Orinda City Council
May 19, 2026

CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, May 19, 2026
07:00 PM
Orinda Library Auditorium
26 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA
Zoom Webinar Link: https://www.tinyurl.com/OrindaCityCouncil YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cityoforinda9535/streams HOW TO 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 choose not to submit a speaker card or decline to provide the requested information on the card. After the City Council has heard from everyone who submitted a speaker card, anyone who has not submitted 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 the instructions below:

Deliver to City Hall at 22 Orinda Way or send an e-mail to [email protected] by 3 pm on the day of the meeting.  Those comments will be forwarded to the City Council.  They will also be part of the public record and available for viewing in the public review binder at Orinda City Hall, located at 22 Orinda Way.  In addition, they will be available electronically by 5 pm on the day of the meeting by selecting the date of the meeting in this Box account link: https://tinyurl.com/Orinda-Public-Comment-Folder Remote Comments: Remote Public Comments have been discontinued for the foreseeable future. This does not include teleconference locations.

Assisted Listening Devices: Assisted listening devices are available on the table in the rear of the Auditorium.

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Cara Hoxie, Latika Malkani, Janet Riley Vice Mayor Darlene Gee, Mayor Brandyn Iverson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A.

B.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.

ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
Proclamation - Recognizing May 17-23, 2026, as National Public Works Week - "Rooted in Service, Powered by
Community"

Certificate of Recognition - Jewish American Heritage Month Page 8 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.

COUNCIL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of City Council Minutes Page 9
The City Council will consider approval of the Meeting Minutes of:

1. May 5, 2026, Regular Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes of

1. May 5, 2026, Regular Meeting
Appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Page 24 C.

D.

E.

E.1
E.2
F.

G.

H.

I.

I.1
I.2
Packet Page 2
the Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee
The City Council will consider the Mayor’s recommendation to appoint Anthony Valdiosera as Orinda’s representative on the Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee and Greg Fernbacher to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Mr. Valdiosera would serve for a term ending in 2029 and Mr. Fernbacher would serve the remainder of the term ending in 2027, due to the resignation of Sarah Speron.

RECOMMENDATION:

Appoint Anthony Valdiosera as Orinda’s representative on the Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee and Greg Fernbacher to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Approve the Engineer's Report for the Levy of Annual
Assessments, Declare Intent to Levy Annual Assessments, and Set June 9, 2026, as the Date for the Public Hearing on the Levy of Assessments for Orinda Street Lighting and
Landscaping Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L-42, M-9 and M-11 for Fiscal Year 2026-27

The City Council will consider approving the Engineer’s Report for the levy of annual assessments, declaring the City’s intent to levy annual assessments, and setting June 9, 2026, as the date for the public hearing on the proposed assessments for Orinda Street Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L42, M-9, and M-11, for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The proposed assessments allow the City to continue providing street lighting, landscape maintenance, and related services within the district.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 30-26 Approving the Engineer’s Report for the Levy of Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27 Within the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L-42, M-9, And M-11.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 31-26 Declaring Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments and Setting June 9, 2026, as the Date for the Public Hearing on the Levy of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27 Within the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L-42, M-9, And M-11.

Budget Increase for Traffic Pole Replacement Page 80
The City Council will consider increasing budget appropriation in Fiscal Year 2025- 26 to allow for replacement of a traffic signal pole.

RECOMMENDATION:

I.3
I.4
Packet Page 3
Approve Budget Change Form #016-26
Street Closure for the Orinda Association's Fourth of July Parade and Associated Activities

The City Council will consider a traffic order which will authorize street closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and associated community activities, sponsored by the Orinda Association.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 27-26 (Traffic Order No. 243) Authorizing Street Closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and Associated Community Activities.

Authorization for Caltrans Submittal - "Downtown Orinda” Identification on Highway 24

The City Council will consider authorizing the submittal of an encroachment permit application to Caltrans in order for the Staff to pursue the installation of up to five Downtown Orinda signs along Highway 24. Caltrans’ Supplemental Signing Program allows cities to install highway signage identifying key destinations in an effort to improve visibility and support economic development efforts. If approved, the City will fund fabrication and installation, and Caltrans will assume ongoing maintenance.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 29-26 Supporting the Installation of up to Five “Downtown Orinda” Supplemental Signs Along Highway 24 and Authorize Staff to Submit an Encroachment Permit Application to Caltrans.

PUBLIC HEARING
POLICY MATTERS
Report on the City’s Efforts to Obtain Grant Funding Page 93 The City Council will receive a report on ongoing grant efforts with the City’s grants consultant, California Consulting.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive report and provide direction, as needed.

Proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance -
Recommendations from Affordable Housing Subcommittee

I.5
I.6
J.

K.

K.1
K.2
Packet Page 4
The City Council will consider the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Subcommittee, composed of Vice Mayor Gee and Councilmember Malkani, and discuss the potential adoption of the Ordinance.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the Subcommittee’s recommendations and provide direction to Staff regarding the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO).

MATTERS INITIATED

ADJOURNMENT
Please visit the City's website at www.cityoforinda.gov to view the City Council Meeting 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.gov. ~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 L.

M.

Packet Page 5
925.253.4221 or [email protected] with the following information: name, mailing address, phone number and type of assistance requested.

Packet Page 6
Item E.1
Packet Page 7
Item E.2
Packet Page 8

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Approval of City Council Minutes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approval of the Meeting Minutes of:

1. May 5, 2026, Regular Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes of

1. May 5, 2026, Regular Meeting
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Minutes of May 5, 2026, Regular Meeting

Respectfully Submitted by,
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.1
Packet Page 9
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 14 05.05.26
MAY 5, 2026

CITY OF ORINDA

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

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

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Latika Malkani, Janet Riley
Mayor Brandyn Iverson, Vice Mayor Darlene Gee
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Cara Hoxie
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Iverson.

C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
City Manager Smith requested removal of Item H.6 which will be deferred to a later meeting date.

MOTION by Councilmember Malkani, and seconded by Vice Mayor Gee, to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0-1; Hoxie absent) vote.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1 Orinda Association Annual Report
Alex Drexel, Orinda Association (OA), gave the annual report for the Orinda Association, provided an overview of main programs, the OA Board, Orinda News, Volunteer Guide, the Lions Recycle for Sight collection box, Seniors around Town (SAT), Orinda Classic Car Show, Orinda 4th of July Parade and Celebration, and spoke about their support for public and nonprofit groups, schools, clubs and businesses to coordinate with Lamorinda.

Councilmembers posed questions regarding OA’s tentative plans for its anniversary celebration, ridership and tracking of Seniors Around Town, resources from the City for volunteer matching, an added suggestion to educate those at risk with fire safety, and thanked the OA for their work and presentation.

D.2 Cancer Support Community Presentation, Brian Donohue Item I.1
Packet Page 10
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 14 05.05.26
Andy Dunn, Development Manager at Cancer Support Community San Francisco Bay Area (CSC), spoke of their nonprofit in Walnut Creek that can be a valuable resource to the Orinda community affected by cancer, described their comprehensive support programs at no cost, statistics on those diagnosed with cancer, their partnership between CSC and UCSF John Muir Cancer Center, fundraising campaign for their $30 million project with expanded resources. A ribbon-cutting ceremony will be held in 2027 and he invited Orindans to participate.

Brian Donohue, a 40-year Rotarian, retired trial lawyer, spoke about his experience with his wife’s battle with cancer, spoke about their outreach efforts about CSC’s remarkable services, described the many presentations made within the district, available volunteerism from the Orinda Rotary, and an overview of their fundraising campaign.

Councilmembers posed questions about how to learn more about their program through www.cancersupport.net, confirmed its former name as The Wellness Center, and thanked CSC for their efforts and resources,
D.3 Recognizing May as Asian Pacific American Month
Mayor Iverson recognized May as Asian Pacific American Month and provided remarks on Asian Pacific Americans for their contributions.

E. PUBLIC FORUM
Jeff Blum spoke about his view that recycling is not working properly in its measurement of its success and asked that reuse day be moved to the same day as trash day and not the day prior, and landfill day as the next day afterwards.

Chirag Kathrani introduced himself to the Council, said he is running for the State Assembly District 16 representing Orinda, asked that everybody vote, said 65% of races in the County are going unchallenged, and said he supports all of those running.

Kirsten Slaussen of Hillcrest Drive requested that the Council reconsider Orinda’s 45- decibel HVAC noise ordinance limit, noting that neighboring jurisdictions use broader reasonableness standards or permit higher daytime noise levels. She stated that, due to a neighbor’s strict enforcement efforts, her family has incurred significant costs implementing noise mitigation measures.

F. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Malkani reported on the Cal Cities East Bay Division meeting last Thursday. An interesting presentation was given on E-bikes which she described, and said she will circulate her notes to the Council.

Vice Mayor Gee said she also attended the very informative E-bike presentation at the Cal Cities East Bay Division meeting. She also reported that she and Councilmember Malkani attended EBMUD’s Annual Ward 3 presentation and tour at the former Cal Shakes site.

Item I.1
Packet Page 11
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 14 05.05.26
Mayor Iverson noted that the City Manager has been working on this issue over the year with Bike East Bay and legislative representatives, and it is a multi-faceted problem and solution. She said May is also Mental Health Awareness Month, Teacher Appreciation Week, and there are five more shopping days until Mother’s Day.

Councilmember Malkani added that she and the Mayor attended Orinda In Action Day which was well attended, and she thanked Parks and Recreation staff. She added that there will be a soft opening event on June 5th and learn more on the Siesta Valley Bowl website.

G. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Smith gave the following report:
• She reminded there will be a leash cutting ceremony on May 16th to celebrate the opening of the recently completed dog park facility at Orinda Oaks Open Space. • Scaffolding will be coming off of the Library and the tile project is complete. • New lights have been installed at Wilder Sports Field. • Legislative letters are heading out the door locally and regionally. Many bills are moving into the Appropriations Committee in the next week and more letters will be sent if necessary to ensure the City’s platform is being heard. • She attended the Open House for MOFD this weekend at Station 45 and toured the great collaboration between the nonprofit community, MOFD and the City. • Tomorrow evening is the 2x2 School Committee meeting with Councilmembers Malkani and Riley attending.

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

H. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Iverson asked confirmed Councilmembers requested removal of Item H.7 (Riley and Iverson), Item H.9 (Malkani and Iverson), Item H.10 (Gee), and there were no further requests and no public comments.

H.1 Approval of City Council Minutes
The City Council will consider approval of the Meeting Minutes of:

1. April 21, 2026, Regular Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes of

1. April 21, 2026, Regular Meeting
H.2 Appointment to the Contra Costa County Library Commission The City Council will consider the Mayor’s recommendation to appoint Erika Rosenberg as Orinda’s representative on the Contra Costa County Library Commission. Ms. Rosenberg would fill a vacancy due to a recent resignation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Appoint Erika Rosenberg as Orinda’s Representative on the Contra Costa County Library Commission.

Item I.1
Packet Page 12
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 14 05.05.26
H.3 Adoption of Citywide Objective Design Standards (ODS) Ordinance 26-03, implementing Action 3.E of the Housing Element
The City Council will consider adoption of Citywide Objective Design Standards. The purpose of the objective design standards is to provide guidance, set design expectations, expedite processing, align with new laws streamlining review for residential projects, and maintain the architectural and landscape character of the community.

RECOMMENDATION:

Waive the full reading and adopt Ordinance 26-03, amending Title 17 of the Orinda Municipal Code (Zoning) and Adopting the Citywide Objective Design Standards for the Residential and Open Space Districts for Consistency with State Housing Law, and direct Staff to file a Notice of Exemption.

H.4 Investment Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2026 The City Council will receive the quarterly report on the City’s investments, consistent with California Government Code Section 53646(b) and the City's Investment Policy. This report covers the period of January 1, 2026, to March 31, 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Investment Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2026.

H.5 Quarterly Financial Report for the 3rd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2025-26 The City Council will receive a report on results of the first nine months of the Fiscal Year (July 1, 2025 – March 31, 2026). It includes a detailed analysis of General Fund performance compared to the Budget. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a budget change to reflect changes needed during the Fiscal Year.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report and approve Budget Change Form #014-26 updating the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget to incorporate some minor adjustments and corrections.

H.6 Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Ladris Technologies Inc. for Evacuation and Wildfire Modeling Services and Software
The City currently utilizes Ladris software to model wildfire spread and evacuation timing under a range of scenarios. These tools support emergency preparedness efforts, inform evacuation planning, and provide the public with greater transparency regarding evacuation constraints. The existing one-year agreement is set to expire in August 2026. Amendment No. 1 would extend the agreement for an additional two-year term at a fixed annual cost of $252,700, ensuring continuity of service as the City continues to refine its evacuation modeling and public education efforts.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A), extending an agreement with Ladris to provide evacuation and wildfire modeling software for an additional two-year term at a fixed annual cost of $252,700.

Item I.1
Packet Page 13
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 14 05.05.26
H.8 Temporary Full Road Closure on Portions of Camino Sobrante and El Sueno for EBMUD Camino Sobrante Phase 1 Water Main Replacement Project
The City Council will consider approving Resolution 26-26 (Traffic Order #230) Authorizing the Temporary Full Closure of a Portion of Camino Sobrante between Miner Road and La Espiral, and El Sueno Road.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 26-26 (Traffic Order #230) Authorizing the Temporary Full Closure of a Portion of Camino Sobrante between Miner Road and La Espiral, and El Sueno Road.

H.11 Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance (RAC) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Participation
The City Council will consider approval to participate in the Contra Costa Regional Alternative Compliance (RAC) system. The RAC is designed to meet requirements under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 23-26 to approve participation in the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for the Contra Costa County Regional Alternative Compliance (RAC) system.

MOTION by Councilmember Riley moved, and seconded by Councilmember Malkani to approve Consent Calendar Items H.1, H.2, H.3, H.4, H.5, H.8, and H.11. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0-1; Hoxie absent) vote.

Items Removed from the Consent Calendar:

H.7 Decrease the Prima Facie Speed Limit on Orchard Road The City Council will consider a traffic order which would decrease the prima facie speed limit speed limit of 25 miles per hour to 15 miles per hour on Orchard Road between Moraga Way (North) and Moraga Way (south). This change has been recommended for approval by the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee through their standard process
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 22-26 (Traffic Order #237) Decrease the Prima Facie Speed Limit of 25 Miles Per Hour to 15 Miles Per Hour on Orchard Road Between Moraga Way (North) and Glorietta Boulevard and between Glorietta Boulevard and Moraga Way (South).

City Engineer Siva Natarajan presented the staff report and recommendation to adopt Resolution 22-26, reducing the speed limit on Orchard Road from 25 mph to 15 mph.

Councilmember Riley sought clarification regarding concerns about southbound left turns from Moraga Way onto Orchard Road and confirmed that limited study data did not show significant cut-through traffic. Mr. Natarajan explained that two separate traffic studies had been conducted and agreed to share the second study with her.

Item I.1
Packet Page 14
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 14 05.05.26
Mayor Iverson questioned why the proposed 15 mph limit would apply to the entire stretch of Orchard Road, including straighter sections, rather than only the curvier portions already marked with advisory slow-speed signs. Mr. Natarajan explained that the existing signs are non-enforceable warnings, whereas the proposed change would establish an enforceable speed limit. He added that multiple speed changes along the relatively short roadway could confuse drivers and reduce compliance.

Councilmember Malkani asked whether similar speed reductions exist elsewhere in Orinda, and Mr. Natarajan cited La Espiral as a recent example of a 15 mph roadway. He also confirmed that the proposal originated through a Traffic Calming Request process, that neighborhood residents had been informed through the Neighborhood Action Team, and that both the NAT and TSAC supported the reduced speed limit and additional traffic calming measures.

Mayor Iverson opened the Public Forum.

Dr. Helena Hershel of Orchard Road stated that residents experience significant difficulty exiting their driveways between approximately 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. due to traffic conditions. She supported the proposed 15 mph speed limit reduction as a positive first step, particularly if actively enforced, but expressed concern that it would not fully address the issue given reports of vehicles traveling at speeds of 40 to 50 mph.

Mayor Iverson recalled earlier TSAC discussions in which residents expressed concerns regarding safety for children, pets, and pedestrians on Orchard Road. While generally hesitant to impose restrictions on residential streets due to shortcut traffic, she acknowledged the road’s narrow, winding, and partially blind configuration and expressed support for the proposed speed reduction.

Councilmember Malkani supported the 15 mph limit as an initial traffic-calming measure and encouraged staff to monitor whether conditions improve. Councilmember Riley expressed concern that broader resident input had not been presented to the Council and questioned whether the supporting survey data justified the reduction, requesting additional information and emphasizing enforcement of the existing 25 mph limit before lowering it further.

Vice Mayor Gee also supported the proposal, noting familiarity with the roadway and emphasizing that enforcement would be critical to its effectiveness. Mayor Iverson stated that traffic engineering recommendations and the public review process conducted through TSAC and neighborhood meetings should carry significant weight in the Council’s decision-making unless compelling contrary evidence exists.

Councilmember Malkani added that speed limits and enforcement can help influence driver behavior, particularly among younger drivers, and noted the measure could be revisited if significant opposition emerges. Mr. Natarajan explained that observed vehicle speeds near the current 25 mph limit, combined with roadway conditions, supported staff’s recommendation that 15 mph would be a safer operating speed.

Mayor Iverson concluded by asking whether the Council wished to proceed with the reduction while remaining open to future adjustments if negative feedback is received, and suggested a motion.

Item I.1
Packet Page 15
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 14 05.05.26
MOTION by Councilmember Malkani moved, and seconded by Vice Mayor Gee to adopt Resolution 22-26 (Traffic Order #237) Decrease the Prima Facie Speed Limit of 25 Miles Per Hour to 15 Miles Per Hour on Orchard Road Between Moraga Way (North) and Glorietta Boulevard and between Glorietta Boulevard and Moraga Way (South).

Said motion carried by a 3-1-1 vote; Riley no; Hoxie absent.

H.9 Approve New CIP Project #5042 for Coral Drive Sidewalk Construction The City Council will consider adoption of a new project to install sidewalks along Coral Drive, between Ardith Drive and Moraga Way to enhance pedestrian safety in the area. The City Council is reviewing this proposed project in advance of the standard review process in order to move quickly on the consultant selection process prior to the end of the Fiscal Year. A budget change is necessary to provide a small amount of initial funding to this project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve CIP Project #5042 for the Coral Drive Sidewalk Construction and approve Budget Change Form # 015-26.

Councilmember Malkani said her reason for removing this item was to thank City staff for listening to residents and listening to the Council’s feedback and moving so quickly.

Mayor Iverson echoed sentiments and said this is the reason she also wanted to remove the item.

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

MOTION by Councilmember Malkani moved, and seconded by Vice Mayor Gee to approve CIP Project #5042 for the Coral Drive Sidewalk Construction and approve Budget Change Form # 015-26. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0-1; Hoxie absent) vote.

H.10 Approval of Fiscal Year 2026-27 SB1 Road Repair and Accountability Act Project List
The City Council will consider approving the list of streets scheduled for pavement rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 2026-27. The project is partially funded by State Gas Tax Funds, in particular the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), which requires local agencies submit to the California Transportation Commission an adopted list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds by July 1 each year.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 25-26 approving the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Project List as required by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

Vice Mayor Gee asked Public Works staff to address public comments, noting the City’s maintenance programming can be difficult to understand.

City Engineer Siva Natarajan said staff reviewed the comments and prepared formal responses to factual questions, while some comments involved policy matters. City Manager Smith noted the responses had not yet been distributed and offered to present them.

