Agenda packet — Orinda City Council, June 9, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, June 09, 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.

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

ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
Introduction of New Assistant Engineer - Nazmieh Huebner Proclamation Declaring the Month of June, 2026 as LGBTQ Pride Month in the City of Orinda

Page 8 ends

Orinda Teen Advisory Council - Annual Report
Orinda Historical Society - Annual Report Page 9
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 13
The City Council will consider approval of the Meeting Minutes of:

1. May 19, 2026, Closed Session

1. May 19, 2026, Regular Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes of

1. May 19, 2026, Closed Session
C.

D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
E.

H.1
Packet Page 2

2. May 19, 2026, Regular Meeting
Approve Agreement with TJKM Transportation Consultants for the Bicycle, Trails, Walkways Master Plan Update

Page 25 ends

The City Council will consider adopting a Resolution, approving an agreement with TJKM Transportation Consultants (TJKM) for planning, engineering and professional design services to prepare the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, Walkways Master Plan Update. The proposed contract amount is $205,890. The master plan update will review and incorporate relevant projects from the 2011 Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan and provide new analysis that examines bicycle and pedestrian safety and needs, creating a comprehensive document that prioritizes multi-modal school commuter safety, safety in school zones and multi-modal transportation throughout the City.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 32-26 to Award a contract to TJKM for the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, Walkways Master Plan Update professional services in the amount of $205,890, and authorize the City Manager to increase contract value by amendment, up to 15% ($31,000).

Accept Work and Contract with Eric F. Anderson Inc. for the Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement Project, CIP No. 4179

Page 89 ends

The City Council will consider adopting Resolution No. 46-26 Accepting the Work and Contract with Eric F. Anderson Inc. (EFA) for the Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement Project, CIP No. 4179.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 46-26 Accepting the Work and Contract with Eric F. Anderson, Inc. (EFA) for the Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement Project, CIP No. 4179.

Adoption of the Appropriation Limit for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Page 93 The City Council will consider setting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 appropriation limit at $29,986,057. It is a requirement under Article XIII of the State Constitution to adopt an annual appropriations limit which sets the amount of tax revenue a government can legally spend. Charges for services, regulatory fees, grants, donations, and other non-tax proceeds are not subject to the limit. Exemptions are also made for voter-approved debt, qualified capital expenditures, and for the cost of compliance with court or Federal government mandates. The limit is allowed to increase annually based on inflation factors. This limit is calculated by multiplying the preceding year's appropriations limit by the percentage change in population of the City or County and H.2
H.3
H.4
Packet Page 3
the percentage change in the California Per Capita Personal Income.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 36-26 Establishing the Annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Agreements for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program
(CCCWP) and the Group Program Inspection Agreement

Page 111 ends

The City Council will consider approval of two agreements, one for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) and one for the Group Program Inspection, which supports compliance with stormwater permit requirements. The CCCWP Agreement is an amended and restated agreement that will extend for a 15-year period.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 37-26 Approving the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) Agreement and Adopt Resolution 38-26 Approving the Group Program Inspection Agreement between City of Orinda and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Public Hearing - Confirm the Diagram and Assessment and Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1, Zones L-42, M-9, and M-11 for Fiscal Year 2026-27

Page 149 ends

The City Council will hold a public hearing and consider confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy and collection of assessments for the 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 will allow the City to continue providing street lighting, landscape maintenance, and related services within the District.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 45-26 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Ordering the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 Zones L-42, M-9 and M-11 for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

Public Hearing - Approval of the City of Orinda Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Master Fee Schedule

Page 192 ends

The City Council will hold a public hearing (scheduled on the consent calendar) and consider adoption of its annual Master Fee Schedule. Fees included address the costs of providing services and the costs to mitigate development impacts. Where appropriate, user fees will be increased by 1.7% to reflect the change (increase) in H.5
H.6
H.7
Packet Page 4
the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban workers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area from February 2025 to February 2026. Fees for the Lamorinda Fee and Finance Authority (LFFA) are adjusted based on the increase in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area for the period ending September

30. RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 28-26 Modifying Fees for Services Rendered by the City for Administrative, Planning, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety Services, and Development Impact Fees.

