been performed in full by Vektor. Vektor shall coordinate its services with those services provided by the Client and the Client’s consultants. Vektor shall be entitled to rely on, and shall not be responsible for, the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of services and
information furnished by the Client and the Client’s consultants.

The Client shall provide prompt written notice to Vektor if the Client becomes aware of any error, omission, or inconsistency in Vektor’s services or information, or any information which has been provided to Vektor by Client, Client’s representative or Client’s consultants.

5. Revisions and additions: Fees are based upon the time estimated to complete the services as described. Any revisions or additions to the services described will be identified at the time of the change and will be billable as additional services above and beyond any estimates provided and will be billed at the stated hourly rates and may require a corresponding adjustment in Vektor’s schedule. Additional services will include, but will not be limited to, changes in the extent or complexity of any elements of the Project, changes made by the Client after an approval has already been made, circumstances beyond Vektor’s control (including changes to Instruments of Service necessitated by official interpretations of applicable codes, laws or regulations), and/or requests for services outside the parties’ mutual understanding of Vektor’s scope.

6. Ownership of Documents: Vektor and Vektor’s consultants, if any, grant the Client a nonexclusive license to use their Instruments of Service, including the Drawings and Specifications, solely for the purposes of constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided that the Client substantially performs its obligations, including prompt payment of all sums when due, under this Agreement. Vektor and Vektor’s consultants, if any, retain ownership and all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights, to their Instruments of Service. Client waives and releases any and all claims against Vektor and Vektor’s consultants, if any, resulting in any way from unauthorized change or use of the Instruments of Service or completion of the Project without Vektor’s
involvement and written consent and agrees to defend and indemnify Vektor and Vektor’s consultants, if any, against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, expenses and costs (including but not limited to attorney and expert fees) arising from or relating to such an unauthorized use.

7. Termination: Either party may terminate this Agreement after giving ten working days written notice to the other. In the event of termination of this Agreement, Client shall promptly pay Vektor in full for all time and reimbursable expenses committed and incurred up to the date of termination.

8. Mediation: Any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to the institution of legal or equitable proceedings by either party. If such matters relate to Vektor’s services, Vektor may proceed in accordance with applicable law to comply with lien notice or filing deadlines prior to mediation.

Mediation shall be in accordance with the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules & Procedures in effect at the time the dispute arises. Request for mediation shall be filed in writing with the other party to this Agreement and JAMS. The parties shall share the mediator’s fee and any filing fees equally. Mediation shall be held in Contra Costa County, California, unless another location is mutually agreed upon.

9. No Third Parties: Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Client or Vektor. Neither the Client nor Vektor shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other.

10. Confidentiality: If either party receives information specifically designated as “confidential” or “business proprietary,” the receiving party shall keep such information strictly confidential and shall not disclose it to any other person except (a) as required for provision of services; (b) as required by law or ordered by a court; or (c) as authorized in writing by the other party. The H.1.h
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) VEKTOR ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS – 2024
David L. Gates & Associates, Inc. (dba GATES + ASSOCIATES, Gates and Associates) 2 of 2
obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the Project.

11. Indemnity: Client will defend, indemnify and hold Vektor harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, expenses, and costs (including but not limited to attorney and expert fees) arising from or relating to the Project or use of information and/or materials in connection with the provision of services (“Claims”) except to the extent that such Claims are the sole result of Vektor’s breach of the Standard of Care, or reckless or intentional misconduct. The obligations in this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the Project.

12. Limitation of Liability: Neither party shall be liable for any loss of use, interruption of business, lost profits, or any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any kind. The parties agree that under no circumstances shall personal liability attach or be claimed against the officers, directors, and/or employees or either party. Client agrees that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, in no event shall Vektor’s aggregate liability under this Agreement exceed the total fees paid to Vektor for the provision of services under this Agreement, or $50,000.00, whichever is greater.

Proposals:

All Proposals are only valid for only 30 days from the issue date indicated on each respective Proposal.

Hourly Rates ($/hr.):

Project Engineer - $205/hr.

Project Designer - $180/hr.

BIM Technician - $156/hr.

Project Coordinator - $120/hr.

Emergency work requested by Client with less than 48-hour notice, work to be performed outside of normal working hours, work to be performed on weekends and or holidays, shall be billed at an hourly rate of 1.5 times the Hourly Rate listed above for the respective work classification with a 4-hour minimum.

Expenses:

The Client shall reimburse Vektor for all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by Vektor in connection with providing the services (Direct Project Expenses). Direct Project Expenses (printing, postage, shipping, business class travel, car and driver service to/from airports, data file sharing fees, drawing reproduction, CAD plotting, etc.) will be billed at 110% of actual costs.

Fees and Payment:

Fees for professional services and Direct Project Expenses will be billed monthly. Invoices will be for services and expenses performed or incurred during the month prior to the date of invoice. Fees for consultants retained by Vektor will be billed at 110% of actual fees.

Invoices:

All invoices are due and payable upon presentation. Vektor reserves the right to suspend its services and withhold Instruments of Service after 10 days written notice should any invoice remain unpaid 30 days past the invoice date. A service charge of 1.5% per month will be added to all outstanding accounts more than 45 days past due. Client is responsible for all collection costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by Vektor as a result of Client’s failure to make timely payment.

Regulatory Body:

Professional Engineers are licensed and regulated by the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists, located at 2535 Capitol Oaks Drive, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95833.

These Standard Terms and Conditions, including Hourly Rates, and other sections are subject to adjustment on an annual basis based on Vektor’s accounting review process.

Vektor Initial: _______________
Client Initial: _______________
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) Arthur Landscape Irrigation Consulting, Inc.

PO Box 3490
Livermore, CA 94551
925-518-3956
Gates + Associates June 4, 2024
1655 N. Main Street, Suite 365
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
attn: Erik Gellerman
Project: Crossroads Park, Orinda
Dear Erik,
My updated quote for the complete design of the irrigation system for the referenced project is as follows:

Construction Documents: $1,940.00
Construction Admin: T&E to $1,560.00
Please refer to my current Compensation and Inclusion/Exclusions.

Thank you for this quote request.

Sincerely,
Ray Arthur
ALI Consulting
Approved:________________________________ Title:___________________________ (sign and return a copy upon approval)
Date:___________________________
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Revised Consultant Proposal - June 2024 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) H.1.i
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: CIP Detail Page - Project Number 4103 Crossroads Park (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) 1 CITY OF ORINDA
AMENDMENT No. 2 TO SERVICES CONTRACT
Gates & Associates (“Provider”) and the City of Orinda (“City”), a municipal corporation, previously entered into a contract with an effective date of December 5, 2016 relating to Design Services Contract for Mini Park. Section 18 of that agreement provides, that “No waiver, modification or termination of this agreement is valid unless made in writing.” City and Provider mutually agree to amend the agreement as follows:

1. Replace Section 2.a “Duties of Provider” as follows:
a. Provider agrees to perform services described in Exhibit A (proposal for original contract, dated March 28, 2014) and Exhibit B (proposal for project completion, dated June 4, 2024, which is attached to this agreement and Amendment #2 and incorporated by this reference). Provider agrees to perform these services diligently in accordance with the standards of its profession and to City’s satisfaction. Provider promises and agrees to furnish to City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately perform the services described in this agreement.

2. Replace Section 3.c “Time of Performance” as follows:
c. The services of Provider shall begin no sooner than the effective date and shall continue until all work is approved by the City. All work shall be completed no later than December 31, 2025.

3. Replace Section 4.a “Compensation” as follows:
a. City agrees to pay Provider at the rates described in Exhibit B, not to exceed an amount of $43,445, with a maximum contract price of $94,945 for all services performed under this agreement.

In all other respects, the agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

City of Orinda
__________________________________
City Manager Date
Attest
___________________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form
___________________________________
City Attorney
Gates & Associates
__________________________________
Date
__________________________________
Printed Title
__________________________________
Printed Name
H.1.j
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Amendment #2 to Contract with Gates and Associates (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval)

CITY OF ORINDA
BUDGET CHANGE FORM FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Funds Appropriated Mid-Cycle Budget Adjustment Adopted 6/18/2024 CHANGE FORM # 005-25
New Appropriations (City CouncilApproval Required): Budget Transfers:

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

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

BUDGET ACCOUNT
(Revenue / Expense)

INCREASE
AMOUNT

DECREASE
AMOUNT
INCREASE OF BUDGETED EXPENSE IN FY 2024-25:
700-35-00-7127-4103

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT / PUBLIC WORKS / NO PROGRAM /

CONSTRUCTION COSTS/ORINDA MINI PARK
$257,000
As Presented at the City Council Meeting on: January 21, 2025 #################(Finance Use Only)###################
Posted By: Date:

REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: At the City Council meeting on January 21, 2025, the City Council was presented with changes to the adopted Budget of CIP Project #4103 Orinda Mini Park Project relating to additional work described in the staff report and accompanying documents.

H.1.k
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Budget Change Form #005-25 (3483 : Crossroad Park Design Approval) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: January 21, 2025
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Overview of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s TransitOriented Communities Policy and Orinda's Compliance Status RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the Staff presentation and provide feedback and direction on policy options.

BACKGROUND:

In September 2008, the City of Orinda established the Orinda BART Station area as a Priority Development Area (PDA). The PDA Program is a voluntary partnership between local governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Through the PDA program, local governments identify areas envisioned for future housing and job growth that are served by transit. As shown in Figure 1, the City of Orinda is served by the Orinda BART Station Area. This area includes the majority of the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP), that is currently pending readoption and single-family residential zones to the east of State Route 24.

Figure 1. Orinda BART Station Area TOC
Source: MTC TOC Policy Exploratory Map
H.2
Packet Pg. 101
The MTC is the agency responsible for planning, financing, and coordinating transportation for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050) in 2021 as a 30-year regional plan to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment. In 2022, MTC adopted the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy.

The TOC Policy is an implementation policy of PBA 2050 and applies to PDAs. The TOC policy replaces the TOD Policy to emphasize the importance of broader transitoriented communities vs. individual development projects at transit stations and along transit corridors.

The TOC policy seeks to leverage the regional investments in transit by encouraging the adoption of transit friendly land use policies that facilitate intensification of uses around transit and to adopt additional policies MTC believes will further equitable transit-oriented communities.