Item I.1
Packet Page 16
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 14 05.05.26
Mayor Iverson requested a general explanation regarding why roads with relatively high PCI ratings were included for maintenance. Mr. Natarajan explained that the City uses the Street Saver software program to analyze roadway conditions and recommend paving projects. Each year, staff must submit a street list generated by the program, including deferred streets requiring attention.

Mr. Natarajan also clarified questions regarding project costs. He explained the attached list does not total $800,000. Instead, the City combined the 2025 and 2026 paving projects into a single $3.5 million effort due to delays in the 2024 paving project caused by high bids. Funding remains tied to the applicable fiscal years, with approximately half allocated to the 2026 paving project.

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

Councilmembers thanked Mr. Natarajan for his explanations and responses to public comments.

MOTION by Vice Mayor Gee moved, and seconded by Councilmember Riley to adopt Resolution 25-26 approving the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Project List as required by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0- 1; Hoxie absent) vote.

I. PUBLIC HEARING – None.

J. POLICY MATTERS
J.1 Proposed FY 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update
On June 3, 2025, the City Council adopted a two-year budget covering Fiscal Year 2025-26 (July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026) and Fiscal Year 2026- 27 (July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027). Since the budget relies on estimates and projections, it is appropriate to periodically review the financial plan and make adjustments as necessary.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive presentation and provide direction regarding any adjustments or changes to be incorporated into the proposed Mid-Cycle Budget Update for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 (The Update) which is scheduled to be presented for adoption on June 9, 2026.

Assistant City Manager Doug Alessio presented the staff report and PowerPoint on the proposed mid-cycle budget adjustments for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27. He reviewed General Fund refinements for FY 2026-27, including staffing allocation changes, transfers from the unassigned fund balance, and an additional $81,917 in General Fund contributions to the City’s three Lighting and Landscaping Districts.

Item I.1
Packet Page 17
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 14 05.05.26
Mr. Alessio also reviewed staffing updates resulting in a $29,027 cost reduction, proposed staffing changes by position, and proposed one-time transfers. He outlined Measure R adjustments for FY 2026-27, including $150,000 for unfinished GIS mapping, $450,000 for the Fire Safe Moraga Orinda services contract, $252,000 for renewal of the Ladris evacuation modeling software subscription, and $48,510 for increased outreach and education services. Additional updates included $253,438 in TDA grant revenue increases, $79,011 in increased LLD revenue, and a $200,000 Bike Trails and Walkway Master Plan update funded equally through the Transportation Impact Fee and Contra Costa Transportation Return to Source funds.

Regarding next steps, Mr. Alessio said Council direction would be incorporated into the proposed mid-cycle budget update. The SSTOC will review the changes at its May 13 meeting, and the Independent Library Parcel Tax Oversight and Finance Advisory Committee will review them at a special meeting in May 2026.

Mr. Alessio concluded the presentation and requested Council questions, clarifications, and input on any additional adjustments before the final proposed budget is presented for adoption at the June 9, 2026 Council meeting.

Councilmember Riley highlighted beautification as a Council strategic priority and requested funding for an annual street banner program, noting her appreciation for the current streetlight banners, particularly the butterfly design.

Mayor Iverson referenced the City’s flower basket holders, which have not been maintained, and suggested evaluating them alongside the banner program.

Councilmember Riley noted the baskets were discontinued during the drought but agreed the efforts are related. Councilmember Malkani also expressed support for incorporating beautification initiatives into the budget.

Mayor Iverson confirmed the request would return as part of allocated funding recommendations. Mr. Alessio said staff would develop a plan and include it in the budget proposal for the June 9 meeting.

Councilmember Malkani asked whether the proposed part-time GIS Technician position would support ongoing maintenance of the City’s GIS storm drain mapping. Mr. Alessio confirmed it would, explaining that regular updates are necessary to keep the mapping system current and that maintaining the GIS database would be one of the position’s responsibilities.

Councilmember Malkani also confirmed that proposed staffing changes would require notice to the union before Council approval.

Vice Mayor Gee asked whether staff could provide a broader overview of grant opportunities and funding activity. City Manager Smith said department leads regularly meet with California Consulting to review grant opportunities aligned with City priorities and noted the firm would attend the May 16 Council meeting. She added that the upcoming CIP item identifies grant-funded projects.

Item I.1
Packet Page 18
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 14 05.05.26
Vice Mayor Gee and Councilmember Malkani requested periodic reports summarizing grants awarded through California Consulting and other federal or state sources. Mayor Iverson agreed and also requested a list of pending projects requiring grant funding or matching funds.

Mayor Iverson asked for clarification regarding the County Library parcel tax and distinctions between City, County, and parcel tax funding sources. Mr. Alessio explained the parcel tax was intended for expanded library hours and maintenance rather than capital improvements. He noted the parcel tax currently funds only limited capital work, including painting and tile replacement. He further explained that the County operates library programming, the City owns the property, and the Friends of the Library own the building and lease it to the City for maintenance costs. Ongoing maintenance is funded approximately 85% by the parcel tax and 15% by the General Fund.

Mayor Iverson also inquired about the $50,000 Measure R communications allocation.

City Manager Smith explained the funding supports a contract for research and outreach services focused on wildfire awareness, including focus groups, seminars, events, and messaging strategies, rather than staffing.

Regarding the Infrastructure Ad-Hoc Subcommittee’s ongoing work, Mayor Iverson asked how future budget impacts should be considered. Vice Mayor Gee said potential needs are not yet known and would be addressed in the future. Mr. Alessio added that the $1.4 million currently remains in the unassigned General Fund balance and could later be transferred to Fund 700 for related expenditures.

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

City Manager Smith noted Mayor Iverson’s concern regarding the proposed Ladris allocation, emphasizing that including the funding in the budget should not be interpreted as automatic approval of the contract. She explained staff hopes to have Ladris present at the June 9 meeting to discuss the proposal. Under the current approach, the Council could approve the budget appropriation separately from the contract itself and would still retain authority to approve or reject the contract at a later date. If the funds remain unspent, the appropriation would lapse at the end of the fiscal year and return to the unallocated balance.

Mayor Iverson asked whether the Council could avoid allocating funds for an undecided item. Mr. Alessio responded that staff could remove the allocation from the budget and later process a budget amendment if and when the contract is approved.

Councilmember Riley asked whether the Council could instead amend or remove the allocation at the June 9 meeting. Mr. Alessio said that option exists, but significant changes at adoption could mean the final budget differs from the version publicly presented in advance.

Vice Mayor Gee asked staff to provide a broader assessment of the City’s technology investments, including cameras, computer systems, and security upgrades, noting she did not see those items reflected in the budget discussion.

Item I.1
Packet Page 19
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 14 05.05.26
City Manager Smith and Mr. Alessio outlined several recent technology initiatives, including deployment of Cloud Permit software, implementation of new cloud-based financial software, Laserfiche document management, GIS investments, HR onboarding software, and other future technology upgrades funded through Fund 600. City Manager Smith also noted the City received a $79,000 grant for an e-citation software system and said only one or two additional license plate reader cameras remain under consideration.

Councilmember Malkani confirmed that while the Ladris contract renewal is due at the end of August, discussion of the contract and associated Measure R funding could be deferred. She emphasized the importance of reserving the funds given public support for the program and confirmed that a future budget amendment could adjust the amount if necessary.

Mr. Alessio explained that if the appropriation remains in the budget, the funds would be available to spend, but any unused amount would lapse at fiscal year-end and remain in Fund 106 for future use.

Mayor Iverson reiterated that while she strongly supports Ladris, she preferred not to publicly budget an amount that may ultimately be negotiated lower. She stated her preference was to leave the amount unallocated until an actual contract proposal is presented.

City Manager Smith responded that staff expects few changes to the proposal by June 9 but agreed the meeting would provide an opportunity for further discussion with Ladris.

Mayor Iverson also commented on the City’s broader financial leadership, expressing concern about increasing spending levels while acknowledging staff’s thoughtful longterm budgeting approach and successful project delivery. She thanked staff for their fiscal planning and management.

Councilmember Malkani echoed those comments, noting that several major capital projects delayed from prior years are now moving forward. She also highlighted additional community priorities that may be pursued through grant funding, including gathering spaces, multigenerational and park facilities, and recreation projects.

City Manager Smith added that staff is also coordinating with Caltrans on beautification projects that could be incorporated into future budgets or capital improvement projects.

Mayor Iverson concluded discussion of the item and moved to the next agenda item.

J.2 Proposed Mid-Cycle Update to Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2026- FY 2027
The City Council will review proposed changes to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which will be made as part of the upcoming mid-cycle update to the City’s two-year budget.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review, discuss, and provide comments on the proposed Update to the Capital Improvement Plan.

Item I.1
Packet Page 20
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 14 05.05.26
Public Works Director Scott Christie presented the staff report and PowerPoint on the proposed mid-cycle update to the FY 2026–27 CIP, outlining the process, completed projects (including photos), and projects currently underway.

Proposed CIP revisions included the Camino Pablo Pathway Project, supported by a $140,000 TDA grant; the Community Park Accessibility and Play Areas project, estimated at $1.3 million; and a $50,000 increase for bioswales in the Wilder parking area under the Green Stormwater Infrastructure program. New proposed projects were also introduced across roadway, drainage, building, and park categories.

City Manager Smith noted that Community Center investments are intended to enhance facility “rentability,” including potential conversion of the Kinder Gym into a meeting hall and creation of group picnic areas, which could generate additional rental revenue to offset project costs.

Mayor Iverson confirmed the Corporation Yard expansion location near the Wilder Sports Field parking area and its role as the Public Works operations and storage site. She also confirmed the $75,000 Pickleball line item for FY 2026–27 is a legacy placeholder from prior planning.

Mayor Iverson further noted the need to consider additional investment in Founders Auditorium and the Community Center, particularly upgrades such as flooring and furnishings. She and Councilmember Malkani supported bringing these enhancement options back for future Council consideration.

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

Councilmember Riley proposed replacing or redesigning the existing wooden “Orinda” sign near Safeway and raised traffic safety concerns at Ivy Drive, asking whether a dedicated left-turn lane at Moraga Way and Coral could be prioritized. She also noted reported sidewalk gaps on Ivy Drive and suggested they may present a higher safety priority than the previously discussed gap to St. Stephens at Orinda Woods.

Mr. Christie clarified the sidewalk gap extends from Moraga Way to Ardith and confirmed additional discontinuities exist, though full conditions beyond Ardith were uncertain.

Councilmember Malkani framed the Ivy Drive issue in the context of Safe Routes to School connectivity, particularly toward Orinda Intermediate School, while noting prior prioritization of elementary school routes. Mayor Iverson added that the corridor includes inconsistent sidewalk placement on alternating sides of the street, supporting further study and prioritization of the area.

On the proposed left-turn lane, Councilmember Riley described congestion caused by vehicles waiting to turn, while Councilmember Malkani requested further detail on the concept before proceeding.

Item I.1
Packet Page 21
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 13 of 14 05.05.26
Councilmember Malkani also referenced potential façade improvement and economic development efforts, noting many such initiatives would require additional funding. City Manager Smith responded that funding would come through the operational budget and noted façade improvement discussions are scheduled for the Downtown Revitalization Committee meeting.

Vice Mayor Gee supported further planning-level review of the Ivy Drive sidewalk project.

Mayor Iverson emphasized its importance for student pedestrian and bicycle access.

Councilmembers closed by acknowledging the City’s senior leadership team for its work over the year. City Manager Smith noted staff’s sense of accomplishment and ongoing efforts to advance additional projects.

City Manager Smith summarized the consensus and desire to:
• Include a proposal for a CIP to study and analyze the sidewalk for Ivy Drive; • Research the dedicated left turn from Coral onto Moraga Way in the future; • Review additional signage at the corner of Safeway for improvement and this can be moved from unfunded to funded and staff can adjust the budget; • Review the Founder’s Auditorium improvements which could be something to capitalize rather than having it as an operating expense along with the Community Kitchen work.

Councilmember Malkani noted that the pedestrian bridge between the BART station and Theater Square feels unwelcoming and suggested involving the Art in Public Places Committee to explore aesthetic improvements such as public art and softer lighting. City Manager Smith responded that the bridge is not City-owned and any improvements would require coordination with Caltrans.

Mayor Iverson referenced prior “Connect Orinda” concepts, noting that reopening an additional BART access point—previously identified as a relatively low-cost, permissionbased improvement—could improve pedestrian flow from the parking area across the freeway. She asked staff to explore whether the concept remains feasible. City Manager Smith agreed to include the idea in ongoing coordination discussions with Caltrans and BART.

Mayor Iverson concluded the presentation and confirmed staff had direction.

Vice Mayor Gee returned to Councilmember Reports and reported that next week on Thursday and Friday, May 14th and 15th from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on both days, the CCTA is having their Spring Workshop in the Founder’s Auditorium and it is a public meeting. She was not sure whether it is being recorded, but it is an extraordinary opportunity to learn more about CCTA, Measure J’s importance, and begin talking about the framework for a future renewal of the sales tax.

Mayor Iverson asked that the City Manager send a link to the agenda and information on the workshop.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – None.

Item I.1
Packet Page 22
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 14 of 14 05.05.26
L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:54 p.m. to the next Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item I.1
Packet Page 23

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider the Mayor’s recommendation to appoint Anthony Valdiosera as Orinda’s representative on the Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee and Greg Fernbacher to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr.

Valdiosera would serve for a term ending in 2029 and Mr. Fernbacher would serve the remainder of the term ending in 2027, due to the resignation of Sarah Speron.

RECOMMENDATION:

Appoint Anthony Valdiosera as Orinda’s representative on the Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee and Greg Fernbacher to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

BACKGROUND:

Parks and Recreation Commission
There is currently a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission due to the resignation of Sarah Speron. Her term was due to expire in February 2027.

Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee
There is currently a vacancy for Orinda’s Representative on the Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee.

DISCUSSION:

In February 2026, the City Council held their annual meeting to interview and appoint applicants to the various commissions, committees, and boards. During that meeting, the Council gave direction to the Mayor to consider any applications received outside of the annual process and to make recommendations to the full Council for appointment at a City Council Meeting.

Following the annual recruitment process, the City Clerk continued outreach efforts to fill the remaining vacancies on various commissions, committees, and boards.

Item I.2
Packet Page 24
Two applicants applied to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission; however, one applicant, Gwen Murphy, withdrew due to subsequent work obligations. After reviewing the application of the remaining applicant Greg Fernbacher, Mayor Iverson recommends his appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission. He would serve for a partial term expiring in February 2027.

One applicant, Anthony Valdiosera, applied to serve as Orinda’s Representative on the County Connection Advisory Committee. Mr. Valdiosera previously applied and interviewed for the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee during the February 2026 recruitment process. Mayor Iverson recommends his appointment to serve on the County Connection Advisory Committee. He would serve for a term expiring in June 2029.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Application Package - Parks and Recreation Commission.

B. Application Package - Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee.

Respectfully Submitted by,
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.2
Packet Page 25
Item I.2
Packet Page 26
Item I.2
Packet Page 27
Item I.2
Packet Page 28
Item I.2
Packet Page 29
Item I.2
Packet Page 30
Item I.2
Packet Page 31
Item I.2
Packet Page 32
Item I.2
Packet Page 33
Item I.2
Packet Page 34

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Approve the Engineer's Report for the Levy of Annual Assessments, Declare Intent to Levy Annual Assessments, and Set June 9, 2026, as the Date for the Public Hearing on the Levy of Assessments for Orinda Street Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L-42, M-9 and M-11 for Fiscal Year 2026-27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approving the Engineer’s Report for the levy of annual assessments, declaring the City’s intent to levy annual assessments, and setting June 9, 2026, as the date for the public hearing on the proposed assessments for Orinda Street Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L-42, M-9, and M-11, for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The proposed assessments allow the City to continue providing street lighting, landscape maintenance, and related services within the district.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 30-26 Approving the Engineer’s Report for the Levy of Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27 Within the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L-42, M-9, And M-11.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 31-26 Declaring Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments and Setting June 9, 2026, as the Date for the Public Hearing on the Levy of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026-27 Within the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L-42, M-9, And M-11.

BACKGROUND:

The Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 (AD 86-1) was created under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 upon the City’s incorporation to continue providing services in three former County service zones. The creation of AD 86-1 allowed the City to collect annual assessments from the properties within each zone of benefit to provide services as follows:

Zone L-42 finances the cost of residential street lighting within four neighborhoods in South Orinda:

1. Tahos Road from just north of Bates Blvd to the south cul-de-sac including Bates Court, Silverwood Court, and Oakridge Court; Meadow View Road from Meadow Lane to the north cul-de-sac

2. Valley Drive from Heather Lane to south of Valley Court Item I.3
Packet Page 35

3. Courtney Lane

4. Martha Road and Catherine Court (cul-de-sac sections of both streets) Zone M-9 finances the cost of residential street lighting in the Orinda Downs area along the following streets:

1. Dalewood Drive (public portion)

2. Redcoach Lane

3. Coachwood Terrace

4. Amber Valley Drive

5. Singingwood Lane

6. Fallen Leaf Terrace

7. Sundown Terrace

8. Silver Oak Terrace

9. Happy Valley Road
Zone M-11 consists of commercial properties in the Village and Crossroads areas and finances part or all of the following services:
• Street lighting
• Street sweeping
• Litter pickup
• Landscape maintenance (median islands, right-of-way, and mini parks) • Landscape utilities (water, irrigation controller electricity, and Crossroads Plaza fountain pump power)
Assessment districts are required to distinguish between “special” and “general” benefits when levying costs. Special benefits are those that directly and exclusively benefit properties within the district and may be funded through assessments. For example, residential street lighting in Zones L-42 and M-9 is considered a special benefit because it directly serves the properties within each zone. In some cases, properties located outside district boundaries, such as properties adjacent to or across from properties with a streetlight, may also receive some benefit. This is considered a general benefit, which cannot be funded by assessments and must instead be funded by the City’s General Fund.

An election was held in July 1999 to increase assessments and allow for future annual adjustments based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Voters approved assessment increases for Zones L-42 and M-9, but not for Zone M-11. For Zones L-42 and M-9, the City applies annual adjustments based on the change in the CPI for All Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward area. The CPI is published bimonthly, and the February index is used for calculation purposes. The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a 2.47% increase between February 2025 and February 2026.

DISCUSSION:

Item I.3
Packet Page 36
The City Council is required to establish the budgets and levy assessments annually within each zone of benefit to continue funding AD 86-1 services. The first step in the annual process is adoption of a resolution ordering the preparation of the Engineer’s Report, which occurred at the April 7, 2026, City Council meeting. The next step is to approve the Engineer’s Report (Attachment A), declare the City’s intention to levy and collect assessments, and set a public hearing date. Adoption of the attached resolutions (Attachments B and C) satisfies these requirements and sets the public hearing on the levy of assessments for June 9, 2026.

The City contracts with consulting firm NBS to prepare the Engineer’s Report and process the assessment levy, which is submitted to the Contra Costa County Tax Collector. The Engineer's Report establishes proposed budgets for the upcoming Fiscal Year, estimated actual costs for the current Fiscal Year, and the basis for levying assessments on properties in each zone. The report also includes several exhibits that provide background data, with original documents on file in the City Clerk's office. No changes to district boundaries are proposed for the upcoming fiscal year.

Section 5 of the Engineer's Report provides projected revenues and expenses for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 and proposed budgets for FY 2026-27. The types of expenditures remain consistent with prior years.

Zone L-42 is projected to maintain a reserve balance within limits allowed under State law. This zone continues to carry a relatively high reserve, primarily to fund future replacement of City-owned streetlight poles. These poles are Caltrans Type steel poles, with replacement costs estimated at approximately $20,000 per pole, depending on base conditions.