Accept Work and Contract with Marina Landscape, Inc. as Complete for the Camino Pablo Median Landscape
Improvements (City Project No. 5019) and Accept Donation from the Orinda Garden Club

Page 212 ends

The City Council will consider adopting Resolution No. 42-26 to accept the work for the Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements (Project No. 5019). The project included the installation of two median openings in the event they are necessary for an evacuation, along with new landscaping, irrigation upgrades and paving improvements. In addition, the City Council will accept the donation of $80,000 from the Orinda Garden Club to offset a portion of the project cost.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 42-26 Accepting the Work and Contract with Marina Landscape, Inc. as Complete for the Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements Project, City Project No. 5019 and Accept the donation from the Orinda Garden Club.

PUBLIC HEARING
POLICY MATTERS
Discussion and Update on Ladris Software for Evacuation and Wildfire Modeling

Page 218 ends

The City Council will receive a presentation from Ladris CEO Leo Zlimen on the Ladris software program. Further, the City Council will discuss and provide direction to Staff extending the use of the software for its disaster planning and community education purposes. The existing one-year agreement is set to expire at the end of August 2026. Staff is proposing to enter into two-year extension with an annual fixed cost of $252,700, ensuring continuity of service as the City continues to refine its evacuation modeling and public education efforts.

H.8
I.

J.1
Packet Page 5
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation and discuss the Staff recommendation to continue working with Ladris for two additional years at a fixed annual cost of $252,700.

Pilot Facade Improvement Program Page 221
The City Council will consider adoption of a pilot Facade Improvement Program, following a presentation to and recommendation from the Downtown Planning and Revitalization Subcommittee, composed of Mayor Iverson and Councilmember Hoxie.

The proposed program includes a two-tier grant structure, a $75,000 budget, and an administrative review process intended to reduce project timelines and uncertainty.

Eligible improvements would focus on permanent exterior upgrades, including signage, lighting, storefront improvements, landscaping, outdoor dining enhancements, and ADA accessibility improvements.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 35-26 directing implementation of the Facade Improvement Program, including exemptions from Planning Commission discretionary review, sign permit, tree removal permit, and outdoor dining permit requirements, and waiving applicable City building permit review and encroachment permit fees for approved projects.

Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update, Including CIP Changes, Approval of New Job Classifications, and Annual Consolidated Salary Schedule Update

Page 272 ends

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, which includes changes to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

In addition, Staff is recommending the creation of three new job classifications as part of the staffing plan for Fiscal Year 2026-27 along with the annual update to the Consolidate Salary Schedule which incorporates adjustments for both Unrepresented Employees and the General Employees unit, ensuring alignment and consistency across all classifications.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the following resolutions: 1) Resolution 48-26 Approving the Fiscal Year 2026- J.2
J.3
Packet Page 6
27 Mid-Cycle Budget Adjustment, 2) Resolution 43-26 Approving New Job Classifications, and 3) Resolution 44-26 Approving the Amended Consolidated Salary Schedule
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 925.253.4221 or [email protected] with the following information: name, mailing address, phone number and type of assistance requested.

Packet Page 7
Item D.2
Packet Page 8
OHS ANNUAL REPORT MAY 2026

A REPORT FROM OHS PRESIDENT ALISON BURNS REGARDING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ORINDA HISTORICAL SOCIETY (OHS), WHICH OPERATES IN A ROOM (“THE MUSEUM”) LEASED TO OHS AS PART OF THE ORINDA LIBRARY.

The OHS Board comprises the following ten volunteers:
• Alison Burns, President
• Cheryl Cechvala, Vice-President
• Vivian Ricci, Recording Secretary
• Nancy Royster, Treasurer
• Teresa Long, Archivist
• Wendy Harnett, Membership Secretary
• Laurie Smith, Schools Co-ordinator
• Reg Barrett
• Kathy Barrett
• Kay Norman
In addition, we have two volunteers, Mary de Luna and Karen Holm, whose work we greatly value.

As we enter our sixth year of resurrecting OHS, the Society continues to be a very popular community hub. Officially, the Museum is open from 11am to 1pm every Saturday, but we welcome members of the public who wish to come in during the week to conduct research. In addition Our volunteers also work in the Museum during the week, and will allow people in to look around, or answer queries, providing two or more OHS members are present. In the last three years, our volunteers have worked extremely hard to get a massive amount of documents digitized and online, and anyone undertaking research is pointed towards our website orindahistory.org where they'll find a button to view our archives.