In September 2024, MTC released the document “MTC Administrative Guidance:

Transit-Oriented Communities”, which provides program overview and detailed guidance on policies and requirements applicable to PDAs. Staff has since evaluated the status of Orinda in meeting the requirements of these policies, understanding the gaps that could be covered through Housing Element policy and Downtown Precise Plan implementation should the DPP be readopted, and assessed policy options within TOC policy categories that could align with community goals for Downtown Orinda.

DISCUSSION:

The stated goals of the TOC Policy are to:

1. Increase the overall housing supply in part by increasing the density for new residential projects. Prioritize affordable housing in transit-rich areas;

2. In areas near regional transit hubs, increase density for businesses and commercial development;

3. Prioritize bus transit, active transportation, and shared mobility (such as bike share and car share) within and to/from transit-rich areas, particularly to Equity Priority Communities located more than one half mile from transit stops or stations; and

4. Support and build partnerships to create equitable transit-oriented communities within the San Francisco Bay Area.

Grant Funding
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides MTC with funding for investments in roads, highways, public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. MTC distributes the region’s share of FHWA funding through the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG). While compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary, it is necessary to qualify for future OBAG transportation funding. There is also the possibility that other regional sources of transportation funding, such as the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA), may include a TOC compliance requirement in the future.

H.2
Packet Pg. 102
The City of Orinda has received approximately $1.3 million from the last three rounds of OBAG funding, which have been used for sidewalk improvements, Ivy Street preservation, and Orinda Way pavement rehabilitation. To qualify for the upcoming OBAG 4 (4th cycle) funding in 2026, the City should expect to demonstrate 85% compliance with the TOC Policy by January 2026. Potential future OBAG-funded projects may include pavement repairs and maintenance, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, streetscape enhancements, and Safe Routes to School improvements.

MTC provides additional technical support and grant funding opportunities to communities seeking compliance or already in compliance with TOC policy. Orinda has received a $200,000 Priority Development Area (PDA) grant to work towards a Memorandum of Understanding between the City, BART and Caltrans regarding a path forward for future Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) at the BART site.

TOC Policy Overview
TOC Policy is divided into four elements:

1. Density and Intensity Standards

2. Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization

3. Parking Management

4. Access and Circulation
Some elements have required policies while others offer a menu of policy options (both station-based and citywide) for local jurisdictions to choose from. More information about the TOC Policy is available on the MTC website: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/landuse/transit-oriented-communities-toc-policy.

To implement these policies, Staff would need to further analyze the impact of required and optional policies and present the information to the City Council. There is a cost associated with this analysis, including Staff time, consultant services and related budget adjustments to prepare any related General Plan/Specific Plan amendments, zoning amendments, policy language, and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The TOC Policy requires each local jurisdiction to achieve compliance with adopted policies to qualify for OBAG funding. Early guidance by MTC indicates that jurisdictions will be expected to achieve 85% compliance, though it is unclear how this compliance would be measured. Compliance determinations will be addressed as part of the OBAG 4 program development starting in 2025. Staff will continue to engage with MTC on compliance determinations, and MTC is providing technical assistance to jurisdictions, including grant funding opportunities and model ordinances, to help develop policies that align with the TOC Policy.

The following is a summary of the four elements of the TOC Policy.

1. Density and Intensity Standards (Station Area Only)
H.2
Packet Pg. 103
The TOC Policy requires minimum development standards near Station Areas to promote high intensity uses. It outlines the process for a city to calculate the required minimum densities and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). These minimum standards can be averaged across the relevant land around the station for areas where residential, office, and commercial uses are permitted by right. Properties with existing residential units can be excluded from this density calculation. The TOC Policy includes minimum and maximum development standards to ensure high intensity uses as shown in Table 1.

Station Areas subject to the TOC Policy are categorized by tiers according to the level of transit service. The Orinda BART Station Area is categorized under the Tier 3 TOC Policy requirements, though for the purposes of residential densities the Tier 4 TOC Policy requirement standards apply due to Orinda’s population below 30,000 residents.

Table 1: TOC Density and Intensity Standards
TOC Standards Tier 4 TOC
Standard
Existing
standards
Proposed Standards in
Downtown Precise Plan
Minimum Residential Density (units/acre) 251 None 20
Maximum Residential Density (units/acre) 351 5.4 27
Minimum Office Intensity (FAR) 2.0 0.0 0.0
Maximum Office Intensity (FAR) 4.0 1.02 1.52
1 Tier 3 TOC areas in jurisdictions with 30,000 residents or fewer may use Tier 4 standards. 2 Calculations are based on maximum height standards per equivalency tables (see Table 8 in Attachment A)
The TOC Residential Density Standards present some challenges for Orinda. While the proposed densities within the pending Downtown Precise Plan would enable the TOC area to come close to the required minimum densities, these would still fall short of TOC standards. In coordination with MTC staff, Planning Staff have verified that density requirements at the Orinda BART station, if pursued in the future, could be used to bridge the gap. For instance, based on the size of the station lots, Staff estimates that maximum density would need to be set at approximately 65 units per acre, which is 10 more units per acre than densities proposed for the Country Club Plaza parcels in the Village District and the parcels comprising the majority of the Theatre District block bordered by Moraga Way, Camino Pablo, and Brookwood Road. Orinda’s $200,000 PDA grant exploring pathways to transit-oriented development at the BART station is, however, seen as an effort in good faith toward meeting TOC goals.

The TOC Office Standards would be extremely impactful in Orinda. For example, a 2.0- FAR minimum would mean, for example, a two-story building covering an entire lot or a four-story building covering half of a lot at minimum. According to the equivalency tables in the MTC Administrative Guidance document (see Attachment A, Table 4 and Table 6), minimum and maximum heights for office buildings would need to be established at 45’ and 65’, respectively. These building heights would likely be perceived as undesirable to the community based on community feedback received during the processing of the Downtown Precise Plan project regarding the type of downtown residents would prefer.

H.2
Packet Pg. 104
Most of the proposed associated changes were addressed within the DPP. Staff time and consultant services would be required to bridge final gaps, such as but not limited to, preparing an evaluation of impacts the preparation of General Plan amendments, zoning amendments, and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Through the $200,000 MTC PDA BART station grant, Staff hopes to lay groundwork toward identifying the specific pathways and opportunities available toward utilizing the BART site to bring requirements in line with the anticipated 85% compliance measurement. Additional details should be available in 2025 through the OBAG 4 program development guidance.

2. Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policies (Citywide Policies) The MTC TOC Policy identifies numerous elective policies in four categories related to affordable housing and commercial stabilization. A City must adopt at least seven polices across the following four categories to demonstrate TOC Policy compliance:
• Production (minimum two out of seven policy options)
• Preservation (minimum two out of eight policy options) • Protection (minimum two out of eleven policy options) • Commercial Stabilization (minimum one out of four policy options) In recognition of the variation in the Bay Area jurisdictions’ housing needs and funding capacity, the TOC Policy also determines the minimum amount of funding a jurisdiction must provide for specific policy options requiring a minimum funding commitment. This amount is based on the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for very low- and low-income units, placing Orinda under Tier B (see Attachment A, Appendix B:

Table 1: Jurisdictions by Funding Tier).

The Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization policies are summarized below and shown in Tables 2 through 5 organized by policy category. Certain policies appear in multiple categories but can only be applied once. Policies not applicable to Orinda are shown in strikethroughs. Additionally, the City already has some required policies in place or has committed to adopting them as part of Housing Element implementation programs. Policies that align with existing City policies, are Housing Element (HE) programs, or are recommended for consideration due to alignment with City goals are shown in bold.

Production Policies
Table 2: Production Policies
Policy TOC Policy Notes
1 Inclusionary Housing Orinda Staff have released a Request for Proposal for development of an Inclusionary Housing
ordinance.
2 Affordable Housing Funding Funding commitment of $1.4 million 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Zones Requires incentives beyond State law 4 Public Land for Affordable Housing Minimal qualifying public land in Orinda with examples of development to meet this policy
5 Ministerial Approval Housing Element program for projects with 20%+ H.2
Packet Pg. 105
affordable housing.
6 Public/Community Land Trusts Funding commitment of $1.4 million 7 Development Certainty and Streamlined
Entitlement Process
Requires staff, consultant time, and resources to
determine effects of vested development rights.

Production Policy 1: Inclusionary Housing
Requires that 15% of units in new residential development projects above a certain unit count be deed-restricted affordable to low-income households. A lower percentage may be adopted if it can be demonstrated by a satisfactory financial feasibility analysis that a 15% requirement is not feasible.

Note: The City of Orinda is working toward an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that could address these requirements.

Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
Dedicated local funding for production of deed-restricted affordable housing.

Production Policy 3: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Area-specific incentives, such as density bonuses and streamlined environmental review, for development projects that include at least 15% of units as deed-restricted affordable housing; exceeds any jurisdiction-wide inclusionary requirements or benefits from state density bonus.

Production Policy 4: Public Land for Affordable Housing Policies to prioritize the reuse of publicly owned land for affordable and mixed-income housing that go beyond existing state law, typically accompanied by prioritization of available funding for projects on these sites.

Production Policy 5: Ministerial Approval
Grant ministerial approval of residential developments that include, at a minimum, 15% affordable units if projects have 11 or more units, or that exceed inclusionary or density bonus affordability requirements and do not exceed 0.5 parking spaces per unit.

Note: Housing Element Implementing Action 1.A includes the following requirement:

Permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right and not require a conditional use permit or other discretionary review or approval for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households.

This requirement could be adjusted to the lower 15% threshold if deemed in line with the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts
Investments or policies to expand the amount of land held by public and non-profit entities such as cooperatives, community land trusts, and land banks with permanent H.2
Packet Pg. 106
affordability protections. This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.

Production Policy 7: Development Uncertainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process Include the vested rights and five hearing limit provisions currently outlined in SB330 (2019, Skinner) without a sunset date.

Note: If Production Policy 5 is not pursued due to minor differences in the Housing Element policy, this policy could be considered for in lieu. MTC staff indicates that a sample ordinance will be available in May 2025.