Across all zones, General Fund contributions fully offset the costs of general benefits, ensuring compliance with legal requirements that assessments only fund special benefits.

Zone M-11 assessments do not include an annual CPI inflator due to majority opposition during the 1999 assessment ballot proceeding. As such, the General Fund provides substantial contributions exceeding the amount required to cover general benefit costs as follows:

FY 2024-25
Actual
FY 2025-26
Estimated
FY 2026-27
Proposed
Zone M-11 General Fund Contribution $70,566 $75,018 $78,138 The service levels for Zone M-11 are reviewed annually to ensure responsible use of General Fund resources to cover rising costs of service provision in the City’s commercial corridors, including maintenance and beautification. The City’s investment in these services supports citywide economic vitality and in turn, provides general benefits to residents, businesses, and properties throughout the community. As such, Staff believes the General Fund contributions to Zone M-11 are appropriate.

Item I.3
Packet Page 37
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 30-26 approving the of the Engineer’s Report (Attachment B) and Resolution No. 31-26 declaring the City’s intent to levy and collect annual assessments and setting June 9, 2026, as the public hearing date on the levy of assessments (Attachment C). The proposed assessments for FY 2026-27 will continue funding street lighting, landscape maintenance, and related services within AD 86-1 Zones L-42, M-9, and M-11.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed FY 2026-27 assessments to be collected from all zones within AD 86-1 total $62,139 and will partially offset $140,794 in estimated expenses. The General Fund will contribute $81,256, including funding for general benefits that cannot be funded from special benefit assessments. Zone L-42 is projected to increase its reserve balance by $2,810.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

1. Downtown Development and Beautification
e. Enhance beautification efforts, including outdoor dining, lighting, landscaping, and signage. Consider establishing a facade improvement program.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Engineers Report for FY 2026-27
B. Resolution No. 30-26
C. Resolution No. 31-26
Prepared by: Estela Ramirez, Management Analyst
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.3
Packet Page 38
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Fiscal Year Engineer’s Report For
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape
Assessment District No. 1986-1
May 2026
Item I.3
Packet Page 39
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Phone - (925) 253-4200

CITY COUNCIL
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
Darlene K. Gee, Vice Mayor
Latika Malkani, Councilmember
Cara Hoxie, Councilmember
Janet Riley, Councilmember

DISTRICT STAFF
Linda Smith, City Manager
Douglas Alessio, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director Todd Trimble, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott Christie, Public Works & Engineering Director
Sivakumar Natarajan, City Engineer
NBS
Adina McCargo, Project Manager
Kyle Stock, Financial Analyst
Item I.3
Packet Page 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Summary of Assessment ........................................................................................... 1

2. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Summary ................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Effect of Proposition 218 ........................................................................................... 2

3. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................. 3

4. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 4

5. ESTIMATE OF COSTS ....................................................................................................... 5

5.1 Maximum Reserve ..................................................................................................... 5

5.2 Estimate of Costs ....................................................................................................... 5

6. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT ....................................................................................... 6

6.1 Assessment Rational ................................................................................................. 6

6.2 Zones L-42 and M-9 ................................................................................................... 6

6.3 Zone M-11 ................................................................................................................. 7

6.4 General Benefit ......................................................................................................... 8

6.5 Method of Apportionment ........................................................................................ 9

6.6 Maximum Assessment ............................................................................................ 11

7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAMS .............................................................................................. 12

8. PARCEL LISTING ............................................................................................................ 13 Item I.3
Packet Page 41
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Orinda (the "City"), State of California, has directed NBS to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location, and extent of the improvements to be maintained and an estimate of the costs of the maintenance, operations, and servicing of the improvements for the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 (the "District") for Fiscal Year 2026/27 under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act").

This Annual Engineer's Report (the "Report") includes a background of the District and an overview of the proposed assessment; diagrams of the District showing the area and properties proposed to be assessed; a description of the general nature, location, and extent of the existing and expanded improvement; an estimate of the increased cost of maintenance for the existing and new improvements including a contribution for general benefit; the rationale utilized to assess the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations, and servicing of the improvements; and the net amount to be assessed upon all assessable lots or parcels within the District in proportion to the special benefit received.

The assessment rate and the annual rate escalation factor of the annual percentage change in the February San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index were approved by property owners through the assessment balloting procedures outlined in Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution at a public hearing for Zone L-42 and Zone M-9 in July of 1999.

The following assessment is made to cover the portion of the estimated costs for installation, construction, servicing, and maintenance of public lighting and landscape improvements in proportion to the special benefit received. Upon forming the District, the Fiscal Year 2026/27 assessments have been levied in accordance with the assessment methodology confirmed by the City Council. They are proportional to the special benefit received by each parcel.

1.1 Summary of Assessment
ZONE ASSESSABLE UNITS RATE TOTAL ASSESSMENT (1)
L-42 127.50 $81.47 $10,387.42
M-9 160.00 85.76 13,721.60
M-11 59.80 635.94 38,030.30
(1) Total assessment amount to be collected for Fiscal Year 2026/27, less installment rounding.

The assessment was levied according to the methodology adopted and approved by the City Council when the District was formed.

Item I.3
Packet Page 42
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 2

2. OVERVIEW

2.1 Introduction
The District funds the maintenance of public landscaping and street lighting improvements within certain city areas. Before incorporation, these services were funded by former County Service Areas L-42, M-9, and M-11. These former County Service Areas are now identified as zones within the District. Zone L-42 is comprised of residential areas with streetlights south of the freeway. Zone M-9 is the Orinda Downs residential area. Zone M-11 comprises the commercial and institutional properties in the Village and the Crossroads. The boundaries of the District include the land within the original County Service Areas plus specific parcels that were annexed to Zone M-11 in 1988. The District was formed in August of 1986 by City Council Resolutions No. 62-86, 63-86, and 64-86 for Zones M-9, M-11, and L-42, respectively, according to the provisions of the Act.

This Report describes the District and the assessment per parcel for Fiscal Year 2026/27, which provides for the levy and collection of assessments sufficient to pay for the installation, construction, servicing, and maintenance of public lighting and landscape improvements within the District boundaries.

The word "parcel" for this Report refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessor's Parcel Number by the Contra Costa County Assessor's Office. The Contra Costa County Auditor/Controller uses the Assessor's Parcel Numbers and specific fund numbers to identify properties assessed for special district benefit assessments on the tax roll.

Following consideration of public comments at a notice public hearing and review of the Report, the City Council may confirm the submitted Report and order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2026/27. If approved, the assessment information shall be forwarded to the County Auditor/Controller and included on the property tax roll for each benefiting parcel for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

2.2 Summary
The District consists of three distinct zones named after the former County Services Areas, which preceded them before incorporation and are managed as three separate accounts within the existing District.

Residential lots are presumed to benefit equally from street lighting. This benefit is considered special to each lot within their respective zones. Only properties with streetlights are included in the District and are assessed. In a few circumstances, lots not included in the District are located directly across or adjacent to a streetlight and receive benefits. This benefit to property not located within the District is termed "general benefit." Approval of this Report by the City Council is deemed to constitute approval of the transfer of the amounts stated in the estimate of costs to the assessment district fund.

2.3 Effect of Proposition 218
Each year since its formation, the City Council has levied assessments within the District. Zones L-42 and M9 assessments were increased according to a successful Proposition 218 assessment ballot proceeding conducted in July 1999. The increase included an annual cost of living adjustment. Assessments in Zone M11 have not been increased since 1996 due to the majority protest in the 1999 assessment ballot proceeding.

Item I.3
Packet Page 43
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 3

3. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The District is intended to provide for the levy and collection of assessments sufficient to pay for the installation, construction, servicing, and maintenance of public lighting and landscape improvements within the District boundaries.

The types of activities permitted to be performed in each zone of service are as follows:

ZONE ZONE M-11
L-42 Street lighting facilities and services.

M-9 Street lighting facilities and services.

M-11
Street lighting facilities and services. Street sweeping services. Park and parkway facilities and services, including but not limited to activities relating to the beautification of the business area.

The plans and specifications of the improvements are on file with the County Clerk’s Office. The improvements to be maintained include the following:
1) Street trees and landscaped areas are to be maintained (Zone M-11). 2) Streetlight detail list.
3) List of streetlights to be maintained within each zone. 4) Landscape maintenance specifications and agreements. 5) 1" = 300' scale maintenance maps.

Item I.3
Packet Page 44
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 4

4. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
The District's boundaries include those portions of the City formerly included under County Service Areas Nos. M-9, M-11, L-42, and the territory annexed to Zone M-11 as "Annexation 1988-1." Zone L-42 contains 128 single-family residential lots. Zone M-9 includes 161 single-family residential lots.

Zone M-11 comprises 75 residential properties and 79 commercial and institutional properties.

For a copy of the Assessment Diagram, refer to Section 7 of this Report.

Item I.3
Packet Page 45
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 5

5. ESTIMATE OF COSTS
Tables 1, 2, and 3 indicate the adopted Fiscal 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27 costs for Zones L-42, M-9, and M-11, respectively. A contribution from the City for the general benefit, estimated to be received by property outside the District boundaries, has partially funded the total assessment to property owners within each Zone of the District.

5.1 Maximum Reserve
The maximum reserve permitted in any year is calculated as the annual maintenance budget necessary to maintain the improvements through December 10 of the fiscal year or whenever the City expects to receive its apportionment of funds from Contra Costa County, plus the installment payment reserve authorized by resolution of the City Council.

5.2 Estimate of Costs
The tables on the following pages show the estimated costs for Zones L-42, M-9, and M-11.

Item I.3
Packet Page 46
Zone L-42
FY 2024-25
Actual
FY 2025-26
Estimated
FY 2026-27
Proposed
Beginning Balance $17,833 $21,294 $24,186
Revenue
Assessment Collected $9,871 $10,136 $10,387
Interest 824 200 200
General Fund Contribution 240 240 240
Total Revenue $10,935 $10,576 $10,827
Expense
Electrical $4,515 $4,656 $4,888
Assessment Engineering/County Collection 2,313 2,428 2,478 Legal, City Staff, Publishing, and Mail 646 600 650
Total Expense $7,474 $7,684 $8,016
Reserves- Capital Projects & Operating
Capital Improvements $16,358 $19,118 $21,802
Operating Reserves (Max. 50% Assessments) 4,936 5,068 5,194 Total Capital Improvements and Reserves $21,294 $24,186 $26,996 Surplus Available $0 $0 $0
Zone M-9
FY 2024-25
Actual
FY 2025-26
Estimated
FY 2026-27
Proposed
Beginning Balance ($1,093) $0 $0
Revenue
Assessment Collected $13,037 $13,389 $13,722
Interest 20 10 10
General Fund Contribution 2,069 2,448 2,878
Total Revenue $15,126 $15,847 $16,610
Expense
Electrical $12,337 $13,839 $14,531
Assessment Engineering/County Collection 1,650 1,718 1,789 Legal, City Staff, Publishing, and Mail 46 290 290
Total Expense $14,033 $15,847 $16,610
Reserves- Capital Projects & Operating
Capital Improvements $0 $0 $0
Operating Reserves (Max 50% Assessment) 0 0 0
Total Capital Improvements and Reserves $0 $0 $0
Surplus Available $0 $0 $0
Zone M-11
FY 2024-25
Actual
FY 2025-26
Estimated
FY 2026-27
Proposed
Beginning Balance $0 $0 $0
Revenue
Assessment Collected $37,712 $37,712 $38,030
Interest 0 0 0
General Fund Contribution 70,566 75,018 78,138
Total Revenue $108,278 $112,730 $116,168
Expense
Electrical $22,602 $25,200 $26,460
Water 14,963 15,450 15,914
Landscape Maintenance (Contract) 50,378 51,500 53,045
Assessment Engineering/County Collection 3,789 3,955 4,124 Legal, City Staff, Publishing, and Mail 46 125 125
Street Sweeping Charges (Transfer To GF) 16,500 16,500 16,500 Total Expense $108,278 $112,730 $116,168
Reserves- Capital Projects & Operating
Capital Improvements $0 $0 $0
Operating Reserves (Max 50% Assessment) 0 0 0
Total Capital Improvements and Reserves $0 $0 $0
Surplus Available $0 $0 $0
Table 1 - ESTIMATE OF COST, ZONE L-42
Table 2 - ESTIMATE OF COST, ZONE M-9
Table 3 - ESTIMATE OF COST, ZONE M-11
Item I.3
Packet Page 47
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 6

6. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT

6.1 Assessment Rational
The improvements to be serviced and maintained by the District have been constructed for the benefit of the properties within the District and are of special benefit to the various parcels of land within the zone boundaries. They improve daily life quality by providing an attractive, clean, safe, and secure environment to live and work. The relative benefits estimated to be received from the improvements by improved and unimproved use within the District are discussed in the following paragraphs.

6.2 Zones L-42 and M-9

6.2.1 SPECIAL BENEFIT
Street lighting increases security for homeowners and improves the appearance of property frontage during the hours of darkness. Street lighting also improves safety for motorists and the safety of pedestrians. It facilitates law enforcement and thereby improves property security. Security and appearance are property benefits. Traffic and pedestrian safety are related to parcel use or occupancy. The District provides funding for a minimum level of street lighting throughout Zones L-42 and M-9. Typical lighting for residential neighborhoods consists of 70-watt bulbs at intersections and mid-block. The spacing of lights is approximately 500 feet.

6.2.2 APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL BENEFIT
The estimated special benefit received by improved residential parcels from street lighting is directly proportionate to that parcel's lighted frontage. Street lighting is distributed uniformly throughout the zones, and all parcels have the same illumination level. Parcel frontages may vary due to location, for example, cul-de-sac or corner lots, and topography, as seen with hillside lots. This variation in parcel frontage is seen to be of little consequence regarding the relative benefit of a single-family residential parcel, i.e., cul-de-sac and corner lots benefit the same from street lighting as mid-block lots. It is reasonable to assume that each single-family residential lot receives the same benefit from street lighting, and each is assessed an equal unit of street lighting benefit.

6.2.3 OPEN SPACE AND SCENIC EASEMENTS
These parcels do not have lighted frontage paid for by the District, do not benefit from street lighting, and, therefore, have not been assessed.

6.2.4 UNIMPROVED PARCELS
Unimproved parcels benefit less from lighting than improved parcels because the former requires a reduced maintenance service. Mid-block lighting is standard for a developed property, while intersectiononly lights are adequate for undeveloped property. The exact maintenance, however, is required for street lighting, whether the property is developed or not. For example, unattended street lighting systems will require extraordinary reactivation expenses if minimum maintenance is not performed. It is concluded that for Zone L-42 and Zone M-9, the benefit received by an undeveloped or unimproved lot is half that received by an improved lot.

Large undeveloped or commercial parcels within the residential zones are assigned units according to the Item I.3
Packet Page 48
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 7
engineer's opinion of the estimated benefits to be received. Undeveloped parcels are assigned one-half the number of units assigned to an occupied parcel. Common areas are included in the assessment for the developed lots, but common areas are not assessed.

The property at 32 Broadview Terrace is not assessed as there is no public lighting on this street. The properties on Orinda View Road, Candle Terrace, Yarrow Valley Lane, and the northern (private road) segment of Dalewood Drive are not assessed, as the Homeowners' Association pays for the lighting on these streets.

6.3 Zone M-11

6.3.1 SPECIAL BENEFIT
Street lighting increases security for businesses and improves the appearance of property frontage during the hours of darkness. Street lighting also improves safety for motorists and safety for pedestrians. Security and appearance are special benefits to the property. Traffic and pedestrian safety are related to parcel use or occupancy. Increased levels of lighting are required for increased use of the property.

Maintaining landscaped areas on public streets improves the appearance of private property. Landscaping that is not maintained will perish, and the replacement cost may be prohibitively expensive. Unmaintained plants are weakened and more vulnerable to damage from passing vehicles, exhaust, litter, and debris.

Median plantings are susceptible to daily wear and tear from exposure to adjacent traffic, and the greater the traffic flow, the greater the exposure. Therefore, increased visibility generally requires increased levels of service. Median landscaping that is maintained contributes to a positive image in the commercial areas of the District, while median landscaping that is not maintained encourages a negative image. Landscaped areas on public streets that are maintained provide benefits to nearby properties. Attractive landscaping will assist property owners with the marketing of undeveloped lots. Increased levels of maintenance are a function of parcel use.

The landscape services performed within the zone include street sweeping, litter and debris removal, and medians and street trees are well distributed throughout the zone. Parcel location is not considered a factor in determining benefit.

In 1997, the Orinda Downtown Vision Task Force identified specific goals and objectives reflecting the community values articulated in the Orinda General Plan. Street lighting, street sweeping, litter pickup, and landscaping are amenities and services that may be considered part of the whole to achieve the objectives and goals expressed by the Orinda Downtown Vision Task Force. These amenities, street lighting, street sweeping, litter pickup, and landscaped areas contribute to business and pedestrian friendliness as requested in the Orinda Downtown Vision Task Force Final Report, dated November 18, 1997, and revised November 19, 1997.

6.3.2 APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL BENEFIT
The land used in Zone M-11 is commercial, institutional, and residential. The benefit received by a parcel within Zone M-11 is related to the area of that parcel and the use of the parcel in equal proportion.

Four intensities of land use may be observed within Zone M-11. These are undeveloped parcels with onsite parking, parcels without onsite parking, and parcels with underground parking (Theatre Square). Parcels with parking improvements only are treated as undeveloped parcels.

Item I.3
Packet Page 49
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 8
A parcel's landscaping and lighting maintenance benefit is proportional to the building coverage or floor area ratio. Benefit factors are assigned to four land use categories as follows:

A parcel with a building and off-street parking is identified as the basic assessment unit with a benefit factor of 1.0. Undeveloped land or parcels with only parking improvements are assigned a benefit factor of

0.5 units. Parcels for which the ratio of building square footage to square footage of land exceeds 0.75 are assigned a benefit factor of 1.5 units. Parcels with underground parking are assigned a benefit factor of 2.0 units.

6.4 General Benefit

6.4.1 RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING
Street lighting is of specific benefit to the fronting properties. The benefit to the community from street lighting on residential streets is negligible. However, parcels immediately adjacent or opposite and not included within the District benefit from the streetlights paid for by Zone M-9 and Zone L-42 assessments.

The benefit derived from these parcels is not assessable.

6.4.2 ZONE L-42
In 1988, at the direction of the City Council, the District Engineer prepared a study of lots in Zone L-42 that are located outside the District boundaries and adjacent or opposite to streetlights paid for by Zone L-42.

In all, 30 parcels were identified as follows:

Tahoe Road, Meadow View Road, Valley Drive, Donald Drive, Cedar Lane, and Martha Road have ten lights.

There are 128 lots in Zone L-42. Twenty percent is of general benefit to the lots outside of Zone L-42.

Therefore, the cost to maintain these lights is considered (0.20 x 10 x 120 = $240).

6.4.3 ZONE M-9
The light at the southern boundary of Zone M-9 on Lombardy Lane benefits three lots (numbers 181, 184, and 188). One-third of the cost of maintaining this light (approximately $40) is considered a general benefit. The proposed contribution by the City exceeds $40 and will more than offset the general benefit described.

6.4.4 ZONE M-11
The service and maintenance of the following items are considered to benefit the general public and owners of property located outside of the District:

DESCRIPTION ESTIMATE OF COST
Water $700
Maintenance of the mini-park at Camino Pablo and Brookside 6,300 Maintenance of medians on Camino Pablo 6,000
Service and streetlights on Camino Pablo 1,500
Benefits received by Santa Maria Church and adjoining parcels 1,300 Total: $15,800
Item I.3
Packet Page 50
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 9
The proposed contribution by the City exceeds $15,800 and will more than offset the general benefit described. Additionally, the City contributes a proportionate share of the NPDES revenues it receives for the properties in M-11 to the District fund. These NPDES revenues are used to offset the cost of street sweeping.