OUTREACH & EDUCATION

COMMUNITY EVENTS
OHS participated in multiple public events, including:
• The Orinda Classic Car Show (September 2025),
• The Friends of Wagner Ranch Nature Area 45th Anniversary Family Event (October 2025), • Trunk or Treat (October 2025)
• The All Orinda Reunion (September 2025), where oral history interviews of attendees were also conducted.

HIGH SCHOOL REUNION GROUPS
OHS hosted the Miramonte Class of 1965 (60-year reunion) at the museum in October 2025.

This was the brainchild of volunteer Karen Holm, who created such a successful event that other Miramonte classes are now eager to include a similar experience as part of their own reunions.

Item D.4
Packet Page 9

2. MUSEUM VISITS AND DOWNTOWN WALKS FOR ELEMENTARY

STUDENTS
Last May Kay Norman conducted a tour for a Glorietta class, while on the same day, OHS Schools Coordinator, Laurie Smith, gave a separate presentation to two Glorietta classes.

This year, Laurie conducted six School Tours — three for Glorietta Elementary and three for Sleepy Hollow, on May 12, 14, 20, 21, and 22. Each tour lasted approximately 1 1/4 hours but schools find this so successful that we're hoping to make it two hours in future so that teachers get for more time to engage with their class.

As an aside… one of our teens told us that the reason she now volunteers in the Museum was because, as a third grader, she'd been so captivated by the OHS downtown walk she wanted to learn more about Orinda's history.

THE DE LAVEAGA TRAIN STATION
The 19th century train station was given to the City of Orinda in 1999 and since then has been part of the OHS downtown tour. Up until recently, OHS volunteers have had to clean it out themselves before each tour since it suffers badly from rodent infestation, and we've lost a number of artifacts (books, dolls, pictures) due to nesting mice. We are very concerned about any infection these rodent droppings might spread. In April 2025 I met with Ross Volker and Steve Erhardt who undertook to seal the gaps to the outside. In April 2026, after a meeting with Todd Trimble, it was agreed that the City would be responsible for regular cleaning. We do need to keep this train station clean and safe since it's the highlight of the school tours and the kids like to examine every corner!
ORINDA INCORPORATION 40TH ANNIVERSARY
OHS staffed a display table at the City Council Meeting/Ice Cream Social celebrating Orinda's 40th anniversary. Mayor Latika Malkani publicly thanked OHS for its contributions, and President Alison Burns received commendations on behalf of OHS at the Mayor's Community Liaison Meeting.

TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
Overseen by Vivian Ricci, OHS actively engages Orinda-area teens as volunteers, providing meaningful work experience — and in many cases, school credit — while contributing to the preservation of Orinda's history. Teen volunteers assist with projects including oral history interviews, photo and newspaper scanning, social media, and museum support.

This program reflects OHS's commitment to engaging the next generation with local history and giving back to the Orinda community. Our student volunteers during the last year have been: Daniel Litwin, Miles Ferguson, Kathryn Nguyen, Samantha Damonte, Ian Kim, Tatiana Romero, Will Leibowitz and Phoebe and Ida Schultz.

Item D.4
Packet Page 10

3. COMMUNITY CENTER SLIDESHOW
Vice President Cheryl Cechvala staged a comprehensive slide show commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Orinda Community Center (formerly Orinda Union School). The slide show rotated on the large screen at the Community Center entrance and was much enjoyed by the Center's many visitors .

ORINDA NEWS COLUMN
President Alison Burns began writing "All Our Yesterdays," a recurring history column in the Orinda News, bringing Orinda history to a broad community audience. Subjects have highlighted the old De Laveaga Train Station; the search for the (1940s?) Les Sipes photo of the kids on an Orinda FD fire truck; and the digitization work undertaken by California Revealed, before the current Administration withdrew its funding.

OUTREACH PRESENTATIONS
Kay Norman gave a presentation on Orinda history at the Orinda Community Church with a book signing by Alison Burns. Kay and Alison provided refreshments including beverages, savory croissants and a choice of homemade desserts.