Preservation Policies
Table 3: Preservation Policies
Policy TOC Policy Notes
1 Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable Housing
Funding commitment of $600,000
2 Tenant/Community Opportunity to
Purchase
Limited applicability in current downtown; would
be for future protections. No funding requirement.
3 Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
Preservation
No SROs in Orinda
4 Condominium Conversion
Restrictions
Limited applicability in current downtown; would
be for future protections. No funding requirement.
5 Public/Community Land Trusts No significant opportunities for community land trusts.

Funding commitment of $600,000
6 Funding to Support Preservation
Capacity
4-year funding commitment for a dedicated project
manager at an organization engaged in preservation
7 Mobile Home Preservation No mobile home districts in Orinda 8 Preventing Displacement from
Substandard Conditions and Associated
Enforcement Activities
Variable funding commitment. Amnesty program to
waive fines/fees for property owners with unpermitted
units, or a low- or no interest loan grant program ($10K minimum per loan/ grant)
Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing Public investments to preserve unsubsidized housing affordable to lower- or moderateincome residents (sometimes referred to as "naturally occurring affordable housing”) as permanently affordable.

Preservation Policy 2: Tenant/ Community Opportunity to Purchase Policies or programs that provide tenants or mission-driven nonprofits the right of first refusal to purchase a property at the market price when it is offered for sale, retaining existing residents and ensuring long-term affordability of the units by requiring resale restrictions to maintain affordability. MTC to provide model ordinance in May 2025.

Preservation Policy 3: Single Room Occupancy
Limits the conversion of occupied SRO rental units to condominiums or other uses that could result in displacement of existing residents.

H.2
Packet Pg. 107
Preservation Policy 4: Condominium Conversion Restrictions Require that rental units converted to condominiums be replaced 1:1 with comparable rental units, unless purchased by current long-term tenants or converted to permanently affordable housing with protections for existing tenants. MTC to provide model ordinance in May 2025.

Preservation Policy 5: Public / Community Land Trusts
Investments or policies to expand the amount of land held by public- and non-profit entities such as co-operatives, community land trusts, and land banks with permanent affordability protections. This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.

Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity Dedicated local funding for capacity building or other material support for community land trusts (CLTs) or other community-based organizations (CBOs) engaged in affordable housing preservation.

Preservation Policy 7: Mobile Home Preservation
Policy or program to preserve mobile homes from conversion to other uses that may result in displacement of existing residents. City must demonstrate there is at least one mobile home park.

Protection Policies
Table 4: Protection Policies
Policy TOC Policy Notes
1 “Just Cause” Eviction Requires Staff, consultant time, and resources. 2 No Net Loss and Right to Return to
Demolished Homes
Requires Staff, consultant time, and resources.
3 Legal Assistance for Tenants Funding Commitment of $200,000 4 Foreclosure Assistance Funding Commitment of $200,000 5 Rental Assistance Program Funding Commitment of $200,000 6 Rent Stabilization Requires Staff, consultant time, and resources. 7 Preventing Displacement from
Substandard Conditions and Associated
Code Enforcement Activities
Variable funding commitment. Amnesty
program to waive fines/fees for property
owners with unpermitted units, or a low- or
no interest loan grant program ($10K
minimum per loan/ grant).
8 Tenant Relocation Assistance Requires Staff, consultant time, and resources. 9 Mobile Home Rent Stabilization No mobile home districts in Orinda 10 Fair Housing Enforcement Requires Staff, consultant time, and resources. $200,000 funding commitment
11 Tenant Anti-Harassment Protections Requires Staff, consultant time, and resources.

H.2
Packet Pg. 108
Protection Policy 1: “Just Cause” Eviction
Defines the circumstances for evictions, such as nonpayment of rent, violation of lease terms, or permanent removal of a dwelling from the rental market, with provisions that are more protective of tenants than those established by AB 1482 (2019, Chiu).

Protection Policy 2: No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes Include the no net loss provisions currently outlined in SB 330 (2019, Skinner) without a sunset date. The current legislation sunsets January 1, 2030, and requires one-to-one replacement of units that apply the same or a deeper level of affordability, the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and comparable square footage to the units demolished. Developers to provide displaced tenants with the right of first refusal to rent new comparable units at the same rent as demolished units. MTC to provide a model ordinance in May 2025.

Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
Investments or programs that expand access to legal assistance for tenants threatened with displacement. This could range from a “right to counsel” to dedicated public funding for tenant legal assistance. A program must define situations in which a tenant receives assistance and set eligibility criteria, as well as include eviction and pre-eviction legal services for lower-income tenants.

Note: This would be contracted to a legal services organization. Funding is required to be available for a four-year OBAG cycle.

Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
Provide a dedicated funding source to support owner-occupied homeowners (up to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI) at-risk of foreclosure, including direct financial assistance (e.g., mortgage assistance, property tax delinquency, HOA dues, etc.), foreclosure prevention counseling, legal assistance, and/or outreach.

Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program
Provide a dedicated funding source and program for rental assistance to low-income households.

Protection Policy 6: Rent Stabilization
Restricts annual rent increases based upon a measure of inflation or other metric, with provisions exceeding those established by AB 1482 (2019, Chiu).

Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement
One of the following: 1. Establish an amnesty program to waive fines and fees for property owners with occupied units constructed without the proper permits in exchange H.2
Packet Pg. 109
for bringing the unit into compliance with health and safety codes; or 2. Create a low-or no-interest loan or grant program with $10,000 minimum amount to support lowerincome homeowners with making repairs or modifications to their residences. This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.

Orinda has initiated item #1 within the above paragraph with the Contra Costa County Building Division. Staff would need to coordinate with the County to formalize the process and ensure fees do not get doubled.

Protection Policy 8: Tenant Relocation Assistance
Policy that requires landlords to provide relocation assistance (financial and/or other services) to tenants displaced through no-cause or no-fault evictions, which can be limited to less than or equal to 80% or 120% Area Median Income. Assistance must be 3 month’s fair market rent.

Protection Policy 9: Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
Restricts annual rent increases on mobile home residents based upon a measure of inflation or another metric.

Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement
Policy, program, or investments that support fair housing testing, compliance monitoring, and enforcement related to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act / Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. $200,000 funding commitment; can count existing funding for fair housing enforcement. Must contract with a fair housing service provider.

Protection Policy 11: Tenant Anti-Harassment Protections Policy or program that grants tenants legal protection from unreasonable, abusive, or coercive landlord behavior.

Commercial Stabilization Policies
Table 5: Commercial Stabilization Policies
Policy TOC Policy Notes
1 Small Business and Non-Profit Overlay Zone Requires one of the following: operating subsidy, eviction protections, or relocation
requirements
2 Small Business and Non-Profit Preference Policy Requires new commercial space preferences
3 Small Business and Non-Profit Financial
Assistance Program
Funding commitment
4 Small Business Advocate Office City currently provides this service Commercial Stabilization Policy 1: Small Business and Non-Profit Overlay Establish boundaries designated for an overlay, triggering a set of protections and benefits should development impact small businesses (including public markets) or community-serving non-profits.

H.2
Packet Pg. 110
Note: While Commercial Stabilization Policies are satisfied through Policy 4 as identified below, City Councilmembers have previously signaled support at a prior Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee meeting for assessing options for supporting small businesses that could be impacted by development.

Commercial Stabilization Policy 2: Small Business and Non-Profit Preference Policy Give priority and a right of first offer to local small businesses and/or community-serving non-profits when selecting a tenant for new market-rate commercial space.

Commercial Stabilization Policy 3: Small Business and Non-Profit Financial Assistance Program
Dedicated funding program for any impacted small business and community-serving non-profits.

Commercial Stabilization Policy 4: Small Business Advocate Office Provide a single point of contact for small business owners and/or a small business alliance.

Note: Commercial Stabilization Policy 4 aligns with and builds upon the work the City has already undertaken and remains committed to doing through the City’s Planning Department Associate Planner position with a part-time focus on economic development, as well as through the City Manager’s Office. A streamlined single reference City web page will be developed to outline City staff roles, identify resources, and provide points of contact for small businesses.

3. Parking Management (Station Areas)
State law (AB 2097) prohibits the City from imposing parking minimums near the Station Areas for development projects. Consequently, parking provided by an owner or developer in new projects near transit is optional. The TOC Policy further requires the City to establish parking maximums, which would prevent developers from exceeding the specified limit even if they wanted to provide more parking. Table 6 provides a comparison of the Station areas and TOC standards, to include bicycle parking requirements:

Table 6: Parking Management
Tier 3 Policy Parking Requirement Existing Parking
Requirements
Potential DPP/Orinda Municipal
Code (OMC) Changes
Minimum Residential and Commercial Parking
No minimum Varies by use No minimum per requirements of AB 2097. This should be clarified within
the Objective Design Standards and
addressed in OMC 17.16.4 – Offstreet parking and loading spaces required
Maximum Residential Parking
H.2
Packet Pg. 111
≤ 1 space per unit No maximum 1 space per unit codified within the Objective Design Standards
Maximum Commercial Office Parking
≤ 2.5 spaces per
1,000 square feet
None None
Minimum Residential Bicycle Parking
≥ 1 secure space per unit None 1 secure space per unit codified within the Objective Design Standards
and/or in OMC 17.16.6 – Bicycle
Parking
Minimum Commercial Office Bicycle Parking
≥ 1 secure space per 5,000 square
feet
5% of the required
automobile parking
1 secure space per 5,000 s.f. codified
within the Objective Design Standards
and/or in OMC17.16.6 – Bicycle
Parking
Unbundled Parking
Allow parking spaces to be leased
separately from sale or rental price of
residential and commercial uses
Not explicitly prohibited Explicitly state in Objective Design Standards and/or in OMC 17.16.4 –
Off-street parking and loading spaces
required
Unbundled Parking
Allow parking spaces to be leased
separately from sale or rental price of
residential and commercial uses
Not explicitly prohibited Explicitly state in Objective Design Standards and/or in OMC 17.16.4 –
Off4. Station Access and Circulation (Citywide Policies) The final policy category for compliance with the TOC Policy pertains to transportation access and circulation. The City is required to meet all these requirements, and the City has existing policies in place that would need to be reviewed by Staff to ensure compliance as provided in Table 7.