6.4.5 EXCEPTIONAL PARCELS
Exceptional parcels were identified: The churches in Zone M-11, Orinda Community Church, and the First Church of Christ were assessed at $317.96 and $158.98, respectively, reflecting Council direction upon the formation of the District. The parcel owned by Friends of the Library was not assessed as it is expected to revert to public ownership.

The public-school site on Altarinda Road, formerly leased to J.F.K. University, a private entity, made an annual contribution of $1,291.00 for special benefits received from District improvements. This contribution resulted from an agreement between the City, the School District, and J.F.K.U. that was reached upon the formation of the District in 1986. J.F.K.U. has relocated, and the property has been reverted to public use. Therefore, this parcel no longer contributes to the District.

In Fiscal Year 1993/94, the number of assessed units for parcels numbered 268-011-008 and 268-013-004 were reduced from 0.890 and 0.990 by 0.329 and 0.365, respectively, due to the absence of street lighting and sweeping on Bates Blvd. In Fiscal Year 2002/03, the assessed number of units for the above parcels was adjusted to include street sweeping services. The adjusted assessed units are APN 268-011-008: 0.561 to 0.643 and APN 268-013-004: 0.625 to 0.716.

6.5 Method of Apportionment
The improvements to be serviced and maintained by the District have been constructed for the benefit of the properties within the District and are of special benefit to the various parcels of land within the zone boundaries. The total estimated cost of the improvements has been divided among parcels of land within the District's zones in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by the parcels from the improvements.

The method used by the engineer to apportion the cost among the benefiting properties follows:
1) The assessment diagram identifies three service zones. The boundaries of Zones M-9 and L-42 are identical to those of former County Service Areas M-9 and L-42. The boundary of Zone M-11 includes the parcels included in the former County Service Area M-11, plus four parcels that were annexed on May 23, 1988, as "Annexation 1988-1."
2) The estimated operating cost within each zone of service was calculated. The total estimated incidental expense for the fiscal year was then determined for each zone.

Item I.3
Packet Page 51
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 10

6.5.1 ZONES L-42 AND M-9
The assessment rates in Zones L-42 and M-9 were calculated by dividing the total cost of the improvements in the zone by the total number of units within the zone. Typical single-family detached residential assessments are indicated in the following table:

ZONE 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27
L-42 $77.42 $79.50 $81.47
M-9 $81.49 $83.69 $85.76
Resolution 38-99, adopted July 20, 1999, authorizes the City Council to annually adjust assessment rates in Zones L-42 and M-9 by an amount not to exceed the increase in the change in the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) from February of the prior year to February of the current year. The change in the CPI from February 2025 to February 2026 was 2.47%.

6.5.2 ZONE M-11
Area units for a parcel are calculated by multiplying the benefit factor by the number of acres indicated in the County Assessor's records or as may be reasonably approximated from the maps on file with the Assessor. Area units for exceptional parcels are as follows:

OWNER APN AREA UNITS
Orinda Community Church 260-200-020 0.500
Orinda Community Church 260-200-021 0.500
First Church of Christ 260-200-019 0.250
Bates Blvd 268-011-008 0.643
Bates Blvd 268-013-004 0.716
The basic area rate was calculated by dividing the net amount assessed in Zone M-11 by the total number of area units. The original basic area rate in Zone M-11 was calculated to be $635.94. The assessment for each parcel in M-11 was calculated by multiplying the assessed area units by $635.94.

The following table summarizes the assessment within Zone M-11 of improvement for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

Rates for Fiscal Year 2024/25 and Fiscal Year 2025/26 are also included for reference:

ZONE 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27
M-11 $635.94 $635.94 $635.94
Item I.3
Packet Page 52
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 11

6.6 Maximum Assessment
The following table includes, for reference, the CPI increases and maximum assessments for the prior five Fiscal Years, including Fiscal Year 2026/27:

FISCAL YEAR CPI INCREASE ZONE L-42 ZONE M-9 ZONE M-11 (1) 2022/2023 5.19% $71.82 $75.60 $635.94
2023/2024 5.30% 75.63 79.61 635.94
2024/2025 2.36% 77.42 81.49 635.94
2025/2026 2.68% 79.50 83.69 635.94
2026/2027 2.47% 81.47 85.76 635.94
(1) Zone M-11 does not have a CPI inflator due to a majority protest in the 1999 assessment ballot proceeding.

Item I.3
Packet Page 53
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 12

7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAMS
The following pages provide a copy of the assessment diagrams for the District.

Item I.3
Packet Page 54

Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2026/27 13

8. PARCEL LISTING
The parcel listing of assessments is provided on the following pages. The description of each lot or parcel as part of the records of the County of Contra Costa Assessor is, by reference, part of this Report.

The Assessor's parcel identification for each lot or parcel within the District shall be based on the County Assessor's secured roll data for the applicable year in which this Report is prepared and is incorporated herein by reference.

A listing of the Assessor's parcels assessed within the District for Fiscal Year 2026/27, along with the assessment amounts, is on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. Based on the County Assessor's secured roll data, the current Assessor's parcels, including corrected or new Assessor's parcels, will be submitted or resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The annual assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel(s) shall be determined per the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Report. Therefore, if a single assessor's parcel has a status change in development, other land use change, or subdivides into multiple Assessor's parcels, the assessment amounts applied to each of the new Assessor's parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment amount.

Item I.3
Packet Page 58
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
260-191-006-6 4 ORINDA WAY M-11 5.71 $3,631.20
260-192-002-4 15 ALTARINDA RD M-11 1.00 635.94
260-192-003-2 11 ALTARINDA RD M-11 1.00 635.94
260-192-004-0 9 ALTARINDA RD M-11 1.04 661.36
260-192-005-7 M-11 1.09 693.16
260-192-008-1 14 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.43 273.44
260-192-009-9 5 SANTA MARIA WAY M-11 0.36 228.92
260-192-012-3 19 ALTARINDA RD M-11 0.92 585.06
260-192-013-1 23 ALTARINDA RD M-11 0.60 381.56
260-192-014-9 3 ALTARINDA RD M-11 1.21 768.84
260-200-016-4 20 IRWIN WAY M-11 3.56 2,263.94
260-200-017-2 2 IRWIN WAY M-11 1.45 922.10
260-200-019-8 24 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.25 158.98
260-200-020-6 10 IRWIN WAY M-11 0.50 317.96
260-200-021-4 15 IRWIN WAY M-11 0.50 317.96
260-320-001-1 34 CITRON KNL M-11 0.10 64.44
260-320-046-6 38 CITRON KNL M-11 0.07 43.14
260-320-047-4 42 CITRON KNL M-11 0.06 35.76
260-320-048-2 52 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 34.46
260-320-049-0 56 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 31.74
260-320-050-8 60 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 30.90
260-320-051-6 64 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 31.80
260-320-052-4 70 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 31.84
260-320-053-2 72 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 31.88
260-320-054-0 31 CITRON KNL M-11 0.07 46.34
260-320-055-7 35 CITRON KNL M-11 0.06 39.00
260-320-056-5 39 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 33.44
260-320-057-3 43 CITRON KNL M-11 0.04 23.38
260-320-058-1 47 CITRON KNL M-11 0.04 23.30
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 1 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 59
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
260-320-059-9 51 CITRON KNL M-11 0.08 48.34
260-320-060-7 55 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 33.68
260-320-061-5 59 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 32.18
260-320-062-3 63 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 31.86
260-320-063-1 67 CITRON KNL M-11 0.05 33.62
260-320-064-9 2 JACK TREE KNL M-11 0.05 34.58
260-320-065-6 6 JACK TREE KNL M-11 0.05 34.58
260-320-066-4 12 JACK TREE KNL M-11 0.05 32.30
260-320-067-2 16 JACK TREE KNL M-11 0.05 32.06
260-320-068-0 20 JACK TREE KNL M-11 0.05 33.06
260-320-069-8 24 JACK TREE KNL M-11 0.05 31.24
260-320-070-6 28 JACK TREE KNL M-11 0.06 37.00
260-320-071-4 64 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 31.82
260-320-072-2 60 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 32.18
260-320-073-0 56 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 30.20
260-320-074-8 52 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 31.82
260-320-075-5 48 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 32.02
260-320-076-3 40 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 34.64
260-320-077-1 12 WILD PLUM WAY M-11 0.06 39.58
260-320-078-9 16 WILD PLUM WAY M-11 0.07 42.50
260-320-079-7 20 WILD PLUM WAY M-11 0.07 45.42
260-320-080-5 28 WILD PLUM WAY M-11 0.08 52.26
260-320-081-3 32 WILD PLUM WAY M-11 0.05 30.38
260-320-082-1 36 WILD PLUM WAY M-11 0.06 36.62
260-320-083-9 43 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.06 35.90
260-320-084-7 47 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 32.44
260-320-085-4 51 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.07 47.34
260-320-086-2 55 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 34.80
260-320-087-0 59 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.05 33.74
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 2 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 60
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
260-320-088-8 63 PERSIMMON WALK M-11 0.06 37.36
260-320-089-6 68 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 30.14
260-320-090-4 62 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 34.40
260-320-091-2 58 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 32.74
260-320-092-0 54 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 30.60
260-320-093-8 50 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.06 35.78
260-320-094-6 46 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.08 48.86
260-320-095-3 63 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.07 42.18
260-320-096-1 59 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.05 30.94
260-320-097-9 55 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.05 30.32
260-320-098-7 51 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.05 30.88
260-320-099-5 47 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.04 23.64
260-320-100-1 43 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.04 23.42
260-320-101-9 39 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.05 31.50
260-320-102-7 35 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.05 33.08
260-320-103-5 31 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.05 30.06
260-320-104-3 27 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.04 22.98
260-320-105-0 23 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.04 22.32
260-320-106-8 19 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.05 33.68
260-320-107-6 15 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.05 30.74
260-320-108-4 11 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.04 22.94
260-320-109-2 7 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.04 23.08
260-320-110-0 3 HAZEL TREE RIDGE M-11 0.06 35.28
260-320-111-8 26 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 34.02
260-320-112-6 22 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 31.20
260-320-113-4 18 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 32.42
260-320-114-2 14 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 31.90
260-320-115-9 10 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 30.06
260-320-116-7 6 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 30.98
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 3 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 61
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
260-320-117-5 2 HAZEL TREE RDG M-11 0.05 32.98
262-290-006-2 112 CAMINO PABLO M-11 0.41 260.72
265-011-001-4 115 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.10 61.04
265-011-002-2 79-105 ORINDA WAY M-11 1.05 667.72
265-011-007-1 20 AVENIDA DE ORINDA M-11 0.17 104.92
265-011-008-9 10 AVENIDA DE ORINDA M-11 0.48 304.28
265-012-002-1 AVENIDA DE ORINDA M-11 0.17 107.78
265-012-007-0 23 AVENIDA DE ORINDA M-11 0.53 333.86
265-012-010-4 61 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.28 178.06
265-012-011-2 1 CAMINO SOBRANTE M-11 0.62 391.72
265-012-012-0 63 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.17 109.68
265-170-005-2 27 ORINDA WAY M-11 1.85 1,176.48
265-170-007-8 23 ORINDA WAY M-11 1.62 1,030.22
265-170-009-4 19 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.57 362.48
265-170-010-2 17 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.35 220.66
265-170-014-4 21 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.68 429.88
265-170-018-5 29 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.82 519.56
265-170-021-9 CAMINO PABLO M-11 0.21 133.54
265-170-022-7 31 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.97 616.86
265-170-029-2 11 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.79 502.38
265-170-033-4 200 ORINDA WAY M-11 2.16 1,373.62
265-170-034-2 1 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.39 248.00
265-170-035-9 9 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.66 419.72
265-170-037-5 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.16 103.96
265-170-038-3 25 ORINDA WAY M-11 1.10 699.52
265-170-039-1 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.24 149.44
265-170-040-9 CAMINO PABLO M-11 0.29 181.24
265-170-042-5 2 CAMINO SOBRANTE M-11 1.07 678.22
265-170-043-3 37 ORINDA WAY M-11 0.13 81.08
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 4 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 62
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
265-170-044-1 CAMINO SOBRANTE M-11 1.04 659.46
266-291-001-3 185 LOMBARDY LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-002-1 25 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-003-9 29 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-004-7 31 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-005-4 45 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-006-2 44 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-009-6 26 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-010-4 20 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-011-2 531 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-012-0 539 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-015-3 30 REDCOACH LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-017-9 547 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-018-7 21 REDCOACH LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-019-5 38 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-020-3 32 COACHWOOD TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-021-1 15 REDCOACH LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-291-023-7 20 REDCOACH LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-292-001-2 548 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-292-002-0 540 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-292-003-8 532 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-292-004-6 524 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-292-005-3 516 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-292-006-1 508 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-292-007-9 500 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-292-008-7 492 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-293-001-1 499 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-301-001-1 484 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-301-002-9 476 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 5 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 63
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
266-302-001-0 468 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-302-004-4 444 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-302-005-1 436 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-302-006-9 428 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-302-007-7 420 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-302-008-5 105 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-302-009-3 452 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-302-010-1 460 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-303-001-9 106 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-303-002-7 412 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-303-003-5 404 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-003-4 419 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-004-2 427 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-005-9 435 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-006-7 443 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-007-5 457 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-008-3 467 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-009-1 475 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-010-9 481 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-011-7 489 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-015-8 12 DALEWOOD TERRACE M-9 1.00 85.76
266-304-016-6 409 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-001-0 111 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-002-8 115 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-003-6 41 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-004-4 43 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-005-1 45 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-006-9 49 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-007-7 53 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 6 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 64
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
266-310-008-5 59 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-009-3 61 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-011-9 69 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-012-7 68 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-013-5 60 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-014-3 52 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-015-0 48 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-016-8 44 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-017-6 40 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-018-4 135 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-019-2 147 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-020-0 155 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-021-8 154 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-022-6 148 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-023-4 142 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-024-2 136 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-025-9 130 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-026-7 124 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-027-5 112 AMBER VALLEY DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-310-028-3 65 SINGINGWOOD LN M-9 1.00 85.76
266-321-002-5 391 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-321-003-3 387 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-321-004-1 383 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-321-005-8 375 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-321-006-6 371 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-321-010-8 395 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-322-001-6 372 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-322-002-4 376 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-322-003-2 380 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 7 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 65
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
266-322-004-0 384 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-322-005-7 388 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-322-006-5 392 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-331-001-5 367 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-331-002-3 363 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-331-003-1 359 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-331-004-9 355 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-331-005-6 351 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-331-006-4 345 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-002-2 356 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-003-0 12 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-004-8 16 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-007-1 28 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-008-9 32 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-009-7 36 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-010-5 35 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-011-3 31 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-012-1 27 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-013-9 23 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-014-7 19 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-015-4 368 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-016-2 20 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-017-0 24 FALLEN LEAF TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-332-018-8 352 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-001-4 15 HONEYWOOD RD M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-002-2 11 HONEYWOOD RD M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-003-0 16 HONEYWOOD RD M-9 0.50 42.88
266-340-004-8 12 HONEYWOOD RD M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-005-5 296 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 8 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 66
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
266-340-006-3 290 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-007-1 286 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-008-9 270 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-009-7 266 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-010-5 264 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-011-3 267 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-012-1 271 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-013-9 275 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-014-7 279 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-015-4 283 SUNDOWN TER M-9 0.50 42.88
266-340-016-2 287 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-017-0 291 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-340-018-8 295 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-351-001-0 262 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-351-002-8 258 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-351-003-6 107 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-351-004-4 115 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-351-005-1 125 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-352-001-9 126 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-352-002-7 120 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-352-003-5 114 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-352-004-3 108 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-352-005-0 250 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-352-006-8 246 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-353-001-8 231 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-353-002-6 235 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-353-003-4 239 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-353-006-7 251 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-353-007-5 255 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 9 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 67
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
266-353-008-3 259 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-353-009-1 263 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-353-010-9 245 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
266-353-011-7 247 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
268-011-008-3 2 BATES BLVD M-11 0.64 408.90
268-013-004-0 1 BATES BLVD M-11 0.72 455.32
268-141-002-9 51 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.31 199.36
268-141-003-7 37 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.16 99.20
268-141-004-5 21 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.33 207.94
268-141-005-2 11 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.29 181.24
268-141-007-8 VASHELL WAY M-11 0.06 34.96
268-141-016-9 VASHELL WAY M-11 0.02 12.70
268-141-017-7 50 VASHELL WAY M-11 0.20 124.00
268-141-020-1 89 DAVIS RD M-11 0.97 616.86
268-142-001-0 5 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.36 228.92
268-142-008-5 VASHELL WAY M-11 0.08 48.64
268-142-009-3 22 BRYANT WAY M-11 0.33 208.58
268-151-014-1 96 DAVIS RD M-11 0.57 361.84
268-163-005-5 61-65 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.38 238.46
268-163-006-3 51 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.27 170.74
268-163-007-1 67 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.33 209.86
268-163-008-9 1 NORTHWOOD DR M-11 0.18 113.82
268-170-008-0 93 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.55 349.76
268-170-009-8 89 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.23 146.26
268-170-010-6 85 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.32 202.86
268-170-011-4 81 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.50 317.96
268-340-004-4 104 MEADOW VIEW RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-005-1 108 MEADOW VIEW RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-008-5 112 MEADOW VIEW RD L-42 1.00 81.46
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 10 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 68
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
268-340-009-3 116 MEADOW VIEW RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-010-1 22 KELLIE ANN CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-011-9 23 KELLIE ANN CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-012-7 29 KELLIE ANN CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-013-5 35 KELLIE ANN CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-014-3 41 KELLIE ANN CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-015-0 40 KELLIE ANN CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-016-8 34 KELLIE ANN CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-017-6 28 KELLIE ANN CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-018-4 42 MICHAEL LN L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-019-2 48 MICHAEL LN L-42 1.00 81.46
268-340-020-0 54 MICHAEL LN L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-003-8 584 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-004-6 600 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-005-3 606 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-010-3 636 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-011-1 630 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-012-9 684 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-013-7 678 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-014-5 691 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-015-2 685 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-016-0 679 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-017-8 673 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-018-6 667 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-019-4 661 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-020-2 655 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-021-0 649 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-023-6 624 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-024-4 618 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 11 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 69
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
268-470-025-1 612 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-029-3 572 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-030-1 574 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-470-033-5 578 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-481-001-9 570 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-481-002-7 564 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-481-004-3 554 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-002-5 116 SILVERWOOD DR L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-003-3 110 SILVERWOOD DR L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-004-1 110 BATES CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-005-8 114 BATES CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-006-6 118 BATES CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-007-4 121 BATES CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-008-2 115 BATES CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-009-0 107 BATES CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-010-8 489 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-011-6 501 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-012-4 507 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-013-2 515 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-014-0 521 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-483-015-7 527 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-484-001-6 543 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-484-004-0 565 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-484-008-1 555 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-484-009-9 549 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-003-4 28 OAKRIDGE LN L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-004-2 34 OAKRIDGE LN L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-005-9 38 OAKRIDGE LN L-42 0.50 40.72
268-490-006-7 583 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 12 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 70
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
268-490-007-5 589 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-011-7 635 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-012-5 611 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-021-6 607 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-024-0 16 OAKRIDGE LN L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-025-7 22 OAKRIDGE LN L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-028-1 595 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-490-029-9 601 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-501-002-3 488 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-501-003-1 494 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-501-004-9 87 BATES BLVD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-501-006-4 482 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-001-4 88 BATES BLVD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-002-2 500 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-003-0 506 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-004-8 510 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-005-5 516 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-012-1 15 SILVERWOOD CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-013-9 14 SILVERWOOD CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-014-7 20 SILVERWOOD CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-015-4 26 SILVERWOOD CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-016-2 27 SILVERWOOD CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-017-0 21 SILVERWOOD CT L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-020-4 528 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-021-2 536 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
268-502-022-0 542 TAHOS RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-202-065-0 120 CATHERINE CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-202-066-8 124 CATHERINE CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-202-067-6 128 CATHERINE CT L-42 1.00 81.46
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 13 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 71
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
269-202-068-4 129 CATHERINE CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-012-2 61 VALLEY DR L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-014-8 1 VALLEY CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-015-5 5 VALLEY CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-020-5 2 VALLEY CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-021-3 19 HEATHER LN L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-022-1 23 HEATHER LN L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-024-7 8 VALLEY CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-026-2 15 VALLEY CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-027-0 9 VALLEY CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-210-028-8 14 VALLEY CT L-42 1.00 81.46
269-220-001-3 51 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-220-002-1 55 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-220-003-9 59 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-220-004-7 63 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-220-005-4 67 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-220-006-2 66 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-220-007-0 62 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-230-002-9 54 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-230-003-7 50 MARTHA RD L-42 1.00 81.46
269-230-005-2 6 NOBI LN L-42 1.00 81.46
269-230-006-0 8 NOBI LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-003-9 210 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-004-7 220 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-005-4 230 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-006-2 240 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-007-0 250 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-008-8 260 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-009-6 281 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 14 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 72
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
270-400-010-4 271 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-011-2 261 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-012-0 241 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-013-8 251 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-014-6 231 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-015-3 221 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-016-1 211 COURTNEY LN L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-017-9 19 WOODCREST DR L-42 1.00 81.46
270-400-018-7 17 WOODCREST DR L-42 1.00 81.46
273-010-016-7 BROOKWOOD RD M-11 0.08 48.32
273-010-019-1 2 THEATRE SQ M-11 3.84 2,440.72
273-021-002-4 BROOKWOOD RD M-11 0.08 47.68
273-021-003-2 64 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.57 361.84
273-021-004-0 50 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.36 228.92
273-021-005-7 6-8 CAMINO PABLO M-11 0.66 419.08
273-021-009-9 80 MORAGA WAY M-11 0.34 215.58
273-021-010-7 BROOKWOOD RD M-11 0.09 57.22
273-022-001-5 CAMINO ENCINAS M-11 0.01 8.58
273-030-002-3 99 BROOKWOOD RD M-11 0.26 165.34
273-041-002-0 12 CAMINO ENCINAS M-11 0.99 629.58
273-041-009-5 140 BROOKWOOD RD M-11 1.09 693.16
273-041-010-3 8 CAMINO ENCINAS M-11 0.91 578.70
273-042-011-0 CAMINO ENCINAS M-11 0.14 87.44
273-042-012-8 M-11 0.07 46.74
365-430-002-3 130 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
365-430-013-0 348 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
365-440-022-9 564 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
365-440-023-7 556 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
365-440-036-9 571 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 15 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 73
City of Orinda
Street Lighting and Landscaping District 1986-1
Assessment Roll for Fiscal Year 2026/27
APN Property Address Zone Benefit Factor Total Levy
365-440-037-7 557 DALEWOOD DR M-9 1.00 85.76
365-450-001-0 4130 HAPPY VALLEY RD M-9 1.00 85.76
365-450-002-8 4134 HAPPY VALLEY RD M-9 1.00 85.76
365-450-003-6 234 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
365-450-004-4 236 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
365-450-005-1 238 SUNDOWN TER M-9 1.00 85.76
365-450-006-9 136 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
365-450-007-7 142 SILVER OAK TER M-9 1.00 85.76
443 Accounts 347.30 $62,137.34
Slight variances may occur due to rounding
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 16 of 16 05/05/2026 03:59:26PM Item I.3
Packet Page 74
RESOLUTION NO. 30-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR THE LEVY OF ANNUAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 WITHIN THE ORINDA STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1986-1, ZONES L-42, M-9, AND M-11
WHEREAS, the Orinda City Council previously formed an assessment district under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code, Part 2, Division 15, Section 22500 and following); and
WHEREAS, the district was designated the “Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1,” and replaced the former County Service Areas L-42, M-9, and M-11; and
WHEREAS, the Assessment District contains three zones: L-42, M-9, and M-11; and