HISTORIC WALKING TOURS
Kay Norman lead a very successful historic walking tour for the Orinda Hiking Club in April 2026, ending with a thorough examination of the de Laveaga Train Station.

ORINDA ASSOCIATION 80TH ANNIVERSARY
Alison Burns authored an article for the Orinda News covering the OA's 80th anniversary. OHS also plans to open the museum during the OA's celebration event.

ORAL HISTORY PROGRAM

COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS
Teen volunteers, coordinated by Vice President Cheryl Cechvala, are in the process of conducting oral history interviews of Orinda community leaders including John Fazel, Joyce Hawkins, and Irene Ingram Smith, in addition to attendees at the All Orinda Reunion. After editing, videos will be made publicly available via a new OHS YouTube channel linked to the updated website. Oral interviews are overseen by Vice-President Cheryl Cechvala, with significant input from OIS student Ida Schultz and Miramonte teen Phoebe Schultz.

Item D.4
Packet Page 11

4. DIGITIZATION & PRESERVATION

ORINDA SUN NEWSPAPERS
Orinda Sun newspapers (1960 to 1963) were digitized through a California Revealed grant and are available online. Scanning of Orinda News issues is ongoing with volunteers.

ARCHIVE DONATIONS OHS received two significant donations to its archives: a thumb drive of historical photographs and documents from the Moraga-Orinda Fire Department's Rescue 1 support group, and multiple boxes of Orinda history papers from the families of the late Lucy Hupp Williams, Carl Webber, and Richard Heggie.

PHOTO USE AGREEMENT
OHS formalized a Photograph Use Agreement — developed with the legal guidance of attorney Ben Riley (husband of our Council Liaison, Janet Riley), governing use of OHS photos by authors, educators, and researchers.

SOCIAL MEDIA

WEBSITE REFRESH
OHS engaged Springwave Studios under a 6-month contract to redesign and update the OHS website, improving public access to Orinda history resources. The project is currently in progress.

INSTAGRAM
The OHS Instagram page https://www.instagram.com/p/DTWHJJEErFA/ continues to disseminate information in eye-catching bitesize chunks. Initially set up by Recording Secretary Vivian Ricci, working closely with student volunteer Daniel Litwin, updates are now the responsibility of student volunteers Ida Schultz, Phoebe Schultz and Miles Ferguson.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

GRANTS & DONATIONS
Our income is fairly limited so we were delighted to receive a $1,500 grant from the Orinda Community Foundation which allowed us to replace our ancient computer. We were also given a $2,600 community donation in honor of former Mayor/Councilmember Aldo Guidotti, demonstrating ongoing community support for OHS.

ALISON BURNS/5.18.26
Item D.4
Packet Page 12

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Approval of City Council Minutes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

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

1. May 19, 2026, Closed Session

1. May 19, 2026, Regular Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes of

1. May 19, 2026, Closed Session

2. May 19, 2026, Regular Meeting
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Minutes of May 19, 2026, Closed Session B. City Council Minutes of May 19, 2026, Regular Meeting

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

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item H.1
Packet Page 13
May 19, 2026

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
6:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
Vice Mayor Gee called the meeting to order and noted that three Councilmembers were present, except Mayor Iverson and Councilmember Malkani. Mayor Iverson joined the Closed Session at 6:05 PM.

B. CLOSED SESSION

1. OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION of Closed Session Matters The Closed Session Matters were identified.

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

3. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, conference with Real Property Negotiators.

Property: approximately 457 square feet of space located in the Orinda Library Building at 26 Orinda Way, currently occupied by the Orinda Association. Agency negotiators: Linda Smith (City Manager), Todd Trimble (Director of Parks and Recreation), and Osa Wolff (City Attorney). Negotiating parties: City of Orinda and the Orinda Association, current lessee. Under negotiation: Price and terms of possible lease agreement extension/renewal.
b. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, conference with Real Property Negotiators.

Property: approximately 593 square feet of space located in the Orinda Library Building at 26 Orinda Way, currently occupied by the Orinda Historical Society.

Agency negotiators: Linda Smith (City Manager), Todd Trimble (Director of Parks and Recreation), and Osa Wolff (City Attorney). Negotiating parties: City of Orinda and the Orinda Historical Society, current lessee. Under negotiation: Price and terms of possible lease agreement extension/renewal.

C. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 P.M.
_______________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item H.1
Packet Page 14
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 10 05.19.26
MAY 19, 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 at ssmith@cityoforindagov 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: Cara Hoxie, Janet Riley
Mayor Brandyn Iverson, Vice Mayor Darlene Gee
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Latika Malkani
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Iverson.

C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Mayor Iverson announced there were no reportable items from the Closed Session held earlier.

D. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Mayor Iverson, and seconded by Councilmember Hoxie, to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0-1; Malkani absent) vote.

E. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
E.1 Proclamation - Recognizing May 17-23, 2026, as National Public Works Week - "Rooted in Service, Powered by Community"
Public Works Director Scott Christie said the Public Works Department appreciates the proclamation, noting the Council has always supported the department and cited the professionalism and hard work of City Public Works staff.

Councilmembers voiced appreciation to the Public Works Department, and Mayor Iverson presented and read the Proclamation recognizing May 17-23, 2026, as National Public Works Week – “Rooted in Service, Powered by Community.” E.2 Certificate of Recognition - Jewish American Heritage Month Mayor Iverson reflected on her visits to Temple Isaiah and emphasized the significance of recognizing Jewish American Heritage Month before presenting the Certificate of Recognition. She then invited Councilmember Hoxie to share remarks.

Item H.1
Packet Page 15
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 10 05.19.26
Councilmember Hoxie spoke about her family’s Jewish roots in Orinda, noting her parents were among the City’s first Jewish families and referencing historical covenant restrictions once included in their deed. She highlighted the community’s progress toward greater inclusion and emphasized the importance of celebrating diversity and unity across all backgrounds and faiths.

F. PUBLIC FORUM – None.

G. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Vice Mayor Gee reported on Orinda’s hosting of the CCTA Spring Workshop on May 14–15, noting positive feedback regarding the City’s public art, Community Center, and civic complex. She explained the workshop focused on the potential renewal of the County sales tax measure.

Mayor Iverson, who was unable to attend, requested that workshop materials be shared with Councilmembers.

Councilmember Hoxie summarized the recent TSAC meeting, where members discussed bike and pedestrian safety, including a request to make the topic a standing agenda item. TSAC also advanced the RFP process for the Bike and Trails Master Plan and discussed community outreach, e-bike safety, and related matters. Mayor Iverson also referenced recent changes to Moraga Way light timing and pedestrian crossings, emphasizing the need to keep project updates current.

Councilmember Riley reported attending the City/School 2x2 meeting with Councilmember Malkani, where crossing guards were a primary topic. She also attended the Art in Public Places Committee meeting, noting that all artwork loan agreements were recommended for new five-year terms. She highlighted the installation of a large elephant sculpture made from repurposed metal near the Community Center. Additionally, she noted discussions are underway to relocate the butterfly pole artwork that must be removed to accommodate ADA accessibility improvements near the Kinder Gym.

Mayor Iverson reported attending the monthly Mayor Liaison meeting and highlighted Miramonte High School’s “Challenge Success” initiative, which focuses on student mental and social well-being and has shown measurable positive results. She noted the current principal is transitioning to a district leadership with Orinda Union role, with a replacement expected by month’s end.

She also shared that the Tabor Student exchange program is still seeking a host family for a male student arriving August 10. Additional updates included the successful Mayors’ Conference hosted in Orinda on May 7, Rotary Field Day on May 9, Safeway’s re-grand opening on May 13, Bike to Anywhere Day events at BART on May 14, and the May 16 opening of the Dog Park.

Item H.1
Packet Page 16
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 10 05.19.26
Looking ahead, Mayor Iverson announced the June 1 Pride Flag Raising ceremony and recognized Councilmember Malkani’s event last year. She also reported attending the Downtown Revitalization meeting with Councilmember Hoxie, where discussion included launching a façade improvement program for Downtown properties and reported on the preliminary conversations about a potential entertainment zone in Theater Square.

H. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Smith reported attending the Wildfire Task Force meeting convened by Senator Grayson’s office on May 8 in Lafayette, where she and Mayor Iverson participated in discussions on regional wildfire and evacuation modeling software. She emphasized the need for a broader regional funding approach rather than Orinda bearing the costs alone and noted Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan is coordinating a meeting with Cal Fire. Mayor Iverson added that fire breaks are now being incorporated into state and insurance fire modeling maps.

She also reported on her role as Chair of the East Bay Radio Communication Systems Authority, noting the Finance Committee recently met to discuss equitable cost-sharing among counties for system maintenance.

Additional updates included the launch of Thursday Nights in Orinda, with food truck events underway and the summer concert series beginning June 4. She noted that recent signal timing changes on Moraga Way appear to be reducing cut-through traffic as drivers adjust, while police continue monitoring traffic activity and new speed limits on Orchard Road.

She further reported that tile work has been completed and work is continuing on the Library roof, new LED lighting has been installed at Wilder Sports Field, and the new dog park officially opened over the weekend. Lastly, she thanked City Clerk Sheri Smith for coordinating the Mayors’ Conference and Recreation Director Todd Trimble and the public works team for their work on the dog park project.

I. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Iverson asked if Councilmembers or the public wished to remove any items. Vice Mayor Gee requested removal of Item I.4. There were no further requests and no public comments.

I.1 Approval of City Council Minutes
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
I.2 Appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Contra Costa County Connection Advisory Committee.

Item H.1
Packet Page 17
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 10 05.19.26
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.

I.3 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 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:

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, M9, And M-11.

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 L42, M-9, And M-11.

I.5 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.

I.6 Authorization for Caltrans Submittal - "Downtown Orinda” Identification on Highway 24
Item H.1
Packet Page 18
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 10 05.19.26
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.

MOTION by Councilmember Hoxie moved, and seconded by Councilmember Riley to approve Consent Calendar Items I.1, I.2, I.3, I.5, and I.6. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0-1; Malkani absent) vote.

Item Removed from the Consent Calendar:

I.4 Budget Increase for Traffic Pole Replacement
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
Vice Mayor Gee said if someone has an accident and damages the traffic signal pole she asked if there is insurance coverage for that.

Assistant City Manager Doug Alessio said in this particular instance they were a noninsured motorist, and the City is placing a claim with their property insurance. Hopefully, the City will receive reimbursement for this; however, they must fix the pole before the process plays out.

MOTION by Vice Mayor Gee moved, and seconded by Councilmember Hoxie to approve Consent Calendar Item I.4. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0-1; Malkani absent) vote.

J. PUBLIC HEARING – None.

K. POLICY MATTERS
K.1 Report on the City’s Efforts to Obtain Grant Funding 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.

City Manager Smith stated Matt Kamm, Project Manager, and his team from California Consulting will provide an update on on-going efforts with them and with staff.

Item H.1
Packet Page 19
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 10 05.19.26
Matt Kamm, Project Manager, introduced Senior Project Manager David Marquez and presented an overview of the City’s grant funding efforts, highlighting the successful acquisition of more than $2.17 million over the past three years. The presentation covered collaboration with City staff, the grant application process at the local, state, and federal levels, awarded and pending grants, and future priorities including multimodal transportation, green space improvements, pickleball courts at Wilder Park, and wildfire prevention initiatives.

Vice Mayor Gee asked about future Safe Routes to School funding opportunities given Orinda’s ineligibility for many grants targeted toward disadvantaged communities. Mr.

Kamm explained that while many state grants prioritize disadvantaged areas, emerging federal opportunities may provide additional funding avenues. He noted that staff continues to closely monitor opportunities through the State, County, and MTC.

Mr. Marquez confirmed that Orinda faces challenges competing for certain state grants due to its demographic profile, but noted there are still opportunities through ATP planning grants and regional funding programs administered through MPOs such as MTC. He emphasized that timing is critical, with potential ATP funding opportunities anticipated within the next six months.

Mr. Marquez also stressed the importance of documenting traffic and pedestrian safety concerns near schools, including incidents, collisions, injuries, public correspondence, petitions, agenda discussions, and community engagement efforts, all of which strengthen future grant applications.

Mayor Iverson requested additional public education on how residents can help document safety concerns for grant purposes. Mr. Marquez explained that community input submitted through letters, emails, petitions, presentations, and public meetings can all support grant applications.