Table 7 - Station Access and Circulation
TOC Requirement Orinda’s Status
Adopt a Complete Streets Policy
A jurisdiction with an adopted Complete Streets Policy is considered compliant.
• Adopted 2012, updated 2014
Prioritize Implementation of Active Transportation Projects in Station Area
Reflected within one of the following:
• Capital Improvement Program with relevant projects
identified.
• Projects funded or submitted for funding (e.g., OBAG, ATP, etc.) within the past five years.
• Other funding or implementation plans that include relevant projects
• City recently applied for the RM3
grant. The project will study a
multimodal path along Moraga Way
that will connect the south side of
Orinda and Moraga to Orinda
BART.
• City is preparing a feasibility study
for trail alignments that will connect
the Wilder community to the
Downtown and Orinda BART by
providing bike/ped access.

H.2
Packet Pg. 112
Gap Analysis and Improvement Program for Station Areas
Adopted PDA, Specific, Precise or Area plan(s) that include a station access or circulation element to demonstrate analysis or planning with a focus on improving 10- to 15-minute access to/from the TOC, emphasizing capital or service improvements. • ConnectOrinda - 2018
Identify Mobility Hub Opportunities in Station Areas
Current plans or projects that enhance the TOC area as a community anchor enabling travelers of all backgrounds and abilities to access transit and other forms of shared
transportation. Enhancements may include (but are not limited to) safety improvements, bike parking, electric charging infrastructure (bikes, scooters, carshare), public realm improvements (e.g., lighting, green infrastructure), information improvements (e.g., wayfinding, real-time information) or any other active
transportation access improvements within the TOC area. • Bike, Trails, and Walkways Master
Plan - 2011
• ConnectOrinda - 2018
• Downtown Precise Plan - 2023
NEXT STEPS:

Staff will continue to proceed with the preparation of policies that have already been committed to through the Housing Element. Staff will return to the City Council in the future to provide more detailed analysis as needed about any policies/programs that the City Council determines would be appropriate to consider, and to request budget adjustments, if necessary, for technical analysis, consultant services, or policy funding that meets these requirements pending City Council direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the presentation of the informational item.

Based on City Council input and direction, there may be items for consideration that would need to be budgeted annually during the four-year period for OBAG funding.

There are also likely costs associated with consultant services and technical analysis to assist the City in achieving compliance. Some technical assistance and ordinances are or will be available through MTC consultants who have been coordinating with City Staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy B. MTC TOC Presentation Jan 21 2025
Respectfully Submitted by:

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

H.2
Packet Pg. 113
H.2
Packet Pg. 114

Page 1 of 40 ends

MTC Administrative Guidance:

Transit-Oriented Communities Policy
Guidance for Public Agency Staff Implementing Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 4530
September 2024
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose............................................................................................. 3 II. TOC Policy Requirements........................................................................................... 3 III. Policy Applicability...................................................................................................... 4 Types of Transit ......................................................................................................... 4 Existing Transit..................................................................................................... 4 Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Subject to the TOC Policy.................... 5 Transit Extensions................................................................................................ 5 Interregional Projects............................................................................................ 6 Transit Tiers............................................................................................................... 7 Opt-In for Areas Not Served by Fixed-Guideway Transit Service............................... 7 TOC Area Geography................................................................................................ 7 Overlapping TOC Areas............................................................................................. 8 Multi-Jurisdiction TOC Areas ..................................................................................... 8 IV. Documentation Submittal and Review ....................................................................... 8 Submission Deadline ................................................................................................. 8 Documentation Submittal........................................................................................... 8 Local Jurisdiction Resolution ..................................................................................... 9 MTC Review Process ................................................................................................ 9 V. Guidance for TOC Policy Submission......................................................................... 9 Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development........... 9 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements................................................................ 9 Submitting Required Documentation.................................................................. 11 H.2.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 2 of 40 ends

Section 2: Affordable Housing Production, Preservation, and Protection Policies and Commercial Stabilization Policies........................................................ 23 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements.............................................................. 23 Submitting Required Documentation.................................................................. 32 Section 3: Parking Management.............................................................................. 32 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements.............................................................. 32 Submitting Required Documentation.................................................................. 35 Section 4: Station Access and Circulation ............................................................... 38 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements.............................................................. 38 Submitting Required Documentation.................................................................. 39 Appendix A: TOC Policy Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policy Requirements Appendix B: Jurisdictions by Funding Tier
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 3 of 40 ends

I. Background and Purpose
This document provides guidance to local jurisdictions on how to demonstrate compliance with MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy (MTC Resolution 4530), adopted in September 2022 and revised in October 2023. The TOC Policy seeks to support the region’s transit investments by ensuring communities around transit stations and along transit corridors are places that not only support transit ridership, but are places where Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and access services, such as education, childcare, and healthcare. The TOC Policy is rooted in Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050), the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and addresses all four elements of the Plan—transportation, housing, the economy, and the environment. Compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary for jurisdictions that want to advance the goals of PBA 2050 or to be eligible and/or competitive for some MTC discretionary funding.

Four goals guide the TOC Policy and advance PBA 2050 implementation:
• Increase the overall housing supply in part by increasing the density for new residential projects. Prioritize affordable housing in transit-rich areas. • In areas near regional transit hubs, increase density for new commercial office development.
• Prioritize bus transit, active transportation, and shared mobility within and to/from transit-rich areas, particularly to Equity Priority Communities located more than ½ mile from transit stops or stations.
• Support and build partnerships to create equitable transit-oriented communities within the San Francisco Bay Area.

Future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding cycles (i.e., OBAG 4 and subsequent funding cycles) will consider funding revisions that prioritize investments in transit station areas that are subject to and compliant with the TOC Policy. With MTC Commission approval, MTC may consider compliance with the TOC Policy to evaluate applications for additional discretionary funding sources.

II. TOC Policy Requirements
The TOC policy requirements consist of the following four elements:

1. Minimum residential and commercial office densities for new development.

2. Affordable housing production, preservation and protection, and stabilizing businesses to prevent displacement.

3. Parking management.

4. Transit station access and circulation.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 4 of 40 ends

The specific requirements for each topic area are described in more detail below.

Jurisdictions will be evaluated for compliance with all requirements in each of the four topic areas for each TOC area1 within the jurisdiction that is subject to the TOC Policy.

For all topic areas, a jurisdiction may use an existing adopted policy or plan to meet the requirements or, as needed, may adopt new policies/standards by the deadline for compliance with the TOC Policy (see section V. Documentation Submittal and Review, below, for more details). Where applicable, a jurisdiction may rely on jurisdiction-wide policies to demonstrate compliance for a TOC area.

III. Policy Applicability
Types of Transit
The TOC Policy applies to areas within ½ mile of the following types of existing and planned fixed-guideway transit2 stops and stations:
• Regional rail (e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit, Caltrain) • Commuter rail (e.g., Capitol Corridor, Altamont Corridor Express, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, Valley Link)
• Light-rail transit (LRT)
• Bus rapid transit (BRT)3
• Ferries
The ½-mile radius around a transit station/stop applies even if the jurisdiction has adopted a Priority Development Area (PDA) whose boundaries are different.

A map and list of the jurisdictions and stations subject to the TOC Policy for the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 Cycle is available on MTC’s website.

Existing Transit
The TOC Policy applies to jurisdictions with existing fixed-guideway transit service stops and stations, as defined above. For jurisdictions with an existing stop/station, OBAG (i.e., OBAG 4 and subsequent funding cycles) is currently the only funding source for which MTC will consider TOC compliance in its investment decisions. With Commission approval, MTC may consider compliance with the TOC Policy to evaluate applications 1 A TOC area is the geography surrounding a fixed-guideway transit stop or station that is subject to the TOC Policy requirements. See “TOC Area Geography” in Section III. Policy Applicability for more information on how this specific geography is determined. 2 “Fixed guideway means a public transportation facility that uses and occupies a separate right-of-way or rail line for the exclusive use of public transportation and other high occupancy vehicles, or uses a fixed catenary system and a right of way usable by other forms of transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, automated guideway transit, people movers, ferry boat service, and fixed-guideway facilities for buses (such as bus rapid transit) and other high occupancy vehicles.” (49 CFR § 611.105)
3 The TOC Policy uses the definition of “bus rapid transit” (BRT) from California Public Resources Code section 21060.2.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 5 of 40 ends

for additional discretionary funding sources for enhancements or improvements to existing stops/stations.

Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Subject to the TOC Policy Fixed-guideway stations that are planned but not currently in service may need to demonstrate compliance with TOC Policy requirements by the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 cycle. This applies to planned stations meeting any of the following criteria:
• Project begins construction by January 1, 2025.

AND/OR
• Project allocated regional discretionary funding that requires committing to compliance by the OBAG 4 cycle, as per the requirements of MTC Resolution 4530.

AND/OR
• Project has a Major Project Advancement Policy (MAP) Level of 1 or 2.

Additionally, planned stations meeting all of the following criteria are subject to achieving TOC Policy compliance by the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 cycle:
• Sufficiently defined station location as determined by MTC staff (e.g., project has completed environmental review).

AND
• Project is in Bin 1 of the Plan Bay Area 2050+ Transportation Project List, encompassing projects expected to be operational by 2035.

If a planned stop/station has not been confirmed as subject to the TOC Policy using the above criteria by January 1, 2025, it will not have to be in compliance by the OBAG 4 deadline.

Opt-In for Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Not Subject to the TOC Policy A planned station that does not meet the criteria above can choose to opt in to achieving compliance for the planned TOC area for the OBAG 4 cycle. To do so, the planned station must have a sufficiently defined station location as determined by MTC staff (e.g., the project has completed environmental review). Density and parking standards for planned TOC areas that opt in would be based on the anticipated level of transit service.

Transit Extensions
“Transit extensions” refer to the creation of a new fixed-guideway transit system (rail, ferry, or bus rapid transit), or extension of an existing fixed-guideway transit system to a new station, stations, or terminals. Transit extensions include new infill stations on a fixed-guideway transit system, and major expansions of existing stations to accommodate a new fixed-guideway transit system or route.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 6 of 40 ends

The TOC Policy establishes different compliance expectations for transit extension projects seeking awards or allocations of regional discretionary capital funding4 based on the project’s delivery stage, as follows:

1. Project Development/Environmental Review: Project sponsors, and local jurisdictions as applicable, must provide a letter or resolution acknowledging that future allocation requests to MTC will be subject to the TOC Policy pursuant to later phases.