WHEREAS, the improvements and services of the Assessment District which will be performed in each zone are as follows:

Zone Description
L-42 Street lighting facilities and services
M-9 Street lighting facilities and services.

M-11 Street lighting facilities and services, street
sweeping services, park and parkway facilities and
services, including but not limited to the beautification of the business area.

WHEREAS, it is necessary to undertake proceedings under the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code for the levy and collection of assessments for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 within the existing Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, this Council has determined that it is necessary to continue building reserves in District L-42 in the event a City-owned street light pole requires replacement; and
WHEREAS, this Council has determined to proceed to levy an annual assessment and did on April 7, 2026, order the Engineer to prepare and file a report in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the description of improvements, estimate of costs, method of assessment, assessment roll and assessment diagram for each zone are set forth in detail in the Engineer's Report; and
Item I.3
Packet Page 75
Resolution No. 30-26

WHEREAS, on May 14, 2026, the Engineer filed his report with the City Clerk for submission to this Council and the City Manager has submitted the report to this Council for consideration.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve the report prepared and filed by the Engineer on May 19, 2026, and find that it contains all the elements required for such reports by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, including (1) an estimate of the annual costs of the improvements, (2) a diagram of the Assessment District, and (3) an assessment of the estimated annual costs of the improvements.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on May 19, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item I.3
Packet Page 76
RESOLUTION NO. 31-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

DECLARING INTENT TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AND SETTING JUNE 9, 2026, AS THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 WITHIN THE ORINDA STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1986-1,
ZONES L-42, M-9, AND M-11
WHEREAS, the Orinda City Council previously formed an assessment district under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code, Part 2, Division 15, Section 22500 and following); and
WHEREAS, the district was designated the “Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1,” and replaced the former County Service Areas L-42, M-9, and M-11; and
WHEREAS, the Assessment District contains three zones: L-42, M-9 and M-11; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to undertake proceedings under Streets & Highways Code for the levy and collection of assessments for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 within the existing Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, this Council has determined to proceed to levy an annual assessment and on April 7, 2026, ordered in Resolution No. 19-26 that the Engineer prepare and file a report in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and WHEREAS, the description of improvements, estimate of costs, method of assessment, assessment roll and assessment diagram for each zone are set forth in detail in the Engineer's Report; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2026, the Orinda City Council approved the Engineer’s Report as filed with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report proposes that the assessments levied in Zones L42 and M-9 be increased to cover the annual service costs; and WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report proposes that the assessments levied in Zone M-11 not be increased over prior year rates; and
WHEREAS, assessments are to be imposed exclusively to finance the maintenance of lighting and landscaping improvements on streets and are exempt from the approval and procedures required under Section 4 of Article XIII D of the State Constitution.

Item I.3
Packet Page 77
Resolution No. 31-26

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orinda that:

1. This Council declares its intention to levy and collect assessments with the Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2026-27. The improvements and services to be funded through such assessments are generally described as follows:

Zone Description
L-42 Street lighting facilities and services.

M-9 Street lighting facilities and services.

M-11 Street lighting facilities and services,
street sweeping services, park and parkway facilities
and services, including but not limited to the
beautification of the business area.

2. The Assessment District is designated as “Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1.” It consists of all the territory within the boundaries as described in the Engineer's Report and comprises in general those areas within the City which are served with public street lighting facilities.

3. The Engineer's Report, which is on file with the City Clerk, contains a full and detailed description of the services, improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and the three zones within it, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district.

4. The City Council will hold a public hearing on June 9, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Orinda Library Auditorium located at 26 Orinda Way, Orinda, California, on the question of the levy of the proposed assessment.

5. The City Clerk is directed to publish a notice of the meeting and hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 22626(a) of the Streets and Highways Code.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on May 19, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
Item I.3
Packet Page 78
Resolution No. 31-26

ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item I.3
Packet Page 79

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Budget Increase for Traffic Pole Replacement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider increasing budget appropriation in Fiscal Year 2025-26 to allow for replacement of a traffic signal pole.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Budget Change Form #016-26

BACKGROUND:

The approved operating expense budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26, includes traffic signal maintenance and road maintenance work funded by Gas Tax (Fund 200).

DISCUSSION:

A traffic accident knocked down a traffic signal pole on Camino Pablo at Orinda Way, and a temporary pole was installed while the extent of damage was assessed and proposed permanent replacement costs were determined by the City’s on call signal maintenance electrician, DC Electric. These costs amount to approximately $35,000, and the current remaining budget is not sufficient to fully cover this amount. The work would be performed under the existing on-call contract with DC Electric. Budget Change Form 016-26 (Attachment A) will appropriate funds from Fund 200 to sufficiently fund this work.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Fund 200 has sufficient balance to cover the requested $25,000 as shown in the attachment.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Not applicable
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Attachment A – Budget Change Form 016-26
Prepared by: Scott Christie
Item I.4
Packet Page 80
Respectfully Submitted by,
Scott Christie, Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.4
Packet Page 81

CITY OF ORINDA
BUDGET CHANGE FORM FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Funds Originally Appropriated as Part of 2025-26 and 2026-27 Biennial Budget Adopted on June 3, 2025
CHANGE FORM # 016-26
New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required): Budget Transfers:

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

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

BUDGET ACCOUNT
(Revenue / Expense)

INCREASE
AMOUNT

DECREASE
AMOUNT
INCREASE OF BUDGETED EXPENSE IN FY 2025-26:
200-35-33-7188

GAS TAX FUND/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / PAVEMENT

MAINTENANCE PROGRAM / GUARDRAIL REPAIR/REPLACEMENT
$17,000
200-35-36-7531

GAS TAX FUND/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM / MAINTENANCE SIGNAL- STREET LIGHT $8,000
As Presented at the City Council Meeting on May 19, 2026 #################(Finance Use Only)###################
Posted By: Date:

REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY:
to cover necessary signal pole/equipment replacement due to traffic accident Item I.4
Packet Page 82

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Street Closure for the Orinda Association's Fourth of July Parade and Associated Activities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider a traffic order which will authorize street closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and associated community activities, sponsored by the Orinda Association.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 27-26 (Traffic Order No. 243) Authorizing Street Closures in Downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade Route and Associated Community Activities.

BACKGROUND:

The Orinda Association organizes and operates the annual Fourth of July parade and associated activities in the Theatre District and Village District between 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on July 4. The City co-sponsors the events and activities through its supplemental provision of parks, public works and public safety support.

DISCUSSION:

The Orinda Association plans to route the parade (procession between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) from staging area in the Orinda BART Station parking lot, through the Theatre District and routing back to its conclusion in the Village District near the Community Center
The parade procession stages at the east Orinda BART Station parking lot, exits and heads south along Camino Pablo within the closed northbound lanes, turns left/east on Brookwood Road, then turns right onto Moraga Way, proceeding on and then turning right to go back northbound onto Camino Pablo, east on Santa Maria Way, and completing its route northbound on Orinda Way.

Item I.5
Packet Page 83
For the safety of all concerned, including participants and spectators, this will require closures of the various streets listed below on Saturday, July 4, 2026, between 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

1. Partial Closure of the two northbound lanes of Camino Pablo between Moraga Way and Santa Maria Way

2. Full Closure of Moraga Way between Camino Pablo and Bryant Way

3. Full Closure of Brookwood Road between Camino Pablo and Moraga Way

4. Partial Closure of the eastbound lanes of Santa Maria Way between Camino Pablo and Orinda Way

5. Full Closure of Orinda Way between Santa Maria Way and Camino Pablo Under Section 21101, paragraph (e) of the Vehicle Code, a local authority may adopt by resolution a temporary closure of a street for a special event when the closure is necessary for the safety and protection of the users of the street during the event.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Costs are associated with Staff time to obtain the necessary Caltrans permit, as well as logistical support provided by City employees and the Police Department to setup traffic closures and help direct traffic.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 27-26 Traffic Order 243 4th of July Street Closure Prepared by: Sivakumar Natarajan, City Engineer
Respectfully Submitted by,
Scott Christie, Director of Public Works
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.5
Packet Page 84
RESOLUTION NO. 27-26
TRAFFIC ORDER NO. 243

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES IN DOWNTOWN FOR THE ORINDA
ASSOCIATION’S FOURTH OF JULY PARADE ROUTE AND ASSOCIATED

COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, the Orinda Association is organizing and operating the annual Fourth of July parade and associated activities in the Orinda Downtown areas of the Theatre District and Village District between 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, July 4, 2026; and WHEREAS, the parade procession stages at the east Orinda BART Station parking lot, exits and heads south along Camino Pablo within the closed northbound lanes, turns left/east on Brookwood Road, then turns right onto Moraga Way, proceeding on and then turning right to go back northbound onto Camino Pablo, east on Santa Maria Way, and completing its route northbound on Orinda Way; and
WHEREAS, the Orinda Association plans to route the parade (procession between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) from staging area in the Orinda BART Station parking lot, through the Theatre District and routing back to its conclusion in the Village District near the Community Center, which will require the following street closures:
1) Partial Closure of the two northbound lanes of Camino Pablo between Moraga Way and Santa Maria Way.
2) Full Closure of Moraga Way between Camino Pablo and Bryant Way 3) Full Closure of Brookwood Road between Camino Pablo and Moraga Way 4) Partial Closure of the eastbound lanes of Santa Maria Way between Camino Pablo and Orinda Way
5) Full Closure of Orinda Way between Santa Maria Way and Camino Pablo; and WHEREAS, for the safety of all concerned including participants and spectators, this will require the various listed street closures on Saturday, July 4, 2026, between 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, under Section 21101, paragraph (e) of the Vehicle Code, a local authority may adopt by resolution, a temporary closure of a street for a special event when the closure is necessary for the safety and protection of the users of the street during the event.

Item I.5
Packet Page 85
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby authorizes the listed street closures in downtown Orinda for the Fourth of July Parade route and associated community activities on Saturday, July 4, 2026, from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on May 19, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item I.5
Packet Page 86

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Adoption of Resolution No. 29-26 "Downtown Orinda” Identification EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider authorizing the submittal of an encroachment permit application to Caltrans in order for the Staff to pursue the installation of up to five Downtown Orinda signs along Highway 24. Caltrans’ Supplemental Signing Program allows cities to install highway signage identifying key destinations in an effort to improve visibility and support economic development efforts. If approved, the City will fund fabrication and installation, and Caltrans will assume ongoing maintenance.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 29-26 Supporting the Installation of up to Five “Downtown Orinda” Supplemental Signs Along Highway 24 and Authorize Staff to Submit an Encroachment Permit Application to Caltrans.

BACKGROUND:

None.

DISCUSSION:

Caltrans administers a Supplemental Signing Program for city civic center areas that allows municipalities to install highway signage identifying key destinations such as “Downtown Orinda,” “Orinda City Hall,” and the “Orinda Civic Center.” To leverage this program in support of economic development, Staff have been coordinating with Caltrans to evaluate opportunities for new signage along Highway 24 that would enhance visibility and improve wayfinding to Downtown Orinda.

The program requires that the City Council adopt a resolution supporting the installation of such signs prior to submitting an encroachment permit. Final sign dimensions and placement are determined by Caltrans as part of the encroachment permit process. If approved, the signs will be installed by the City and maintained by Caltrans moving forward.

Based on preliminary discussions with Caltrans, Staff is prepared to propose five “Downtown Orinda” signs (see Exhibit A to Resolution No. 29-26). As proposed, these Item I.6
Packet Page 87
signs will incorporate “Downtown Orinda” wayfinding alongside existing destinations currently signed along the corridor, such as BART and St. Mary’s College.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of fabricating these signs is estimated to be $3,000 each and installation costs will be determined by Caltrans requirements specified during the encroachment permit process.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

3. Downtown Development and Beautification
e. Enhance beautification efforts, including outdoor dining, lighting, landscaping, and signage. Consider establishing a facade improvement program.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. 29-26
WEBLINK(S):

None.

Respectfully Submitted by,
Cole Haselip, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.6
Packet Page 88
RESOLUTION NO. 29-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
SUPPORTING THE INSTALLATION OF “DOWNTOWN ORINDA” SUPPLEMENTAL HIGHWAY SIGNS ALONG HIGHWAY 24 AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION TO CALTRANS
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers a Supplemental Signing Program for city civic center areas that allows municipalities to install highway signage identifying key destinations; and WHEREAS, such signage may include identification for areas such as “Downtown Orinda” thereby improving visibility and wayfinding for residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orinda seeks to enhance economic development and improve access to Orinda’s downtown through improved signage along Highway 24; and
WHEREAS, City staff have coordinated with Caltrans and identified an opportunity to install up to five “Downtown Orinda” supplemental signs along State Route 24, as generally depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the proposed signage may be integrated with existing destination signage along the corridor, including but not limited to BART and St.

Mary’s College; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans requires adoption of a resolution by the City Council supporting the proposed signage prior to submission of an encroachment permit application; and
WHEREAS, final sign design, dimensions, and placement will be determined by Caltrans through the encroachment permit review process; and WHEREAS, if approved, the City of Orinda will be responsible for fabrication and installation of the signage, and Caltrans will assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the installation of such signage supports the City’s Strategic Plan Initiative 3.e, to enhance downtown beautification efforts, including signage improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda hereby supports the installation of up to five “Downtown Orinda” supplemental Item I.6
Packet Page 89
Resolution 01-26
2 highway signs along Highway 24, subject to approval by Caltrans, and authorizes the City Manager, or their designee, to submit an encroachment permit application to Caltrans to take all necessary actions to implement this resolution, including coordination with Caltrans regarding final designs, placement, and installation of the signage.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on May 19, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

________________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Map of Proposed “Downtown Orinda” Signage Locations Item I.6
Packet Page 90
Resolution 01-26
3 Item I.6
Packet Page 91
Exhibit A
Item I.6
Packet Page 92

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Report on the City’s Efforts to Obtain Grant Funding
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive a report on ongoing grant efforts with the City’s grants consultant, California Consulting.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive report and provide direction, as needed.

BACKGROUND:

In 2021, the City retained the services of California Consulting to bolster the City’s effort in attracting grant funding for various capital projects. The contract has been renewed annually since that time.

DISCUSSION:

At its May 5 meeting, the City Council, as part of its discussion regarding the Capital Improvement Program, requested to receive an update on the City’s grant efforts to better understand the funding received to date and the opportunities that are currently being pursued.

California Consulting, the City’s grants contractor, will present a report to the City Council (Attachment A), summarizing the grants efforts to date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The use of California Consulting to find and prepare grants has had a positive impact on the City, including new funding for existing capital projects.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. California Consulting Summary Report
WEBLINK(S):

Item K.1
Packet Page 93
Not applicable.

Respectfully Submitted by,
Linda Smith, City Manager
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item K.1
Packet Page 94
1 City of Orinda
Presentation to City Council on Grants Program
By Matthew Kamm, Project Manager
California Consulting
Overview/History of California Consulting’s Service Offerings California Consulting first began working with the City of Orinda to seek grant funding on May 1, 2021. For two years, a colleague of mine worked hard to establish a grant program and secure funding in the amount of $554,803 (described in detail below). My name is Matthew Kamm (Project Manager at California Consulting), and I have worked with the City of Orinda since August 1, 2023. It has been an honor to first work with City Manager David Biggs, and now Linda Smith, to identify/discuss grant possibilities and apply when opportunities are deemed viable. As grants are not written alone, it has also been a pleasure to work with City staff who have always generously given their time and effort to assist with the grant writing process. In total, I am proud to have worked with the City to raise $1,622,280 in grant funding over the past three years.