2. Project Design and Early Right-of-Way Acquisition: Jurisdictions must commit in writing to take steps toward achieving compliance by 2026 for the station area(s) seeking funding.

3. Project Construction: Jurisdictions do not need to submit a letter of commitment, but they should work with MTC staff to achieve compliance by 2026.

The transit extension project sponsor/implementing agency must include an acknowledgement or commitment letter or resolution, as applicable, in its request to MTC for regional discretionary funding. Templates for the jurisdiction letters and resolutions are available on the MTC TOC Policy website. See Appendix 1 of MTC Resolution 4530 for more details about the requirements for transit extensions.

Beginning in 2026, these requirements will also apply to transit extension projects seeking MTC endorsement for federal or state discretionary capital funding. 5 Interregional Projects
Interregional projects that trigger MTC's Interregional Project Funding and Coordination Policy (Resolution No. 4399) shall be subject to the TOC Policy as set forth in this paragraph. For any portion of the project within MTC’s jurisdiction, the project sponsor must satisfy the requirements as noted above for Existing Transit and Transit Extensions, as applicable. For portions of the project within the jurisdiction of another Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPO)/Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), the Interagency Agreement referenced in Resolution 4399 must include a provision acknowledging the applicability of the TOC Policy, confirming compliance with the TOC Policy for the Bay Area portion of the project, and a commitment from the other MPO/RTPA to strive towards achievement of TOC Policy requirements for the portions of the project outside of the Bay Area. The other MPO/RTPA’s commitment for non-Bay 4 For the purposes of the TOC Policy, “regional discretionary funding” for transit projects includes the following fund sources: regional bridge tolls and associated programs (e.g., RM2 & RM3), Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and Regional Exchange Program (MTC Exchange). This list is non-exhaustive and could be amended in the future if MTC exercises discretionary control over additional funding sources.
5 In the context of TOC Policy implementation, "endorsement” refers to when the MTC Commission acts to endorse projects seeking funding from other sources or when a project is added to the list of projects and programs included in MTC’s Major Project Advancement Policy (MAP) or a change is made to a project’s MAP Level.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 7 of 40 ends

Area portions of the project should include, as practicable, an agreement to regularly report on the status of progress to meeting TOC Policy requirements, to explain any challenges with achieving TOC Policy requirements, and any steps that will be taken to overcome those challenges.

Transit Tiers
Geographic areas subject to the TOC Policy are categorized by tier according to the level of transit service at fixed-guideway station(s) within ½ mile:
• Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San José)
• Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain • Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
• Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals
Some TOC Policy requirements are defined by transit tier, with some requirements consistent across all tiers.

Opt-In for Areas Not Served by Fixed-Guideway Transit Service Jurisdictions with transit stops and stations that are not served by fixed-guideway service (e.g., areas that are only served by regular fixed-route bus transit) may choose to “opt in” and voluntarily meet TOC Policy requirements for these areas. 6 Station
areas/stops where a jurisdiction has voluntarily complied with the TOC Policy may be eligible for any future funding sources where the MTC Commission chooses to adopt TOC Policy compliance as a prerequisite for funding or a factor in prioritizing funding.

TOC Area Geography
The ½-mile area is measured from a single point at the center of the stop or station.

Where a station/stop includes infrastructure such as platforms, bus transfer facilities, and parking areas, a single centroid is identified rather than computing distance from multiple station entrances or property boundaries. Open water, rivers, canals, and other water bodies are excluded, which may result in the TOC area being an irregular shape rather than a perfect circle.

For more information on how the density and parking requirements apply to TOC areas, see “Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development” and “Section 3: Parking Management” below.

A map and list of the jurisdictions and stations subject to the TOC Policy for the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 Cycle is available on MTC’s website. 6 For locations with no fixed-guideway transit service, the Tier 4 density and parking management requirements will apply in addition to all other TOC Policy requirements.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 8 of 40 ends

Overlapping TOC Areas
In some cases, the ½-mile area around one stop/station may intersect with the ½-mile area around another stop/station, resulting in overlapping TOC areas. As a jurisdiction must demonstrate compliance for each TOC area separately, a parcel within an overlapping area will be considered in calculating the average zoning density as well as evaluating the parking standards for each of the overlapping TOC areas. If the overlapping TOC areas represent different transit tiers, parcels in the overlapping areas must meet the standards for the higher transit tier (i.e., Tier 1 is higher than Tier 2).

For jurisdictions with overlapping TOC areas, MTC will work with local staff to identify situations where TOC areas can be consolidated (e.g., along BRT or LRT corridors or in downtown areas) for aggregate analysis of TOC compliance.

Multi-Jurisdiction TOC Areas
A TOC area may encompass multiple jurisdictions. A jurisdiction is exempt from complying with any TOC Policy requirements if it contains 20 percent or less of the TOC area, as determined by MTC staff. A jurisdiction that comprises more than 20 percent of a TOC area must comply with all TOC Policy requirements for its portion of the TOC area.

For the TOC Policy density standards, a jurisdiction is not responsible for zoning densities/intensities outside its boundaries, but it must meet the TOC Policy standards for the portion of the TOC area within its jurisdiction.7 However, joint applications are encouraged for a TOC area that crosses jurisdictional boundaries; in such instances, compliance with the average density standards should be based on the combined area of the TOC area in both jurisdictions (or in all jurisdictions, if more than two are involved).

IV. Documentation Submittal and Review
Submission Deadline
To ensure eligibility for OBAG 4 funding and any other discretionary funding that may be linked to TOC Policy compliance, jurisdictions should anticipate demonstrating compliance prior to adoption of OBAG 4, expected in 2026. MTC will provide more information about submission deadlines as part of developing the OBAG 4 program.

Documentation Submittal
MTC will accept submissions from jurisdictions to demonstrate compliance with the TOC Policy for each TOC area subject to the policy within the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions must use the TOC Policy Submission Portal developed by MTC. Jurisdictions may submit documentation on a rolling basis until the submission deadline. Questions about documentation submittal should be directed to [email protected]. 7 Average zoning density calculation requirements are covered in Section V of this Guidance document.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 9 of 40 ends

Local Jurisdiction Resolution
The jurisdiction’s final submission must be accompanied by a resolution adopted by the city council or board of supervisors confirming compliance with the TOC Policy. For jurisdictions with multiple TOC areas, the jurisdiction may submit a single resolution that includes reference to all TOC areas for which the jurisdiction is confirming compliance.

MTC Review Process
To complete its review of a jurisdiction’s submission, MTC may request additional clarifying documentation and information from the jurisdiction. Additionally, to assist with its review of the submission, MTC may consult with and gather relevant information from any individual, entity, or public agency. Jurisdictions will receive confirmation of its compliance status after MTC has completed its review of submitted documentation.

V. Guidance for TOC Policy Submission
This section provides the guidance necessary to demonstrate compliance with MTC’s TOC Policy requirements. It is divided into four sections:

1. Zoning density and intensity requirements for residential and commercial office development.

2. Affordable housing production, preservation, and protection policies and commercial stabilization policies

3. Parking management policies

4. Station access and circulation requirements
Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development
Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
The TOC Policy seeks to ensure that local planning policies and zoning regulations enable new development within TOC areas to be built at sufficiently high densities to support transit ridership and increase the proportion of trips taken by transit. The mechanism for furthering this goal is the requirement that jurisdictions adopt minimum density and intensity requirements in TOC areas. Additionally, if a jurisdiction chooses to adopt maximum density and intensity requirements, these must be high enough to support robust transit-oriented development.
8 8 While the TOC Policy does not specify requirements for building heights, local jurisdictions should not limit building heights such that new residential development at the densities specified by the TOC Policy becomes infeasible.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 10 of 40 ends

The Policy does not require a jurisdiction to plan or zone specific parcels for a particular land use or density. Rather, a jurisdiction is required to meet zoning density and intensity standards where zoning allows new residential, office, or mixed-use development. The density requirements represent an average taken across the TOC area, and the required average densities are based on the area’s Transit Tier (see Tables 1 and 5).

The minimum density/intensity in a given zoning district where housing and/or commercial office uses are permitted may be below the TOC Policy thresholds (Tables 1 and 5), provided the average across the TOC area meets the requirement.9 Cities that have adopted Form Based Codes without density standards are required to adopt minimum densities, minimum Floor Area Ratios (FARs), or minimum heights for future residential, commercial office, and mixed-use projects.

A jurisdiction without minimum residential or commercial office zoning standards may use the minimums identified in an adopted General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan to the extent the Plan requires that new development must occur at or above a minimum threshold. In the absence of such a requirement or zoning standard, a zone without a minimum density will be assigned a “zero” for the purposes of calculating the average for the TOC area. A minimum density value of zero for any zone in a TOC area will make it more difficult to achieve the required areawide averages. This is further explained in the methodology below.

A jurisdiction is not required to adopt maximum allowable density/intensity standards.

However, if a jurisdiction has adopted these standards, then the average of the maximum density/intensity allowed for residential or commercial office uses must meet or exceed the TOC Policy’s thresholds (Tables 3 and 7).

Areas Eligible for Exclusion from Density/Intensity Requirements For the residential calculations, only zoning districts that allow residential as a permitted use (i.e., with no use permit requirement) are included. However, zones intended to conserve land for open space or agriculture, even where residential is listed as a permitted use, may be excluded.

For the commercial office calculations, only zoning districts that allow commercial office as a permitted use are included. Subject to approval by MTC staff, zoning districts in which offices are permitted uses but are ancillary to industrial activities (such as manufacturing, warehousing, production, distribution, repair, etc.) may be excluded.

The Policy allows parcels with existing dwelling units to be excluded from the residential and commercial office calculations to minimize the risk of displacement. However, a 9 “Permitted” means the use is listed as a permitted use in the zoning regulations, with no use permit requirement.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 11 of 40 ends

parcel may not be excluded if it was counted as a Housing Opportunity Site in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element and assumed to produce one or more units of housing.

For the TOC Policy, “existing dwelling units” are residential units that received a building permit prior to January 1, 2024. However, if a project has not received a certificate of occupancy by the beginning of the OBAG 5 cycle (anticipated in 2030), the parcel cannot be excluded from future TOC Policy compliance cycles.

Note: Calculation of the average density includes parcels zoned to allow residential and/or commercial office development where it may not be physically possible to construct new residential, commercial office, or mixed-use buildings within the specified density ranges due to small parcel sizes, environmental factors, conflicts with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, etc.

Submitting Required Documentation
Demonstrating conformance to the TOC Policy includes four calculations of average density/intensity within the TOC area:
• Minimum zoning density required for zones allowing residential uses. • If a jurisdiction has maximum residential density standards, the maximum zoning density for zones allowing residential uses.
• Minimum commercial office intensity (FAR) required for zones allowing office uses. • If a jurisdiction has maximum commercial intensity standards, the maximum commercial office intensity (FAR) for zones allowing office uses.

MTC’s submission portal is programmed to complete these calculations based on a jurisdiction’s zoning data. A jurisdiction may review and verify the data in the submission portal or contact MTC staff for assistance.

The guidance below explains how the calculations are completed and how to determine density and FAR equivalencies if a zoning district does not use these metrics. The calculations do not require a determination of “buildout” in the TOC area. Rather, they only require calculation of the average minimum and maximum density/intensity allowed by zoning on eligible parcels. Moreover, determination of the average zoning density and intensity is intended only as a theoretical calculation to evaluate compliance with the TOC Policy. The average density/intensity calculations do not in any way preclude or discourage mixed-use development or non-office commercial uses, nor do they disallow or discourage the addition of residential or office uses to projects of other uses.

A jurisdiction has two options for the density/intensity calculations:
• Option A is simpler and involves determining the area of all zoned parcels within the TOC area where residential uses are allowed and commercial office uses are allowed.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 12 of 40 ends

• Option B is more fine-grained and allows exclusion of certain parcels in each of these zones due to existing uses.

A jurisdiction may use either option. Both options require a “weighted average” calculation that accounts for the proportional land area in each zone.

A five-step process is outlined below. Step 1 is identifying the baseline set of zones or parcels to be used in the average density/intensity calculations for a TOC area. Steps 2 to 5 (which are the same for Option A and Option B) correspond to the calculations of minimum residential density, maximum allowable residential density, minimum commercial office intensity, and maximum allowable commercial office intensity for those zones or parcels.

Step 1: Determine the Baseline Areas to be Included in the Calculations Option A:
i. Identify all zoning districts in the TOC area where residential uses are a permitted use (i.e., no use permit is required). This includes single-family zones, multi-family zones, mixed-use zones where housing is a permitted use, and nonresidential districts that specifically identify housing as a permitted use. Zones intended to conserve land for open space or agriculture may be excluded from the average residential density calculation, even where residential is listed as a permitted use.
ii. Identify all zoning districts in the TOC area where commercial offices are a permitted use. This includes office zones, commercial and mixed-use zones where office is a permitted use, and any residential zones that allow 100 percent office uses (zones that only allow office as an ancillary use are excluded).

Subject to approval by MTC staff, zoning districts in which offices are permitted uses but are ancillary to industrial activities (such as manufacturing, warehousing, production, distribution, repair, etc.) may be excluded. iii. Calculate the net acreage in each zoning district in the TOC area. “Net” acreage means streets or un-zoned features within the zoning boundary are not counted. iv. Report the net acreage in each eligible residential zone and each eligible commercial office zone, the sums of these acreages, and the percentage of total eligible zones that each individual zone represents. Zoning districts included in the residential calculation may also be included in the office calculation, where applicable.
v. Proceed to Steps 2 through 5.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 13 of 40 ends

Option B:
i. Conduct steps (i) and (ii) as described above for Option A. ii. For each zoning district, prepare a list of parcels to be excluded (subtracted) from the eligible acreage in that zoning district. Parcels may be excluded if they are currently occupied by single- or multi-family dwelling units. However, if the parcel was counted as a Housing Opportunity Site in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element and assumed to produce one or more units of housing, it may not be excluded.

For any excluded parcel, the jurisdiction must document the assessor parcel number, address, acreage, existing zoning, and existing land use. iii. Report the remaining net acreage in each eligible residential zone and each eligible commercial office zone, the sums of these acreages, and the percentage of the total eligible zones that each individual zone represents. Zoning districts included in the residential calculation may also be included in the office calculation, where applicable.
iv. Proceed to Steps 2 through 5.

Step 2: Calculate the Average Minimum Residential Density Required by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that the average minimum zoning density in the TOC area meets the adopted TOC Policy standard for its transit tier shown in Table 1. A jurisdiction without minimum density standards may refer to the ranges in its General Plan or an adopted Specific or Area Plan that applies to the TOC area, to the extent the relevant Plan requires that development must occur at or above the minimum. Cities without minimum density standards (either in zoning or the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan as described above) must assign a “zero” to the applicable zones when calculating the TOC area average.

Table 1: Average Minimum Zoning Densities Required for Residential Development Level of Transit Service
Average Minimum
Zoning Density
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
100 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
75 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
50 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 25 units/net acre or
higher
Notes:

1. Tier 3 TOC areas in jurisdictions with 30,000 residents or fewer may use Tier 4 standards. For the OBAG 4 cycle, this applies to Tier 3 TOC areas in Belmont, Brisbane, Lafayette, Orinda, and San Carlos. January 1, 2024 population estimates from the California Department of Finance.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 14 of 40 ends

Table 2 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where housing is permitted but minimum density is expressed using floor area ratio (FAR) or height. The table allows jurisdictions using zones not measured in dwelling units per acre to convert to density equivalents so averages may be more accurately estimated. The equivalencies in Table 2 are “default” standards based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within their TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC. MTC staff will automatically approve jurisdictiondeveloped equivalency tables or density calculation methodologies that were accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in a certified Housing Element from the 6th Cycle or later. However, the equivalency table may only be used if the FAR or height standards are legally required minimums, as described above for zoning districts that use a dwelling units per acre standard.

Table 2: Equivalency Table for Minimum Density Calculation (only for use in zones with no density standard)
If there is no
minimum density, but
the minimum FAR
required is…
…then use this
equivalent for
minimum density
If there is no
minimum density or
FAR, but the
minimum height is…
…then use this for
equivalent minimum
density
None Zero None Zero
Less than 0.5 8 DUA Less than 25′ 12 DUA
Between 0.5 and 0.74 16 DUA 25′ to 34.9′ 35 DUA
Between 0.75 and 0.99 25 DUA 35′ to 44.9′ 55 DUA
Between 1.0 and 1.49 50 DUA 45′ to 54.9′ 75 DUA
Between 1.5 and 1.99 75 DUA 55′ to 64.9′ 100 DUA
Between 2.0 and 2.99 100 DUA 65′ to 74.9′ 125 DUA
Between 3.0 and 3.99 125 DUA 75′ to 84.9’ 150 DUA
Between 4.0 and 4.99 150 DUA Add 25 DUA for each 10’ from 85’ upward Add 40 DUA for each 1.0 FAR from 5.0 upward
Once a density or density equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 1 illustrates the formula for this calculation.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 15 of 40 ends

Figure 1: Calculation of Average Required Minimum Residential Zoning Density As shown in Figure 1, to calculate the average minimum residential zoning density for the TOC area, the total number of acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total number of acres in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1A(i) are used for the numerator and the denominator. If using Option B for Step 1, exempted parcels are excluded.

This result is then multiplied by the minimum density for that zone. If the zone has no density standard but does require a minimum FAR or minimum height, use Table 2 to determine the equivalent density. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average minimum residential density.

Step 3: Calculate the Average Maximum Residential Density Allowed by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that, if it has adopted a maximum residential density standard, the average maximum allowable residential zoning density in the TOC area meets or exceeds the adopted TOC Policy threshold for its transit tier shown in Table 3.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 16 of 40 ends

Table 3: Average Maximum Zoning Density Threshold for Residential Development Level of Transit Service
Threshold for Average
Maximum Zoning
Density
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
150 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
100 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
75 units/net acre or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 35 units/net acre or higher
Notes:

1. Tier 3 TOC areas in jurisdictions 30,000 or fewer residents may use Tier 4 standards. For the OBAG 4 cycle, this applies to the Tier 3 TOC areas in Belmont, Brisbane, Lafayette, Orinda, and San Carlos. January 1, 2024 population estimates from the California Department of Finance.

2. The allowable densities are consistent with PBA 2050 modeling for Strategy H3 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp. 44-45).

Table 4 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where housing is permitted but maximum allowable density is expressed using floor area ratio (FAR) or height. The table allows jurisdictions using zones not measured in dwelling units per acre to convert to density equivalents so averages may be more accurately estimated. The equivalencies in Table 4 are “default” standards based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC. MTC staff will automatically approve jurisdiction-developed equivalency tables or density calculation methodologies that were accepted by HCD in a certified Housing Element from the 6th Cycle or later.

Table 4: Equivalency Table for Maximum Density Calculation (only for use in zones with no density standard)
If there is no maximum
density, but the
maximum FAR allowed
is...
…then use this
equivalent for
maximum
density
If there is no maximum
density or FAR, but the
maximum allowable
height is…
…then use this
for equivalent
maximum density
Less than 0.50 8 DUA Less than 25′ 12 DUA
Between 0.5 and 0.74 16 DUA 25′ to 34.9′ 35 DUA
Between 0.75 and 0.99 25 DUA 35′ to 44.9′ 55 DUA
Between 1.0 and 1.49 50 DUA 45′ to 54.9′ 75 DUA
Between 1.5 and 1.99 75 DUA 55′ to 64.9′ 100 DUA
Between 2.0 and 2.99 100 DUA 65′ to 74.9′ 125 DUA
Between 3.0 and 3.99 125 DUA 75′ to 84.9’ 150 DUA
Between 4.0 and 4.99 150 DUA Add 25 DUA for each 10’ from 85′ upward Add 40 DUA for each 1.0 FAR from 5.0 upward
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 17 of 40 ends

Once a density or density equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 2 illustrates the formula for this calculation.