How CA Consulting Works with Orinda Staff to Identify Opportunities In order to ensure that CA Consulting best meets City needs, we host a Zoom meeting on the first Tuesday of every month. In addition to Linda Smith, regular attendees include City officials Douglas Alessio, Scott Christie, Todd Trimble, Micki Cronin, and Lashun Cross. CA Consulting attendees include myself and Grant Specialist Sammy D’Ambrosio. During these meetings, we present grant possibilities, compare them to City needs, and decide which applications to develop and submit. Once we decide to apply for a grant, I coordinate closely with appropriate City staff members (and, occasionally, community partners) to complete the grant proposals.

Success to Date
Funding Raised with the Assistance of California Consulting $2,177,083 Funding Raised by City Staff, or by Collaborating with Other Partners $1,714,000 Secured Funding $3,891,083
Current Amount of Pending Grants (completed with the assistance of CA Consulting)
$208,200
Current (Recommended) Congressional Appropriations $2,296,000 Pending and Recommended Funding $2,504,200
Item K.1
Packet Page 95
2 Description
In total, CA has raised $2,177,083 in grant funds, which includes the following awards:
• Office of Traffic Safety ($79,600), awarded on 2025/6/4 to assist in implementing an electronic citation system (i.e. e-citation system) for the Orinda Police Department. • MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Planning and Implementation Grants: Parking Management ($300,000), awarded on 2025/3/13 to assist in the development of a Parking and Transportation Demand Management proposal for Downtown Orinda • CalTrans – Highway Safety Improvement Program ($1,102,680), awarded in 2025/2/21 to assist in completing 4 important traffic projects.
• CA FireSafe Council: State Fire Capacity Grant ($100,000) help Fire Safe Moraga Orinda to enact a program whereby groups of residents will receive services to remove vegetation on their property to ensure it is “fire safe.” While this grant was awarded to Fire Safe Moraga Orinda, CA Consulting and the City assisted in the submittal process. • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Technical assistance ($40,000), awarded on 2023/11/1 in technical assistance to help in the preparation of an Active Transportation Program application (ultimately not submitted) for Wilder/Downtown Class 1 Multi-use Path Development.
• MTC Priority Sites Technical Assistance and Other Assistance with Pre-Development 3 sites – St. Mark’s Church, St. John’s Orthodox Church, and 2 BART station parking lots – were deemed Priority Sites and we are eligible for technical assistance and predevelopment funding. • MTC Priority Development Area, ($200,000) on 2023/6/9, for outlining a path forward toward Transit Oriented Development at the Orinda BART station (specifically the parking lot)
• California Department of Parks and Recreation Specified Grant ($125,000) awarded on 2022/12/6 San Pablo Creek Recreational Trail Assisted Application • Cal Dep. Parks and Recreation Proposition 68 Per Capita Program ($189,803), awarded on 2021/12/7 for the Orinda Community Park Restroom Building • Caltrans Local Road Safety Plan ($40,000), awarded on 2021/8/26 to create a road safety plan that could identify future programs and funding needs and make the City eligible for future Caltrans grants.

The following are grants (total of $1,714,000) that the City obtained by applying on its own or utilizing other partnerships:
• 2025 Safe Streets for All ($508,000) for Moraga Way Safety and Connectivity Planning Study - $508,000 grant amount, total project cost $635,000. Orinda partnered with Moraga and applied for the grant.
• Transportation Development Act
o FY 26/27 – Grant award is $140,000 for rehabilitating a portion of the Camino Pablo Pathway, pending MTC approval.

Item K.1
Packet Page 96
3 o FY 24/25 Glorietta pathway Phase 2, $90,000
o FY 23/24 Moraga Way pathway, Phase 3, $191,000
o FY 22/23 Moraga Way RRFB crosswalk at Valley View, $80,000 o FY 21/22 Camino Pablo Pathway, $120,000
• MTC BART MOU Grant with LeSar Consulting for $200,000 • MTC Parking Management Grant with MIG and W-Trans for $300,000 • Senate District 7 ADU Grant (California Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Grant Program) obtained for $35,000 based on City population
• Pre-Approved ADU grant funds in collaboration through an MOU with the Town of Moraga and the City of Lafayette for $150,000, also from ADU Accelerator Program for Senate District 7. Individually, each jurisdiction receives $50,000 Items in Progress (on which CA Consulting assisted)
The City has the following pending grants (total of $208,200):
• CA Office of Traffic Safety ($8,200). The City has a pending application to develop a short video that presents important aspects of e-bike safety aimed at youth for the purpose of reducing injuries and preventing fatalities
• Cal Firesafe Council (~$200,000) for activities related to fire fuels reduction. “Items in Progress” also include two recommended Congressional Appropriations ($2,296,000 total) which the City completed on its own:
• $1,296,000 for the City to complete pavement rehabilitation work and widening on the Camino Pablo Pathway in Orinda, California and to expand and maintain aging infrastructure that currently sees heavy pedestrian use. • $1,000,000 for the City to maintain and improve the North Orinda Shaded Fuel Break to reduce the probability of catastrophic fire spread while improving firefighter access and operational effectiveness, specifically by maintaining previously treated areas, conducting hazard tree identification and abatement, and expanding interagency coordination.

Opportunities Being Pursued
The City is exploring the possibility of applying for grants that include:
• Active Transportation Program. Matt is working with Linda and Scott Christie to potentially identify a project related to multi-modal (non-vehicular) travel. • Urban Greening. Matt is working with Todd Trimble to potentially identify an opportunity to add more green space.
• Prop 4 Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program. Matt is exploring with Todd Trimble whether it’s feasible to install pickleball courts at Wilder Item K.1
Packet Page 97
4 Park. The City is also evaluating Prop 4 funding opportunities related to wildfire readiness.

CA Consulting looks forward to continued success with the City of Orinda.

Item K.1
Packet Page 98

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Planning
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
SUBJECT:

Proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - Recommendations from Affordable Housing Subcommittee
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Subcommittee, composed of Vice Mayor Gee and Councilmember Malkani, and discuss the potential adoption of the Ordinance.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the Subcommittee’s recommendations and provide direction to Staff regarding the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO).

BACKGROUND:

On January 31, 2023, the City Council approved the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Housing Element is one of the required elements of the City’s General Plan. The Plan includes goals, policies, and programs to direct decision-making around housing. The Housing Element includes Goal 3, consideration of a possible Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) (weblink A).

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

Item K.2
Packet Page 99
Timeframe: Determine the appropriateness of an inclusionary ordinance within two years after adoption of the Housing Element. If determined appropriate, adopt an inclusionary ordinance within one year of making the determination.

On May 2, 2023, the City Council received a report from Staff on the possibility of the development of an IHO for future consideration and the parameters of the draft ordinance.

The City Council directed Staff to research and provide more information on the range of existing inclusionary housing programs in Contra Costa County. During that time, a Planning Technical Assistance Committee of Contra Costa County, called C4, operating under the auspices of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) completed a summary of all existing Contra Cost Inclusionary housing programs. This discussion was continued to May 9, 2023.

On May 9, 2023, the continued discussion included details of an IHO, with a particular emphasis on the size of development to which the IHO would apply. The City Council directed the Planning Director to continue working on this with Staff and bring the topic back in the summer.

On October 3, 2023, the City Council received an update and discussed the follow up report on the IHO options. The City Council considered the following ordinance parameters: the size of development, percentage of affordable housing unit inclusion, mix of housing, if an in-lieu fee should be included, and if development incentives should be considered. The City Council determined additional information on the questions raised was needed prior to the writing of an ordinance.

On July 8, 2025, the Planning Commission held a study session with the City’s consultant Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC). LWC presented the findings from the Economic Feasibility and Market Study. The Commission discussed the challenge of encouraging affordable housing while at the same time continuing to incentivize development. They requested additional information on key elements such as qualifying project size, ideal inclusionary percentage, and a comparison of in-lieu fees from neighboring jurisdictions.

On July 15, 2025, the City Council held a study session to review findings and recommendations from the Economic Feasibility and Market Study and gather input to inform the next phase of policy development. The City Council recommended creating ordinance language for projects of 11 units or greater, adopting a 15% affordable housing percentage, considering a proposed in-lieu fee below the maximum demonstrated rate of $548,300, and including provisions for flexible application of the ordinance.

On January 20, 2026, the City Council held another study session where they received a presentation, heard public comment, and provided direction related to housing affordability and the potential adoption of an IHO. The discussion included a general exploration of housing affordability and review of existing state laws. A primary focus was on the proposed amount and administration of an in-lieu fee.

The City Council continued the study session and directed Staff to discuss and meet with the Affordable Housing Subcommittee. The City Council requested the subcommittee discuss the following four items:

Item K.2
Packet Page 100
1) Consider a 10% affordable housing percentage as an alternative to the proposed 15% affordable housing percentage;
2) Consider inclusion of single-family housing which is currently proposed as exempt; and,
3) Undertake the calculation of an in-lieu fee per required affordable unit as an alternative to calculating the proposed in-lieu fee per net residential square foot (NRSF) and consider the cost per unit approach for the administration of a partial build-out proposal.
4) Elaborate on the best ways to maintain affordable housing quality (encourage a variety of building types and unit sizes balanced with construction costs and other development pressures) while also producing affordable housing units; DISCUSSION:

On April 13, 2026, the Affordable Housing Subcommittee met to discuss the abovementioned items, presented by LWC: 1) the Affordable Housing Subcommittee supported changing the IHO’s affordable housing percentage to 10% to address the challenging development setting while at the same time signaling the City’s commitment to affordable housing; 2) the Subcommittee members agreed that single-family residential development projects should remain exempt; and 3) the subcommittee supported changing the units proposed for calculation of the In-Lieu fee from per net residential square footage (NRSF) to per required affordable unit and supported maintaining the partial build-out option in the IHO.

In response to item four listed above, the proposed ordinance ensures housing quality by requiring units to be comparable. The IHO requires that affordable housing units reflect the range of unit types, are spread throughout the development, and have the same exterior appearance, quality, durability and size as that of market rate units. Adopting an IHO avoids segregating units that are of low quality and instead requires mixing units that are of higher quality, those comparable to market rate units. The IHO is a development regulation (not a tax or an exaction) and is used to promote residential development for a range of incomes.

The IHO includes many variables, such as income level, project size threshold, and a period of affordability, to advance affordable housing as an integrated part of residential development projects (Attachment A).

The Economic Feasibility and Market Study analysis found that single family residential was economically infeasible and affirmed the project size threshold of 11 or more units, noting that there were few sites in Orinda where the IHO would even apply for singlefamily residential development projects. Finally, considering the cost per required affordable unit the subcommittee reviewed examples of partial build scenarios confirming the ease of calculation if an applicant satisfies their affordable housing obligation by building some units on site and paying an in-lieu fee for the remaining units. The subcommittee supported changing the IHO’s affordable percentage to 10% (from the Item K.2
Packet Page 101
proposed 15%), continuing to treat single-family housing as exempt, changing the in-lieu fee units to cost per required affordable unit (from net residential square feet), and maintaining the option for a partial build-out alternative.

Reduction of the Affordable Housing Percentage. LWC analyzed residential scenarios in Orinda to determine if a specific percentage of required affordable units in a residential development project caused the project to be financially infeasible. The study found that multifamily and mixed-use for rent, and multifamily for sale residential development projects were still achieving an adequate yield or return on cost (typically 8-12%) if Orinda required a 15% affordable housing percentage.

Initially, Staff was comparing the IHO with the MTC Transit-Oriented Community (TOC) Policy set at 15% affordability percentage. However, a lower percentage may be adopted if it can be demonstrated by a satisfactory financial feasibility analysis that a 15% requirement is not feasible.

The Economic Feasibility and Market Study’s methodology uses standardized cost assumptions. Residential development projects identified as feasible assumes a production housing model for rental and for sale housing. This methodology may underestimate the cost of specific local residential development conditions. Orinda is likely to need a specialty product and higher yields or returns on cost due to steep slopes, difficult sites, and market demand.

Reducing the affordability percentage to 10% would help projects navigate local development conditions and increase the economic feasibility for multifamily and mixeduse residential development projects. The lower affordability percentage could address the challenging development setting, while at the same time signal the City’s commitment to affordable housing.

Exempting Single-family Homes and Flat Fee. The single-family, for-sale scenario did not achieve an adequate return on cost, even when considering a much lower 4% affordable housing percentage and was determined to be infeasible. In addition, the IHO would only apply to residential development projects with 11 or more units. Few opportunities to accommodate single-family residential development projects with 11 or more units exist in Orinda.

The City Council could still decide to include single-family residential projects and require an in-lieu fee that would satisfy an affordable housing obligation. If the City were to include single-family residential projects identifying a fee rather than net residential square footage.

Assuming the same development types, buildout assumptions, and financial inputs as the Economic Feasibility and Market Study, but considering a 10% affordable housing percentage, LWC identified $79,308 per required affordable unit as the maximum supportable in-lieu fee for single-family residential development projects. The fee relies on the development prototypes from the study and is calculated by dividing the feasibility gap by the number of assumed units (e.g. $1,903,404 divided by 24 the total number of Item K.2
Packet Page 102
units results in the in-lieu flat fee). Using this methodology, this fee would require a nexus study approximately every two years to determine the feasibility gap.

Staff recommend no change and to keep single-family residential development projects as exempt because the single-family residential for sale projects was demonstrated by the financial feasibility analysis to be infeasible. The Subcommittee agreed that singlefamily residential development projects should remain exempt due to the lack of financial feasibility and the project size threshold that would limit the use of the ordinance in Orinda.

Multi-Family In-Lieu Flat Fee Calculation. Calculation of an in-lieu fee using per NRSF accounts for unit size disparities by tying the in-lieu fee to the actual, detailed size of the residential units rather than relying on a flat per unit fee. However, the accuracy makes it more difficult to consider partial build-out alternatives, proposals where a portion of the affordable housing obligation is built on site and a portion of the obligation is to be paid in the form of a specified in-lieu fee.

LWC recalculated the in-lieu fee metrics from a cost per NRSF to a cost per required affordable unit basis to facilitate the administration of partial build proposals under the IHO. Using the proposed per square foot fee of $26.30 per NRSF, the multifamily and mixed-use development estimated an in-lieu fee of $207,872 per required affordable unit (Table 1).

The conversion of units relied on the development prototypes from the Economic Feasibility and Market Study and used consistent development assumptions, feasibility thresholds, and revenue projections. The approach to use the same development prototypes under the per square foot framework and with the same 15% inclusionary rate ensures that the unit-based equivalent reflects the same feasibility assumptions and prototype conditions evaluated by the Economic Feasibility and Market Study.

Table 1: In-Lieu Fee per Unit Calculation
Calculation Multifamily (RH-40) Mixed-use (DC)
NRSF 209,885 104,445
Units (Affordable) 179 (27) 88 (13)
In-lieu fee $26.30 $26.30
Total $5,519,976 $2,746,904
Per Required Affordable Unit $204,444 $211,300
In-Lieu Fee Per Required Affordable Unit $207,872
Source: Lisa Wise Consulting, Memorandum, Revised March 19, 2026 A partial build-out residential development project would be easy to calculate and administer using the unit of cost per required affordable unit. For example, at a 10% inclusionary percentage, an applicant that proposes a 40-unit development would be responsible for providing four affordable housing units. If one were built on site, and three Item K.2
Packet Page 103
were paid for through an in-lieu fee, the fee would be three times $207,872 per required affordable unit and result in a total in-lieu fee of $623,616.

Staff recommend using the unit of cost per required affordable unit. All residential development projects subject to the IHO will be easier to administer, including partial build-out alternatives.

Proposed Modification – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft Staff propose to remove the definition of Net Residential Square Footage since the unit will no longer appear in the ordinance language and also remove “Projects utilizing State Density Bonus Law that provide affordable housing consistent with state requirements” from the Applicability, Exemptions (C.2.d) section of the ordinance to support the potential Staff negotiations to maintain affordable housing quality.

The SDBL provides incentives for developers to construct affordable housing through a legal mandate allowing an increase project density by up to 50% above local zoning maximums.

The State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and the IHO each support affordable housing unit production, one by providing developer incentives and the other by requiring an economically feasible affordable housing obligation based on market conditions. The SDBL focuses on project density and includes no language on comparability, whereas the proposed IHO includes detailed language requiring affordable units to be indistinguishable from that of market rate units.

Changes to Chapter 17 of the Orinda Municipal Code
Based on the above approaches the changes have been summarized for the City Council’s consideration (Attachment B).

Changes would need to be made to Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council: 1) Section 17.14 (Affordable Housing) The proposed amendment would add the new section number and title to an unoccupied number in the code; 2) Section 17.14.1 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) The proposed amendment would be add a new subsection that describes the purpose and intent, and include the suggested text of the redlined Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Draft; and 3) The existing language currently placed in Section 17.4.31 will be reassigned in its entirely to Section 17.14.2 (Affordable housing incentive program and density bonus) no proposed amendments the action is logical grouping of the code. (Item H.2, Attachment C; weblink B).

Request for Council Direction

1. Is the City Council supportive of the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Subcommittee and of the Staff-proposed changes identified within the staff report? o Change the percentage requirement to 10% (from 15%)
Item K.2
Packet Page 104
o Continue to exempt single-family residential development projects o Change the In-lieu fee units to cost per required affordable unit (from cost per NRSF)

2. Is the City Council supportive of the proposed modifications to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to remove Net Residential Square Footage from the definitions and “Projects utilizing State Density Bonus Law that provides affordable housing consistent with state requirements” from the exemptions section? FISCAL IMPACT:

The consultant has an approved contract. Other associated costs are associated with Staff time.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

N/A
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Recommendations Memo, Final B. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft
C. Draft City Council Ordinance 26-XX (Title 17 OMC)
WEBLINK(S):

A. Certified 6th Cycle Housing Element
B. City Council Study Session, January 20, 2026
Prepared by: Christine Thomson, Principal Planner
Respectfully Submitted by,
Lashun Cross, Planning Director
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item K.2
Packet Page 105
Recommendations Memo | Public Review Draft, August 2025 City of Orinda | 1 MEMO
To: City of Orinda
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

Date: August 27, 2025
Subject: Orinda Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Recommendations Memo (Revised) This memo outlines recommendations for an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) for the City of Orinda (City). These recommendations are informed by the Economic Feasibility and Market Study, as well as input from both the Planning Commission and City Council during their respective Study Sessions and associated public comment.

These recommendations are consistent with Action 3.G of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, which directs the City to research an IHO and identifies several acceptable methods for developers to provide required affordable housing, including constructing affordable housing on-site or off-site, dedicating land for affordable housing, or paying an in-lieu fee. The Housing Element also requires that the IHO address key components such as project size thresholds for project applicability, the percentage of units to be designated as affordable, design and construction standards, timing for delivery of affordable units, in-lieu fees, available developer incentives such as fee deferrals and waivers, and procedures for administering long-term affordability controls.

The recommendations are also informed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) TransitOriented Communities (TOC) Policy, which sets regional standards for local IHOs in areas served by highquality transit. Given Orinda’s centrally located BART station, the City’s IHO would be evaluated by MTC in terms of TOC Policy requirements to maintain eligibility for One Bay Area Grants, other regional transportation funding, and to support broader housing and transportation goals. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council, the recommended IHO would be compliant with the MTC TOC Policy.