Figure 2: Calculation of Average Maximum Allowable Residential Zoning Density As shown in Figure 2, to calculate the average maximum allowable residential zoning density for the TOC area, the total number of acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total number of acres in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1A(ii) are used for the numerator and denominator. If using Option B for Step 1, exempted parcels are excluded.

This result is then multiplied by the allowable maximum density for that zone. If the zone has no density standard but does include maximum FAR or maximum heights, use Table 4 to determine the equivalent density. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required allowable maximum residential density.

Step 4: Calculate the Average Minimum Commercial Office Space Intensity Required by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that the average minimum required zoning intensity for commercial office space in the TOC area meets the adopted TOC Policy standard for its transit tier shown in Table 5. Again, it is recognized that a jurisdiction may not have adopted minimum FAR standards (or minimum heights) for commercial office space in its TOC area. A jurisdiction without such standards may refer to the ranges in its H.2.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 18 of 40 ends

General Plan or an adopted Specific or Area Plan that applies to the TOC area, to the extent the relevant Plan requires that development must occur at or above the minimum. Cities without minimum standards for FAR (either in zoning or the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan) must assign a “zero” to the applicable zones when calculating the TOC area average.

Table 5: Average Minimum Zoning Intensities Required for Commercial Office Development
Level of Transit Service
Average Minimum Zoning
Intensity Required for
Commercial Office Space
(FAR)
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
4 or higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
3 or higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
2 or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 1 or higher
Notes:

1. For mixed-use projects that include a commercial office component, this figure shall not be less than the equivalent of the applicable allowed or permitted FAR standard.

Table 6 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where minimum required intensity is expressed using height rather than FAR. Table 6 shows equivalent FARs for height limits ranging from zero to 75 feet. The equivalencies in Table 6 are “default” values based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC.

Table 6: Equivalency Table for Minimum Zoning Intensity for Commercial Office (only for use in zones with no Floor Area Ratio [FAR] standard) If there is no FAR standard, but the minimum
height required is...
…then use this as the equivalent
FAR
None 0
Less than 25’ 0.3
25′ to 34.9′ 1.0
35′ to 44.9′ 1.5
45′ to 54.9′ 2.0
55′ to 64.9′ 3.0
65′ to 79.9′ 4.0
80′ to 99.9’ 5.0
Add 1.0 FAR for each 15’ from 100’ upward
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 19 of 40 ends

Jurisdictions may have zoning districts in which mixed-use or residential projects are subject to higher minimum intensity standards than projects that are 100 percent office.

For example, a zone may require a minimum FAR of 0.5 for a 100 percent office project but require at least 1.0 FAR for a residential or mixed-use project. In such instances, the higher minimum may be used in the calculations. This recognizes the underlying intent of the TOC Policy, which is to incentivize zoning that supports higher building intensity in TOC areas.

Once an FAR or FAR equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 3 illustrates the formula used for this calculation.

Figure 3: Calculation of Average Minimum Required Commercial Office Zoning Intensity As shown in Figure 3, to calculate the average minimum commercial office zoning intensity for the TOC area, the total number of acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total number of acres in the TOC area where office uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1A(i) are used for the numerator and denominator. If using Option B for Step 1, exempted parcels are excluded.

This result is then multiplied by the minimum intensity for that zone. If the zone has no FAR standard but does have minimum heights, use Table 6 to determine the FAR equivalent. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where office uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required minimum commercial office intensity.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 20 of 40 ends

Step 5: Calculate the Average Maximum Commercial Office Space Intensity Allowed by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that, if it has adopted a maximum commercial office intensity standard, the average maximum allowable zoning intensity for commercial office space in the TOC area meets or exceeds the adopted TOC Policy threshold for its transit tier shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Average Maximum Zoning Intensity Threshold for Commercial Office Development
Level of Transit Service
Threshold for Average
Maximum Zoning Intensity
for Commercial Office
Space (FAR)
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose) 8 or higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
6 or higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
4 or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals
3 or higher
Notes:

1. For mixed-use projects that include a commercial office component, this figure shall not be less than the equivalent of the applicable allowed or permitted FAR standard.

2. The allowable densities are consistent with PBA 20505 modeling for Strategy EC4 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp. 57-58).

Table 8 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where maximum allowable intensity is expressed using height rather than FAR. The equivalencies in Table 8 are “default” values based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 21 of 40 ends

Table 8: Equivalency Table for Maximum Zoning Intensity for Office (only for use in zones with no Floor Area Ratio [FAR] standard)
If there is no FAR standard, but the
maximum height allowed is...
…then use this as the equivalent FAR
Less than 25′ 0.3
25′ to 34.9′ 1.0
35′ to 44.9′ 1.5
45′ to 54.9′ 2.0
55′ to 64.9′ 3.0
65′ to 79.9′ 4.0
80′ to 99.9′ 5.0
Add 1.0 FAR for each 15’ from 100’ upward
Jurisdictions may have zoning districts in which mixed-use or residential projects are allowed a higher maximum intensity than projects that are 100 percent office. For example, a zone may allow a maximum FAR of 2.0 for a 100 percent office project but allow a 4.0 FAR for a residential or mixed-use project. In such instances, the higher maximum may be used when preparing the calculations. This recognizes the underlying intent of the TOC Policy, which is to incentivize zoning that supports higher building intensity in TOC areas.

Once an FAR or FAR equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 4 illustrates the formula for this calculation.

Figure 4: Calculation of Average Maximum Allowable Commercial Office Zoning Intensity H.2.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 22 of 40 ends

As shown in Figure 4, to calculate the average maximum allowable commercial office zoning intensity for the TOC area, the total number of acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total number of acres in the TOC area where office uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1A(ii) are used for the numerator and denominator. If using Option B for Step 1, exempted parcels are excluded.

This result is then multiplied by the maximum intensity for that zone. If the zone has no FAR standard but does have maximum heights, use Table 8 to determine the FAR equivalent. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where office uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required allowable maximum commercial office intensity.10 General Guidance and Special Circumstances for Average Density and Intensity Calculations
Parcels Bisected by the ½-Mile TOC Area Boundary
If a parcel is bisected by the TOC area’s ½-mile boundary, only the portion of the parcel within the ½-mile TOC area buffer is counted toward the weighted average density. At MTC staff’s discretion, the entirety of a bisected parcel can contribute to the TOC area’s weighted average density if local jurisdiction staff demonstrate the importance of the parcel for achieving TOC Policy goals.

Mixed-Use Districts: Parcels to Include
Parcels in mixed-use zoning districts that allow both residential and commercial office as permitted uses should be counted in calculations of average residential density and then again in calculations of average commercial office intensity for each TOC area. No assumptions about the mix of uses are necessary on mixed-use parcels—simply report the minimum and maximum density or FAR permitted by zoning in each case. In cases where zoning establishes lower minimum and maximum FARs for projects that are entirely office than it does for mixed-use or residential projects, the higher minimum and allowable maximum FARs may be used in the calculation of the average commercial office intensity.

SB 6 (2022, Caballero)/AB 2011 (2022, Wicks)
SB 6 and AB 2011 allow residential uses by right in some commercial zoning districts.

For the purposes of the minimum and maximum average density calculations, residential uses should only be counted in a commercial zone if they are expressly listed as a permitted use in the zoning regulations. Jurisdictions are encouraged to amend their zoning codes to list residential as permitted in those zones affected by SB 6 and AB 2011.
10 Maximum FAR (intensity) thresholds are based on the potential maximum for a given site; this may vary from site to site in areas where Precise Plans or Specific Plans are in effect.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 23 of 40 ends

Planned Unit Development or Planned Development (PD) Districts For parcels in zoning districts where densities are determined through a subsequent project-level planning process (e.g., Planned Unit Developments), or were previously determined through such a process, the jurisdiction may use the densities and intensities in its General Plan. The jurisdiction also has the option of using any minimum and maximum densities/intensities that were established when the PD was created. To use a minimum density, the relevant Plan must require that development occur at or above the minimum.

Developer Agreements
If a jurisdiction has a developer agreement in place in the TOC area prior to January 1, 2024, and local staff are concerned about the impact on TOC Policy compliance, the jurisdiction should contact MTC staff for assistance. However, jurisdictions will not be able to seek flexibility or exemptions for TOC compliance for developer agreements established after January 1, 2024.

Overlay Zones
For parcels to which a base zone and overlay zone apply, a jurisdiction may include any supplemental density and intensity permitted by the overlay zone when calculating the average maximum allowable density/intensity, provided the overlay permits the residential or office use as a permitted use in a non-discretionary way (comparable to the base zone). If an overlay establishes higher minimum densities than the base zone, the same allowance applies, and the overlay minimum may be used in calculating the average minimum density/intensity.

Density Bonuses
For parcels subject to state density bonus law, the TOC Policy density requirements apply to the base zoning (i.e., state density bonuses cannot be considered for meeting the TOC Policy’s thresholds for minimum density or allowable maximum density).

Section 2: Affordable Housing Production, Preservation, and Protection Policies and Commercial Stabilization Policies Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
A jurisdiction will fulfill the Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization requirements by selecting from the menu of options in Table 9 the policies that best meet local needs. To comply, a jurisdiction must adopt at least:
• Two policies for each of the “3Ps”—affordable housing production, preservation, and protection.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 24 of 40 ends

• One policy related to commercial stabilization, unless the jurisdiction can document there are no potential impacts to small businesses and/or community non-profits.

A jurisdiction may meet the requirements with existing adopted policies or as needed, adopt new policies by the TOC Policy compliance deadline. Appendix A describes each of the policy options in more detail and outlines the specific minimum standards a jurisdiction’s policy must meet to comply with TOC Policy requirements. Compliance with TOC housing policy requirements should be completed in conformance with relevant federal and state laws, including a jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

For each of the “3Ps” policies selected to comply with TOC Policy requirements, the jurisdiction must also include a brief explanation for how the policy addresses the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and/or other housing needs as identified in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element.