Recommendations
The recommendations presented below are based on the Economic Feasibility and Market Study and incorporate public feedback received during two independent Study Sessions with both first, the Planning Commission and second, the City Council.

Inclusionary Percentage Requirements
• Recommendation:
o Require that 15% of units in newly constructed multifamily residential or mixed-use multifamily residential projects (ownership and rental) be deed-restricted affordable housing units.

Item K.2
Packet Page 106
2 | City of Orinda Recommendations Memo | Public Review Draft, August 2025 • Rationale:
o As demonstrated in the Economic Feasibility and Market Study, a 15% requirement would not represent a constraint on housing production for multifamily and mixed-use multifamily housing types in Orinda. The Economic Feasibility and Market Study found that a 15% requirement would represent a constraint on single-family housing types o The approach is consistent with the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, which establishes a new residential units target of 1,359 units (in various income categories) for the duration of the planning period from 2023-2031.
o The approach is consistent with progress on Housing Element implementation actions, demonstrating the community’s commitment to meeting the one-year timeframe to adopt an ordinance and work towards the quantified objective of 145 lower income units. o The approach aligns with Housing Element Action 3.G, which establishes a two-phase timeline: within two years of Housing Element adoption, the City must determine whether an inclusionary housing ordinance is appropriate, and, if so, adopt the ordinance within one year of that determination. The Economic Feasibility and Market Study provides the economic foundation needed to evaluate ordinance feasibility. Its recommendations address Action 3.G’s research requirements and will directly support the creation of an ordinance that meets Housing Element timelines and advances progress toward the target of 145 lower income units.
o This approach is consistent with the MTC TOC Policy, which establishes a minimum requirement of 15% affordable units in new residential or mixed-use residential developments.

Income Levels
• Recommendation:
o Structure affordable housing requirements based on tenure. For rental developments, the income mix of affordable units should average out to 80% of AMI or less, with no affordable rental units rented to households above 120% AMI. For ownership units, the income mix of affordable should average out to 120% of AMI or less, with no affordable ownership units available to households above 150% of AMI.
• Rationale:
o The Economic Feasibility and Market Study found that inclusionary housing requirements remain financially viable for multifamily and mixed-use multifamily housing, even when affordable units are restricted to households earning 80% of AMI. o This approach is consistent with the affordability levels established in the Housing Element:
(1) Very Low Income (<50% AMI) – 372 units, (2) Low Income (50-80% AMI) – 215 units, (3) Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) – 215 units, and (4) Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) – 557 units, for a total of 1,359 units. While some units may be targeted to moderateincome households (those earning more than 80% but less than 120% of AMI), they would Item K.2
Packet Page 107
Recommendations Memo | Public Review Draft, August 2025 City of Orinda | 3 be balanced by units serving very low, extremely low, or acutely low-income households.

To meet the average affordability requirement, projects would need to include units at deeper affordability levels, which supports the Housing Element’s objectives for producing housing for lower-income households.
o This approach is consistent with the MTC TOC Policy, which establishes a requirement that the mix of IHO units should be affordable to an average of 80% of AMI for rental units and an average of 120% of AMI for ownership units.

Project Size Threshold
• Recommendation:
o Apply the IHO only to residential and mixed-use residential projects with 11 or more units. • Rationale:
o Assembly Bill (AB) 803, or the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021, found that policies that incentivize housing that is smaller and “affordable by design” is more compatible with existing single-family neighborhoods. This law facilitates the construction of “stater home” projects consisting of up to 10 dwelling units (not exceeding an average of 1,750 net habitable square feet) on up to 10 parcels. As later amended by Senate Bill (SB) 684 and SB 1123, these projects qualify for a streamlined, ministerial approval process in both multifamily and single-family zoning districts (effective July 1, 2025). o While comparable communities use lower thresholds, the Economic Feasibility and Market Study suggests this would be a constraint on housing production. o Limiting the IHO to projects with 11 or more units is consistent with the MTC TOC Policy and recognizes the economic challenges faced by small-scale developments. Smaller infill projects often lack the economies of scale necessary to absorb the cost of inclusionary requirements and exempting them may encourage market-rate units which are “affordable by design.”
Multi-Family vs. Single-Family
• Recommendation:
o Apply the IHO only to multi-family housing projects, and exempt single-family residential developments, including both detached and attached single-family subdivisions. • Rationale:
o The Economic Feasibility and Market Study found that requiring inclusionary units within single-family developments made the projects financially infeasible. The cost of development is high, and the revenue gap between market-rate and affordable units is too large to be absorbed within typical single-family development in Orinda. Imposing Item K.2
Packet Page 108
4 | City of Orinda Recommendations Memo | Public Review Draft, August 2025 inclusionary requirements in these cases could discourage production altogether, especially for small or moderate-scale builders. Limiting the IHO to multi-family developments targets project types that are better able to accommodate affordability requirements through economies of scale.
o MTC TOC Policy is silent on the application of an IHO to single-family vs. multi-family housing. It states more broadly that for the purposes of TOC Policy compliance, “only residential uses that represent the most common forms of residential dwellings (i.e., singlefamily residences, duplexes, multi-family housing, and mixed-use development) are considered “residential development.”
Geographic Extent
• Recommendation:
o Apply the IHO Citywide.
• Rationale:
o Areas zoned for multi-family and mixed-use residential development are located outside of the TOC zone.
o There are housing development opportunity sites located outside of the TOC area that are identified in the City’s Housing Element.
o MTC TOC Policy states that, “at minimum, policies must apply in TOC areas. Jurisdictions may choose to apply policies beyond the TOC area(s).”
Period of Affordability
• Recommendation:
o Require affordable rental units to be deed-restricted for at least 55 years, and affordable ownership units to be deed-restricted for at least 45 years. • Rationale:
o Lafayette, Moraga, and Walnut Creek require 55 years for rental units and 45 years for ownership units. Danville requires 20 years for both rental and ownership units, and San Ramon currently requires 55 years for rental units, but 30 years for ownership units. o This approach is consistent with the MTC TOC Policy, which requires that affordable units must have recorded document that ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing or at least 45 years for ownership housing.

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

Item K.2
Packet Page 109
Recommendations Memo | Public Review Draft, August 2025 City of Orinda | 5 • Rationale:
o Projects utilizing these policies will have the effect of producing BMR units. o This approach streamlines the development application and review process.

Ownership vs. Rental
• Recommendation:
o Apply the IHO to both rental and for-sale residential developments. • Rationale:
o This approach encourages the inclusion of affordable housing across all residential tenures, ensuring a broader and more equitable application of the IHO which supports housing diversity and helps create mixed-income communities. It also prevents developers from shifting project types solely to avoid affordability requirements. o This approach is consistent with the MTC TOC Policy, which requires that IHOs apply to both rental and ownership units constructed as part of new residential or mixed-use residential projects.

In-Lieu Fee
• Recommendation:
o Establish an in-lieu fee set at $26.30 per net residential rentable or sellable square foot.

This provides applicants with an alternative compliance option under the IHO. • Rationale:
o Consistent with State law (AB 1505), the policy requires jurisdictions to offer alternative means of compliance for rental projects with inclusionary housing requirements. o This approach is consistent with the MTC TOC Policy, which states that jurisdictions must demonstrate that in-lieu fees set below $100,000 per required unit will result in affordable housing outcomes equivalent to on-site inclusion.
o This threshold is below the maximum identified in the Economic Feasibility and Market Study, but above the minimum threshold established by MTC TOC Policy while being inline with fees in neighboring comparable communities.

Item K.2
Packet Page 110
6 | City of Orinda Recommendations Memo | Public Review Draft, August 2025 Additional Alternative Compliance
• Recommendation:
o Allow for additional alternative compliance options in addition to the in-lieu fee, including off-site affordable housing production and land dedication, in accordance with State law. • Rationale:
o Consistent with State law (AB 1505), the policy requires jurisdictions to offer alternative means of compliance with inclusionary housing requirements. o The approach is consistent with options identified in the Housing Element and described in the Goal 3.G.
o This approach is consistent with the MTC TOC Policy.

Development Agreements
• Recommendation
o Applicants may pursue a development agreement as an alternative method of compliance if it results in an equivalent number of affordable units or an equivalent in-lieu fee than is required under the IHO.
• Rationale:
o This reflects a request from the City Council to retain flexibility and allow the City of Orinda to enter into development agreements that serve the City's interests. o Projects utilizing these policies are expected to produce more affordable units or generate higher in-lieu fees than standard compliance would yield.

Design and Building Requirements
• Recommendation:
o The IHO shall require that affordable units be comparable to market-rate units in exterior appearance, quality, and durability, such that they are visually and functionally indistinguishable. This includes equivalence in unit size, distribution throughout the development, interior finishes, and access to the same common areas and amenities as market-rate units.
• Rationale:
o This requirement is based on fair housing laws and the City’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

Item K.2
Packet Page 111
Recommendations Memo | Public Review Draft, August 2025 City of Orinda | 7 Timing of Affordable Unit Construction
• Recommendation:
o Affordable units shall be constructed at the same time as market-rate units. o In-lieu fees or other alternative compliance methods should be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• Rationale:
o Production of affordable units should occur concurrently with the rest of the development. o In-lieu fees or alternative compliance methods should be a condition of project completion.

Development Incentives
• Recommendation:
o Continue to exempt affordable units from City impact fees. • Rationale:
o This reflects a continuation of existing City policy. o The Economic Feasibility and Market Study shows that this has a positive impact on feasibility.
o Feedback from the Focus Groups identified this as a significant incentive for development.

Administration of Affordability Control
• Recommendation:
o The City should engage a qualified third-party partner to administer affordability controls. • Rationale:
o There are numerous community-based housing non-profits in the Bay Area that administer affordability programs, such as BAAHA, Hello Housing, or Rise Housing Solutions. o This is a typical method that cities use within their inclusionary programs.

Waivers and Modifications
• Recommendation
o Authority. The City Council may waive or modify requirements upon finding that:
a. Applying the requirements would result in an unconstitutional taking of property; or Item K.2
Packet Page 112
8 | City of Orinda Recommendations Memo | Public Review Draft, August 2025 b. An alternative proposal would result in the production of more affordable units than otherwise specified in this Chapter's purposes; or
c. Application of the requirements would render the project economically infeasible. o Application Requirements. Requests for waivers shall include:
a. A detailed financial analysis demonstrating the basis for the request. The City shall retain an independent consultant, at the applicant’s expense, to prepare or review the required financial analysis.
b. A deposit of funds, in an amount determined by the City, sufficient to cover the full cost of the consultant. Consultant fees shall be charged in accordance with the City’s adopted Master Fee Schedule, including applicable overhead and administrative surcharges. No waiver or modification request shall be deemed complete until the required deposit has been submitted. c. A description of alternatives considered.
d. The applicant’s proposed alternative compliance measures, if any. o Findings. The City Council may approve a waiver or modification only if it determines, based on the consultant’s analysis and the record as a whole, that the applicant has demonstrated that application of the requirement would result in the alleged impact. • Rationale:
o This provision allows for flexibility, as requested by the City, to address unique circumstances where strict application of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would be impractical or counterproductive.
o It provides a clear process for exemptions or modifications, ensuring that projects are not prohibited from moving forward solely due to infeasibility concerns. o By requiring an independent financial analysis prepared by a City-selected consultant at the applicant’s expense, the process ensures objective, transparent evaluation of claims while protecting the City’s resources.
o The waiver and modification process serves as a “safety valve” that strengthens the legal defensibility of the ordinance by demonstrating that the City has built-in mechanisms to avoid unconstitutional takings or infeasible requirements. o The findings requirement ensures that waivers or modifications are granted only when they are supported by substantial evidence.

Item K.2
Packet Page 113
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft | City of Orinda | Page 1 Municipal Code Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing is added as follows:
• Inserted between existing Chapter 17.13 – Specific Plan District and existing Chapter

17.15 – Development Standards for all Uses.
• Municipal Code Section 17.4.31 – Affordable housing incentive program and density bonus (currently under Chapter 17.4 – Residential district base development regulations) is moved to Section 17.14.2.

Title 17 – Zoning
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Contents
Section 17.14.1 – Inclusionary Housing ................................................................................3 A. Purpose and Intent .......................................................................................................3 B. Definitions ......................................................................................................................3 C. Applicability....................................................................................................................4 D. Inclusionary Housing Requirements ..........................................................................5 E. Alternative Compliance Methods................................................................................8 F. Affordable Housing Plan ............................................................................................10 G. Affordable Housing Agreement ................................................................................11 H. Construction Timing ...................................................................................................12 I. Implementation and Administration........................................................................12 J. Waivers and Modifications ........................................................................................13 K. Appeals .........................................................................................................................14 L. Enforcement ................................................................................................................14 Section 17.14.2 – Affordable Housing Incentive Program and Density Bonus...............15 A. Purpose. .......................................................................................................................15 B. Definitions....................................................................................................................15 C. Eligibility for Density Bonus and Incentive(s) or Concession(s)............................15 D. Application ...................................................................................................................15 Item K.2
Packet Page 114
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing

E. Review Process ............................................................................................................16 F. Housing Incentive Agreement Required..................................................................16

Item K.2
Packet Page 115
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft | City of Orinda | Page 3 Section 17.14.1 – Inclusionary Housing
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Section is to:

1. Enhance the public welfare and ensure that future residential development contributes to the attainment of the affordable housing goals set forth in the City's Housing Element.

2. Meet the requirements of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Goals, Policies, Actions, Action 3.G: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

3. Facilitate the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with varying income levels within the City, consistent with state housing law requirements.

4. Ensure that the limited developable land in the City is utilized in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies and regional housing needs allocation.

5. Affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that affordable housing is geographically dispersed throughout the community and integrated within market-rate developments.

6. Comply with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Transit-Oriented Communities Policy requirements to maintain eligibility for regional transportation funding.

B. Definitions. For the purpose of this Section, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:

1. "Affordable Housing Agreement" means a legally binding written agreement between a developer and the City, in form and substance satisfactory to the City Manager and City Attorney, ensuring compliance with this Section's requirements.

2. "Affordable Housing Fund" means a separate fund established by the City to receive and disburse in-lieu fees and other funds designated for affordable housing purposes.

3. "Affordable Housing Plan" means a plan demonstrating how an applicant will comply with this Section's requirements, containing the components specified in Section 17.14.1.G (Development Standards and Incentives).

4. "Affordable Rent" means monthly rent, including utilities and any tenant-paid fees, not exceeding one-twelfth of thirty percent of the maximum income for households at the targeted income level, adjusted for household size.

5. "Affordable Sales Price" means a sales price at which annual housing costs, including mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, insurance, utilities, and homeowner association fees, do not exceed thirty percent of maximum income for households at the targeted income level.

Item K.2
Packet Page 116
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing

6. "Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or entity seeking City development approvals for a Residential Development Project.

7. "Area Median Income (AMI)" means the median income for Contra Costa County, adjusted for household size, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

8. "Certificate of Occupancy" means the certificate issued by the City indicating that a building or structure complies with applicable codes and may be occupied.

9. "Developer" means the applicant or any successor in interest who develops a Residential Development Project subject to this Section.

10. "Inclusionary Unit" means a dwelling unit required to be affordable pursuant to this Section.

11. "In-Lieu Fee" means a fee paid to the City as an alternative to providing Inclusionary Units

12. "Low-Income Household" means a household earning more than fifty percent but not more than eighty percent of Area Median Income.

13. "Moderate-Income Household" means a household earning more than eighty percent but not more than one hundred twenty percent of Area Median Income.

14. “Net Residential Square Footage” means the total livable area of a Residential Development Project, excluding garages, parking, common areas, and other nonlivable spaces.

15. "Residential Development Project" means any project that results in the construction of new dwelling units, including mixed-use projects with a residential component, but excluding Accessory Dwelling Units.

16. “Single-Family Residential Development Project” means the development of land with one or more dwelling units designed for occupancy by a single household, including but not limited to:
a. Construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on an individual lot; and b. Subdivision of land that results in the creation of lots intended for development with single-family dwelling units.

17. "Very Low-Income Household" means a household earning not more than fifty percent of Area Median Income.

C. Applicability.

1. Projects Subject to Requirements. This Section shall apply to all Residential Development Projects that propose 11 or more dwelling units.

Item K.2
Packet Page 117
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft | City of Orinda | Page 5

2. Exemptions. The following projects are exempt from this Section’s requirements:
a. Residential Development Projects consisting of 10 or fewer dwelling units.
b. Reconstruction of dwelling units destroyed by fire, earthquake, or other disaster, provided the number of units does not increase. c. Single-Family Residential Development Project.
d. Projects utilizing State Density Bonus Law that provide affordable housing consistent with state requirements.

3. Timing of Compliance. Compliance with this Section shall be required as a condition of approval for the first permit or approval for a Residential Development Project.

D. Inclusionary Housing Requirements.

1. Basic Requirement. All Residential Development Projects subject to this Section shall provide affordable housing as required by this Section or Section 17.14.1.E (Alternative Compliance Methods).

2. On-Site Inclusionary Units.
a. Percentage Requirement. At least ten fifteen percent of the total units in the project shall be Inclusionary Units.
b. Income Targeting. Income targeting allows a residential development project more flexibility to target specific AMI categories and continue to meet inclusionary requirements. This section provides a calculation method for a project to include units with greater subsidy while still reaching the required average percentages specified below. i. Rental Projects. The income mix of affordable units must average out to eighty percent of the Area Median Income or less, with no affordable rental units available to households above one hundred and twenty percent of Area Median Income. Rental units shall be provided at the affordable rent corresponding to the designated Area Median Income level.
ii. For-Sale Projects. The income mix of affordable units must average out to one hundred and twenty percent of the Area Median Income or less, with no affordable rental units available to households above one hundred and fifty percent of Area Median Income. Forsale units shall be provided at the affordable sales price corresponding to the designated Area Median Income (AMI) level. iii. Affordable Unit Trade Equivalency. This framework establishes a formula for trading affordable housing units across different Area Median Income categories. Each Area Median Income level is Item K.2
Packet Page 118
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing

assigned a weight that represents its trade value, allowing conversions between unit types while ensuring that the overall mix of units reaches the required average affordability standard.

Table 1. Affordable Rental Unit Trade Equivalency
Area Median Income
Category
Weight (Trade Value per
Unit)
Moderate (120%) 1.5
Low (80%) 1
Very Low (50%) 0.63
Extremely Low (30%) 0.38
Acutely Low (15%) 0.19
Table 2: Affordable For-Sale Unit Trade Equivalency
Area Median Income
Category
Weight (Trade Value per
Unit)
Above Moderate (150%) 1.5
Moderate (120%) 1.00
Low (80%) 0.67
Very Low (50%) 0.42
Extremely Low (30%) 0.25
Acutely Low (15%) 0.13
iv. Affordable Unit Trade Equivalency Formula.

Let:

Uᵢ = number of required inclusionary units at Area Median Income level i
Wᵢ = weight assigned to Area Median Income level i (see Table 1:

Affordable Rental Unit Trade Equivalency or 2: Affordable ForSale Unit Trade Equivalency) The total trade-adjusted unit equivalent (T) is calculated as:

T = Σ (Uᵢ × Wᵢ)
v. Average Affordability Formula. After confirming that the minimum equivalent requirement is satisfied, the average affordability of the project shall be calculated as the mean Area Median Income level of all Inclusionary Units:

𝐴 = (
∑ =1
xᵢ
𝑁
)
Where:

Item K.2
Packet Page 119
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft | City of Orinda | Page 7 A = Average affordability (as a percentage)
N = Total number of affordable units
xᵢ = Area Median Income percentile assigned to unit i
c. Calculation Procedure for Affordable Unit Trade Equivalency i. Determine Baseline Number of Dwelling Units Required. Identify the total number of affordable units required under this chapter at the baseline income level.
ii. Allocate Baseline Number of Dwelling Units by Affordability Level.

If the applicant proposes to satisfy the inclusionary requirement using dwelling units at multiple affordability levels, allocate the total baseline obligation (U) across the proposed income categories. Let Uᵢ represent the number of baseline dwelling units assigned to income level i (e.g., Very Low, Acutely Low, Moderate). iii. Apply Equivalency Weights. For each income level, multiply the number of baseline dwelling units (Uᵢ) by the corresponding weighting factor (Wᵢ) assigned to that income level. Each weighting factor represents how many units at that affordability level must be produced to equal one baseline dwelling unit. Once multiplied, the resulting value represents the number of dwelling units that must be built at the selected affordability level to provide an equivalent number of baseline dwelling units being substituted.

Any fractional unit resulting from this calculation shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
iv. Calculate Total Number of Dwelling Units to Be Constructed. Sum the results for all income levels to determine the total number of inclusionary dwelling units (T) that must be constructed. d. Calculation Procedure for Average Affordability
i. Confirm Minimum Equivalency. Verify the project meets the minimum equivalent inclusionary requirement (after applying dwelling unit tradeoffs at differing levels of affordability and rounding for whole units).
ii. Identify Units and Area Median Income (AMI) Levels. Determine the total number of inclusionary units to be constructed. For each inclusionary unit, record its assigned AMI level as a percentage (e.g., 50% Very Low, 80% Low, 120% Moderate), using the values specified in this chapter.
iii. Total AMI Percentages. Add together the AMI percentages for all inclusionary units counted in the project total.

Item K.2
Packet Page 120
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing

iv. Determine the Average. Divide the combined AMI total from Step 3 by the total number of inclusionary units identified in Step 2 to determine the project’s average affordability level.
e. Unit Mix and Design Standards.
i. Inclusionary Units shall reflect the range of unit types in the Residential Development Project.
ii. The proportion of Inclusionary Units by bedroom count shall be the same proportionately to the market-rate units.
iii. Inclusionary Units shall be dispersed throughout the project and shall not be isolated in separate buildings or floors.
iv. Inclusionary Units shall be constructed with the same exterior appearance, quality, and durability, such that they are visually and functionally indistinguishable from market-rate units.
v. Inclusionary Units shall be constructed with the same size, finishes, distribution throughout the development, and access to common areas as market rate units.

3. Fractional Units. When calculation of the inclusionary requirement results in a fractional unit the requirement shall be rounded up to the next whole unit.

E. Alternative Compliance Methods.

1. In-Lieu Fee.
a. The Applicant may pay an In-Lieu Fee instead of providing some or all of the required Inclusionary Units.
b. The In-Lieu Fee amount shall be established by City Council resolution and updated periodically.
c. The In-Lieu Fee shall be calculated per the inclusionary units net residential square footage of the entire project.
d. In-Lieu Fees shall be paid as required by state law
e. In the event of a partial build-out where the applicant is proposing a combination of on-site units and payment of the In-Lieu fee, the In-Lieu fee shall be calculated based on the total number of inclusionary units net residential square footage minus the total number square footage of the inclusionary affordable units to be constructed. The resulting number of inclusionary units net square footage will then be multiplied by the applicable per-unit square-foot fee rate to determine the total In-Lieu Fee amount. The unit mix equivalency by income level would not be factored into the partial in-lieu fee calculation, as the fee is based on the total built inclusionary unitsresidential square footage.

Item K.2
Packet Page 121
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft | City of Orinda | Page 9

2. Off-Site Construction.
a. With City Council approval, an Applicant may construct Inclusionary Units at an alternative site within City limits. In order to approve such a proposal, the City Council must find that on-site production of Inclusionary Units is infeasible or that greater public benefit will result from the units being off-site.
b. Off-site Inclusionary Units shall meet the following requirements:
i. The number of off-site Inclusionary Units shall be at least equal to the number of on-site Inclusionary Units that would otherwise be required.
ii. The off-site location shall be suitable for residential development and have appropriate zoning.
iii. Off-site Inclusionary Units shall be completed prior to or concurrently with the Residential Development Project.
iv. Unit Mix and Design Standards.
(a) Inclusionary Units shall reflect the range of unit types in the Residential Development Project.
(b) The proportion of Inclusionary Units by bedroom count shall be comparable to the Residential Development Project. (c) Inclusionary Units shall be constructed with the same size, finishes, distribution throughout the development, and
access to common areas as any units in a Residential
Development Project.
(d) Inclusionary Units shall be constructed with the same exterior appearance, quality, and durability, such that they are visually and functionally indistinguishable from marketrate units.

3. Land Dedication.
a. With City Council approval, an Applicant may dedicate land to the City or a qualified affordable housing developer for future affordable housing development.
b. The dedicated land must be:
i. Suitable for residential development with appropriate zoning; ii. Free of environmental contamination;
iii. Within the City limits;
Item K.2
Packet Page 122
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing

iv. Fully improved with infrastructure and utilities at the property line; and,
v. Of sufficient size to accommodate the required number of affordable units plus additional value equal to the subsidy needed for development.

4. Acquisition and Rehabilitation.
a. With City Council approval, an Applicant may acquire and rehabilitate existing units to create deed-restricted affordable housing. In order to approve such a proposal, the City Council must find that on-site production of such units is infeasible or that greater public benefit will result from the units being off-site.
b. The number of rehabilitated units provided shall be equal to or greater than the number of Inclusionary Units otherwise required. c. Rehabilitation must bring units to current Building Code standards. d. Units must be within the City limits.
e. Unit Mix and Design Standards.
i. Inclusionary Units shall reflect the range of unit types in the Residential Development Project.
ii. The proportion of Inclusionary Units by bedroom count shall be comparable to the Residential Development Project.
iii. Inclusionary Units shall be constructed with the same size, finishes, distribution throughout the development, and access to common areas as any units in a Residential Development Project. iv. Inclusionary Units shall be constructed with the same exterior appearance, quality, and durability, such that they are visually and functionally indistinguishable from market-rate units.

5. Development Agreement. Applicants may pursue a Development Agreement, subject to approval by the City Council, as an alternative method of compliance with the requirements of this Section. A Development Agreement shall provide for either:
a. The production of an equivalent or greater number of affordable units than otherwise required under this Section; or
b. The payment of an equivalent or greater in-lieu fee than otherwise required under this Section.

6. Combination of Methods. An Applicant may combine two or more alternative compliance methods.

F. Affordable Housing Plan.

Item K.2
Packet Page 123
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft | City of Orinda | Page 11

1. Submission Requirements. An Affordable Housing Plan shall be submitted with the first application for approval and shall include:
a. The total number of units in the project;
b. The number, location, size, and bedroom count of Inclusionary Units; c. The income levels targeted, the calculation of the average affordability level, and a description of the strategy for achieving a mix of affordability levels;
d. The proposed method(s) of compliance;
e. A phasing plan if the project will be built in phases; f. Marketing plan for affordable units; and,
g. Property management approach.

2. Review and Approval. The City shall review the Affordable Housing Plan for compliance with this Section. An Affordable Housing Plan proposing compliance with this Chapter through alternative compliance methods other than payment of an In-Lieu Fee shall be reviewed by and subject to approval by the City Council.

The Plan is considered part of the development application and may also be incorporated into any project conditions of approval.

G. Affordable Housing Agreement.

1. Required Agreement. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall execute an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City.

2. Agreement Contents. The Agreement shall specify:
a. Number, housing type, bedroom count, location, and size of all Inclusionary Units;
b. Affordability levels and target income groups;
c. Term of affordability restrictions;
d. Provisions for income certification and tenant screening; e. Resale restrictions and equity-sharing provisions for for-sale units; f. Monitoring and reporting requirements; and,
g. Remedies for breach.

3. Affordability Term.
a. Rental Units. Inclusionary rental units shall remain affordable for a minimum of 55 years from the date of initial occupancy. b. For-Sale Units. Inclusionary for-sale units shall remain affordable for a minimum of 45 years from the date of initial sale.

Item K.2
Packet Page 124
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing

4. Recordation. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to issuance of any building permits or final map approval, whichever occurs first.

H. Construction Timing.

1. Concurrent Construction. Inclusionary Units shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with market-rate units according to the following schedule:
a. When 50 percent of market-rate units receive certificates of occupancy, at least 50 percent of Inclusionary Units shall be completed. b. When 90 percent of market-rate units receive certificates of occupancy, 100 percent of Inclusionary Units shall be completed.

2. Phased Projects. For phased projects, Inclusionary Units shall be proportionally distributed among phases and constructed concurrently within each phase.

I. Implementation and Administration.

1. Program Administration. The Planning Director or their designee shall administer this Section and may adopt administrative guidelines and procedures.

2. Affordable Housing Fund.
a. Establishment. Unless otherwise required by law, all fees, promissory note repayments, shared appreciation payments, or other funds collected under this Section shall be deposited into an Inclusionary Fee Fund, if established, or in an Affordable Housing Fund, if established. b. Use of Funds. Funds shall be used exclusively for:
i. Development of affordable housing;
ii. Preservation or rehabilitation of existing affordable housing; iii. Acquisition of land for affordable housing;
iv. Provision of loans or grants for affordable housing; or, v. Reasonable administrative costs not to exceed 10 percent of annual revenues.
c. Reporting. The City shall annually report on Fund revenues and expenditures consistent with Government Code Section 65906.6.

3. Third-Party Administration. The City may contract with qualified entities to administer tenant selection, income certification, and ongoing monitoring.

4. Annual Monitoring. Owners of Inclusionary Units shall submit timely reports, as determined by the Affordable Housing Agreement, demonstrating compliance with affordability requirements, consistent with Government Code Section 65915.3.

Item K.2
Packet Page 125
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft | City of Orinda | Page 13

5. Monitoring Fees. The City Council may establish fees to cover costs of program administration and monitoring, consistent with Government Code Section 65915.3.

6. Periodic Review.
a. The City Council shall review the In-Lieu Fee at least every two years to ensure the Fee is aligned with current development costs. b. The City Council shall review this Section at least every five years to evaluate its effectiveness and consider adjustments to requirements and income levels.

J. Waivers and Modifications.

1. Authority. An Applicant may submit a request to the City Council to waive or modify the requirements of this Section. The City Council may waive or modify the requirements of this Section upon finding that:
a. An Applicant has shown, based on substantial evidence, that applying the requirements of this Section would take property in violation of the United States or California Constitutions or violate any other state or federal law; or
b. An alternative proposal that involves a waiver or modification of the requirements of this Section would result in the production of more affordable units and more effectively advances this Section's purposes; or c. Application of the requirements would render the Residential Development Project economically infeasible.

2. Application Requirements. Requests for waivers and modifications shall include:
a. A detailed financial analysis that demonstrates the basis for the request.

The City may retain an independent consultant, at the Applicant’s expense, to prepare or review the required financial analysis. b. A deposit of funds, in an amount determined by the City, sufficient to cover the full cost of the consultant and City staff time. Consultant fees are charged in accordance with the City’s adopted Master Fee Schedule, including applicable overhead and administrative surcharges. A waiver or modification request will not be considered complete until the required deposit has been submitted.
c. A description of alternatives considered.
d. The Applicant’s proposed alternative compliance measures, if any.

3. Application Review.
a. Any request for a waiver or modification under this Section shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the Affordable Housing Plan.

Item K.2
Packet Page 126
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing

b. The City Council will review and consider the request for a waiver or modification and this requested review is subject to the same appeal process in Section 17.14.1.L (Appeals).
c. The City Council will review and consider the request for a waiver or modification with an Affordable Housing Plan. This requested review is subject to the same appeal process in Section 17.14.1.L (Appeals).

K. Appeals. Decisions under this Section may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 17.43 (Appeals).

L. Enforcement. Violation of any provision of this Section shall be subject to enforcement as described in Title 19.

Item K.2
Packet Page 127
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Public Review Draft | City of Orinda | Page 15 Section 17.14.2 – Affordable Housing Incentive Program and Density Bonus A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to comply with state law regarding density bonuses and other incentives (California Government Code Section 65915 et seq.), to implement the housing element of the Orinda General Plan and to provide incentives to developers who guarantee that a portion of their housing development will be affordable to persons of lower income, thus expanding housing opportunities for lower-income persons throughout the city.

B. Definitions. Terms used in this section shall be defined as in Government Code Section 65915 et seq.

C. Eligibility for Density Bonus and Incentive(s) or Concession(s). Project applicants shall be granted a density bonus and incentive(s) or concession(s) to the extent and subject to the terms required by California Government Code Section 65915 et seq. Any request for approval of a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s) pursuant to this section shall be made along with other related planning approval requests for the project as specified in the City of Orinda zoning ordinance.

D. Application. Applicants requesting a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s) shall submit an application to the Planning Director together with the first application for approval of the development. The application shall include at least the following information:

1. A concise written description of the project and the planning approval(s) requested.

2. A site plan showing the location and general layout of the proposed development, surrounding land uses and roadways, total number of units, number and location of affordable units, and number and location of density bonus units.

3. Level of affordability of qualifying units and proposals for ensuring affordability.

4. Description of any requested incentive(s) or concession(s), proposed waiver(s) or modification(s) of development standards, and/or parking standards.

5. Reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the requested density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s), waiver(s) or reduction(s) of development standards and/or parking ratios. The application shall identify upon which basis of Government Code Section 65915 the applicant elects to calculate its density bonus. If incentive(s) or concession(s) are requested, the application shall include an explanation of how the incentive(s) or concession(s) result in identifiable and actual cost reductions as described in Government Code Section 65915. If waiver(s) are requested, the application shall describe with a narrative and/or drawings how application of the development standard(s) the applicant seeks to waive would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the proposed development at the densities and with the concession(s) or incentive(s) permitted. If a density bonus parking ratio is requested, the application shall Item K.2
Packet Page 128
Chapter 17.14 – Affordable Housing

identify which parking ratio in Government Code section 65915 applies and describe the characteristics of the proposed development or site that qualify the proposed development for that parking ratio.

6. If an applicant proposes to donate land to the city pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, the application shall provide evidence that each of the associated eligibility conditions has been met.

7. If an applicant proposes to develop a child care facility pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, the application shall show the location and square footage of the child care facility and provide evidence that each of the associated eligibility conditions has been met.

8. Such other materials as the Planning Director may determine are necessary to review the request in accordance with this code and state law.

E. Review Process. An application for a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s) will be processed concurrently with all other applications required for the development. When the application is complete, notice shall be given as required by Section 17.42.1 and a hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the City Council regarding the proposed density bonus and incentive(s) or concession(s). The City Council's decision shall be final.

F. Housing Incentive Agreement Required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any dwelling unit in a development for which a density bonus, incentive(s) or concession(s) have been granted, the applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the city for the mandated duration of affordability. The terms and conditions of the agreement shall run with the land which is to be developed, shall be binding upon the successor in interest of the applicant, and shall be recorded in the Office of the Contra Costa County Recorder. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council and shall address all issues required by state law.

Item K.2
Packet Page 129

ORDINANCE NO. 26-XX
AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE ORINDA MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING) AND

ADOPTING THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND DENSITY

BONUS ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Orinda DOES ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1.

The City Council of the City of Orinda intends, by adopting this ordinance, to enact certain regulations in Title 17 of the Orinda Municipal Code (Zoning). These changes are intended to make the City’s Zoning Code consistent with the City’s Housing Element, comply with State law, and set forth reasonable standards and procedures for residential development projects that enable the City to meet its affordable housing targets. The changes include the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements, generally providing that residential projects above a certain size must include a certain percentage of affordable housing on-site or implement an approved alternative compliance method.

Additionally, this ordinance moves affordable housing incentive program and density bonus provisions currently found at Section 17.4.31 of the Zoning Code to Section 17.14.2 to promote clarity and consistency.

SECTION 2
The City Council finds that the lack of affordable housing has a direct impact upon the health, safety, and welfare of City residents. Due to high housing costs in the region, households at all income levels struggle to find adequate housing they can afford, with particular impacts on very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Rising land costs and limited developable land constrain opportunities for affordable housing development without regulatory requirements or incentives.

The California Legislature requires local jurisdictions to use their powers to facilitate development of housing affordable to all economic segments of the community. This ordinance will promote the inclusion of affordable housing in new City development by enacting reasonable procedures and standards for applicable development projects and creating alternative pathways to compliance that also facilitate affordable housing development.

SECTION 3.

The following portions of the Zoning Code are amended and added as specified below and in Attachment A.

Item K.2
Packet Page 130

Municipal Code Provision Action as shown in Attachment A §17.14 New chapter added
§17.14.1 New section added
§17.4.31 Existing text moved to new section 17.14.2
SECTION 4.

If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase.

SECTION 5.

This ordinance is consistent with the Orinda General Plan, including the relevant affordability goals described in the Housing Element.

SECTION 6.

This ordinance will not result in physical changes in the environment, nor does the ordinance have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The ordinance involves the adoption of policies and programs that may result in applicable developments including affordable housing units or complying via an alternative mechanism. Any potential changes relating to these developments that could occur in the future are speculative and not reasonably foreseeable. These policies and programs will not effectuate a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, nor have a significant effect on the environment and do not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). 14 Cal. Code Regs (“CCR”) §§ 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15378(b)(5).

Separately and independently, the City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to implement the Orinda Housing Element, which is part of Plan Orinda, and not subject to any requirement for additional review under CEQA. On March 18, 2025, the City Council adopted the Revised Final Environmental Impact Report (“RFEIR”) for Plan Orinda via Resolution No. 13-25. The inclusionary program changes contained in this ordinance are within the scope of Plan Orinda and any potential environmental effects were fully evaluated in the related environmental review documents (together, “Program EIR”) adopted for Plan Orinda. 14 CCR §§ 15163, 15168. The Program EIR addresses all requirements of CEQA for this ordinance, including the analysis of significant impacts, cumulatively considerable contributions, and feasible mitigation measures of Plan Orinda.

The Program EIR, among other considerations, analyzed the environmental impacts relating to building adequate affordable housing, achieving consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Goals, and accelerating mixed-income housing adoption. See Program EIR ES-28-29, 4.7-8, 4.7-9. On March 18, 2025, the Council also adopted Resolution No. 13- 25 containing CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations for the Orinda Housing Element based on substantial evidence. Id. § 15183.

Item K.2
Packet Page 131

To the extent inclusionary program changes may have any effect on the environment, the changes do not have any environmental effects not already examined in the Program EIR, including in the RFEIR (id. § 15168) or project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or the site that were not fully analyzed in the Program EIR, including potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts (id. § 15183). Consequently, the inclusionary program changes contained in this ordinance do not require any subsequent review or revisions to the Program EIR. The inclusionary program changes contained in this ordinance are part of the project analyzed in the Program EIR and do not involve any changes in the project or project circumstances that might require revisions to the Program EIR. Id. § 15162; Pub. Res. Code § 21166. Additionally, there are no substantial changes or new information that might require revisions to the Program EIR. 14 CCR §§ 15168, 15183.

SECTION 7.

This ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

SECTION 8.

The City Clerk shall either (a) have this ordinance published once within fifteen (15) days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five (5) days before its adoption and again within fifteen (15) days after adoption.

Following a duly-noticed public hearing, the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on and was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting held on by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Item K.2
Packet Page 132

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Attachment A: Redline document showing changes to Title 17 1990104.2
Item K.2
Packet Page 133