Table 9: Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policy Options Affordable
Housing
Production Policy
Affordable Housing
Preservation Policy
Affordable Housing
Protection and AntiDisplacement Policy
Commercial
Stabilization
Policy
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
1 policy

1. Inclusionary Zoning Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing
“Just Cause” Eviction Small Business
and Non-Profit
Overlay Zone

2. Affordable Housing
Funding
Tenant/Community
Opportunity to Purchase
No Net Loss and Right
to Return to Demolished
Homes
Small Business
and Non-Profit
Preference Policy

3. Affordable Housing
Overlay Zones
Single-Room
Occupancy (SRO)
Preservation
Legal Assistance for
Tenants
Small Business
and Non-Profit
Financial
Assistance
Program

4. Public Land for
Affordable Housing
Condominium
Conversion Restrictions
Foreclosure Assistance Small Business
Advocate Office

5. Ministerial Approval Public/Community Land
Trusts1
Rental Assistance
Program
Blank

6. Public/Community
Land Trusts1
Funding to Support
Preservation Capacity
Rent Stabilization Blank

7. Development
Certainty and
Streamlined
Entitlement Process
Mobile Home
Preservation
Preventing
Displacement from
Substandard Conditions
and Associated Code
Enforcement Activities2
Blank
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 25 of 40 ends

Affordable
Housing
Production Policy
Affordable Housing
Preservation Policy
Affordable Housing
Protection and AntiDisplacement Policy
Commercial
Stabilization
Policy

8. Blank Preventing
Displacement from
Substandard Conditions
and Associated Code
Enforcement Activities2
Tenant Relocation
Assistance
Blank

9. Blank Blank Mobile Home Rent
Stabilization
Blank

10. Blank Blank Fair Housing
Enforcement
Blank

11. Blank Blank Tenant Anti-Harassment
Protections
Blank
Notes:

1. This policy may fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.

2. This policy may fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.

Geography for Policy Applicability
At minimum, policies must apply in all TOC areas. Jurisdictions may choose to apply policies beyond the TOC area(s), which could include the entirety of the jurisdiction (i.e., adopting a jurisdiction-wide policy). Some policies detailed in Appendix A have additional, policy-specific geographic applicability considerations.

Limits on Housing Policies Eligibility to Meet TOC Policy Requirements As noted in Table 9 and Appendix A, there are two cross-cutting policies that appear in multiple places in the menu of options:
• Public/Community Land Trusts can be used to meet the requirement for Production or Preservation policies, but not both.
• Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities can be used to meet the requirement for Preservation or Protection policies, but not both.

Additionally, three of the Production policy options have overlapping minimum requirements. For these policies, a jurisdiction will only receive credit toward the TOC Policy requirements for one of the overlapping policies and the jurisdiction may elect which policy. As noted in Appendix A, the policies for which this restriction applies are:
• Production Policy 3: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones • Production Policy 5: Ministerial Approval
• Production Policy 7: Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process H.2.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 26 of 40 ends

References to State Laws
In some cases, the descriptions of housing policy options included in the TOC Policy refer to existing state laws. The laws listed may not represent all laws that are relevant to the policy topic. MTC may adjust the requirements for complying with the TOC Policy over time in response to any changes to state law.

Policy Options Requiring Funding Commitments
Several of the affordable housing policy options require a specified financial commitment from a local jurisdiction. The minimum financial commitments reflect the fact that an effective housing program will have minimum staffing and related costs, below which meaningful impact is unlikely. The policy options that require a funding commitment are:
• Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
• Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing • Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity • Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for low-income homeowners)
• Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
• Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
• Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program
• Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for landlords)
• Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement
Guidelines for Demonstrating Projected Funding Meets Requirements For any of the policies listed above to comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must demonstrate it has a program with secured funding above a minimum threshold.11 The minimum funding thresholds represent a total amount for a four-year period aligning with the relevant four-year OBAG cycle. For jurisdictions seeking TOC Policy 11 Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 27 of 40 ends

compliance for OBAG 4, the four-year funding period is anticipated to correspond to the years 2026 through 2030. The amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction.

MTC understands that projections of future funding may be imprecise, and the expectation is that a jurisdiction will provide a reasonable projection of future funding based on the best information available at the time of submitting compliance documentation to MTC.

Guidelines for Counting Existing Funds or Past Expenditures Toward Requirements Jurisdictions that have an existing funding balance for a program corresponding to one of the above policy options may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle.

Jurisdictions that have expended funds for a program corresponding to one of the above policy options prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
• The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to an affordable housing project that will be constructed during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
• The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.

Jurisdiction Tiers for Funding Amounts
In recognition of the variation in Bay Area jurisdictions’ housing needs and funding capacity, there are seven different tiers to determine the minimum amount of funding a jurisdiction must provide over a four-year period for each policy option requiring a funding commitment (if that policy is selected by the jurisdiction to meet TOC Policy requirements). The tiers are based on the jurisdiction’s combined 2023-2031 RHNA for very low- and low-income units. The tiers, and the associated minimum funding commitment, are shown in Table 10 below. See Appendix B. for a list of the jurisdictions in each Funding Tier.

For the policies in the Protection category, the required funding amount by tier can be split among any two of the four policies, but the jurisdiction will only receive credit for one policy. For example, a Tier A jurisdiction could choose to spend $30,000 on fair housing enforcement and $70,000 on a rental assistance program, for a total of $100,000. Alternatively, the jurisdiction could spend $100,000 on a single policy, such as rental assistance. In either scenario, the jurisdiction would receive credit toward one policy for meeting the $100,000 funding threshold for Protection policies.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 28 of 40 ends

Table 10: Minimum 4-Year Funding per Policy by Tier
Production Preservation Protection
Tier

2. Affordable
Housing Funding,

6. Public/Community
Land Trusts

1. Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing, 5. Public/Community
Land Trusts

3. Legal Assistance for
Tenants, 4. Foreclosure
Assistance, 5. Rental
Assistance Program, 10. Fair
Housing Enforcement
A $1,000,000 $500,000 $100,000
B $1,400,000 $600,000 $200,000 C $2,000,000 $700,000
D $3,000,000 $900,000 $300,000 E $4,000,000 $1,200,000
F $8,000,000 $2,400,000 $400,000
G $40,000,000 $8,000,000 $1,000,000
Though Preservation Policy 6 (Funding to Support Preservation Capacity) requires a funding commitment, the minimum funding requirement is not a set dollar amount that varies across the tiers listed above. Instead, jurisdictions seeking credit for this policy need to demonstrate their funding programs have secured funding able to support project management staffing for a minimum of four years at approximately 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE).

Additionally, Preservation Policy 8/Protection Policy 7 (Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities) have multiple options to achieve compliance, one of which is a loan/grant program for home repairs and addressing habitability issues in rental housing. Though these policy options require the jurisdiction to fund these programs, a minimum funding amount is not specified.

However, the option for Preservation Policy 8 requires a minimum loan/grant of $10,000 per low-income homeowner assisted by the program.

Allowable Sources for Policies Requiring Funding
Funding for some of the policy options must be locally generated, while other policy options do not have restrictions on the sources used to fund a program. The following policies representing investments in the physical production and preservation of affordable housing require funding to be locally generated:
• Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
• Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing • Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 29 of 40 ends

The following restrictions and guidelines apply when considering whether a funding source counts as “locally generated”:
• Potential local funding sources include commercial linkage fees, housing impact fees (but see note below if the impact fees are part of an inclusionary zoning ordinance), taxes (such as an employee head tax or real estate transfer tax), local bond measures, successor agency funds, business/gross receipts tax on rental property, and general fund allocations.
• Jurisdictions may include county or regional bond funds expended with the jurisdiction’s participation on affordable housing projects within its boundaries. • Jurisdictions may include grants from philanthropic organizations or private contributions made by businesses or individuals.
• In-kind contributions to developments in the form of fee waivers for building permit fees, impact fees, and other fees can be counted toward the required amount of local affordable housing funding. Staff hours are not eligible for consideration.
• If a jurisdiction is using inclusionary zoning (Production Policy 1) for the TOC Policy’s production requirement, funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees from inclusionary zoning cannot be counted toward the funding minimums. If the jurisdiction has inclusionary zoning but does not use it to satisfy the TOC Policy's affordable housing production requirement, the funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees may be counted.
• Federal and state funding (such as HOME/CDBG or PLHA) that is passed through a jurisdiction is not counted as local funding.

The following policy options representing programmatic investments do not have restrictions on how a program is funded:
• Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity • Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for low-income homeowners)
• Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
• Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
• Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program
• Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for landlords)
• Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 30 of 40 ends

Option for Local Jurisdiction Collaboratives to Meet TOC Policy Requirements MTC will allow implementation of affordable housing and commercial stabilization policies through collaboratives that involve more than one jurisdiction partnering to manage policy implementation. Implementation through a collaborative is intended to reduce administrative costs for local jurisdictions and increase efficiency of program delivery. This option may be particularly beneficial for smaller jurisdictions (those in Tiers A to D above) or medium-sized jurisdictions (those in Tiers E and F above).

Implementing a policy through a collaborative generally does not change the minimum requirements for each participating jurisdiction. However, a jurisdiction can receive a 10 percent reduction in the funding requirement for its individual financial contribution to collaborative implementation. For example, a city that transfers funds to its county to administer a tenant rental assistance program can contribute 10 percent less than the funding threshold in Table 10, as long as the county operates the program in accordance with the standards in Appendix A.

Target Policies for Collaboratives
MTC specifically anticipates that the policies below will benefit from collaborative implementation. However, jurisdictions may use a collaborative to implement any of the affordable housing and commercial stabilization policies, subject to MTC approval.

Production: 2. Affordable Housing Funding and 6. Public/Community Land Trusts.

Preservation: 1. Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing, 5.

Public/Community Land Trusts, 6. Funding to Support Preservation Capacity, and 8.

Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities
Protection: 3. Legal Assistance for Tenants, 4. Foreclosure Assistance, 5. Rental Assistance Program, 7. Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities, and 10. Fair Housing Enforcement Commercial Stabilization: 3. Small Business and Nonprofit Financial Assistance Program
Any jurisdiction intending to implement a TOC housing policy through a collaborative must provide MTC with documentation on the roles and responsibilities for the collaborative and jurisdiction, as well as a schedule of expected funding to the collaborative. MTC may request additional information on collaboratives.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: MTC Administrative Guidance: Transit-Oriented Communities Policy (3499 : MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy)

Page 31 of 40 ends

Orinda City CouncilJanuary 21, 2025

Orinda City Council
January 21, 2025