In response to Mayor Iverson’s question regarding Orinda’s grant success relative to other jurisdictions, Mr. Marquez stated that while comparisons vary depending on project needs and grant strategies, securing more than $2 million in funding over three years is a strong outcome for a non-disadvantaged community. He added that continued relationship-building with funding agencies and program managers has improved the City’s competitiveness in recent years.

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

Mayor Iverson and Councilmembers thanked representatives for their presentation.

City Manager Smith commented she enjoys working with California Consulting and described new Proposition 4 and FEMA funding opportunities for wildfire work.

K.2 Proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - Recommendations from Affordable Housing Subcommittee
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:

Item H.1
Packet Page 20
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 10 05.19.26
Receive the Subcommittee’s recommendations and provide direction to Staff regarding the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO).

Planning Director Lashun Cross presented a staff report and PowerPoint overview of the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including recommendations from the Affordable Housing Subcommittee members Vice Mayor Gee and Councilmember Malkani. She reviewed the ordinance development timeline, Housing Element policies, and key policy considerations, including project size thresholds, affordable housing percentages, design and timing requirements, in-lieu fees, developer incentives, and affordability administration.

Ms. Cross summarized prior Planning Commission and City Council study sessions, which identified four primary focus areas for further review: maintaining affordable housing quality while increasing unit production, reducing the affordability requirement from 15% to 10%, evaluating whether single-family developments should remain exempt, and revising the in-lieu fee structure to a flat fee per required affordable unit with consideration of partial build-out alternatives.

She outlined staff and subcommittee recommendations to: reduce the affordable housing requirement from 15% to 10%; continue exempting single-family residential developments; replace the in-lieu fee calculation based on net residential square footage with a flat fee per required affordable unit; and update ordinance definitions while removing State density bonus law references from the exemption section. She asked whether the Council generally supported these proposed changes before the item returns to the Planning Commission and later to the City Council.

Councilmember Hoxie questioned the proposed exemption for single-family developments, citing Orinda Grove as an example of a project that appeared capable of incorporating affordable units. Ms. Cross responded that feasibility analyses conducted by Lisa Wise Consulting found inclusionary requirements generally infeasible for singlefamily projects due to development costs, particularly in Orinda’s topographic conditions.

Councilmember Hoxie suggested including single-family projects in the ordinance and allowing applicants to seek exemptions based on demonstrated hardship rather than exempting them categorically. Ms. Cross noted that policy determination rests with the Council.

Vice Mayor Gee stated she would not characterize Orinda Grove as a typical single-family development, while City Attorney Osa Wolff agreed further analysis may be needed to determine how such projects would be classified under the ordinance based on subdivision maps and housing configurations.

Councilmember Riley sought clarification regarding waiver and modification provisions.

Ms. Cross explained developers could request exemptions or modifications to affordability requirements based on financial hardship, including requests to reduce or eliminate affordable housing obligations.

Councilmember Riley also confirmed that discussions did not involve TOC regulations, which remain under revision and are not yet applicable.

Item H.1
Packet Page 21
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 10 05.19.26
Mayor Iverson asked for clarification regarding affordability categories within the proposed 10% requirement. City Manager Smith explained the baseline requirement is set at low-income housing, with conversion formulas allowing developers to substitute moderate- or very low-income units at adjusted percentages. City Attorney Wolff noted the ordinance packet includes detailed conversion formulas for different affordability levels.

Mayor Iverson concluded by observing that the ordinance tables distinguish between apartments and condominiums, with moderate-income requirements translating to approximately 15% moderate-income units compared to 10% low-income units.

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

Vice Mayor Gee explained that the Affordable Housing Subcommittee sought to balance the City’s housing obligations with economic feasibility for developers. She noted the recommendations were intended to acknowledge Orinda’s housing needs, maintain competitiveness with neighboring jurisdictions, and provide enough flexibility for projects to remain viable. She added that developers would likely continue using State density bonus provisions and that the proposed 10% inclusionary requirement reflected a goodfaith effort to address housing concerns while preserving negotiation flexibility.

Councilmember Hoxie expressed support for the proposed 10% requirement, citing the success of the Orinda Grove project. However, she remained concerned about exempting single-family developments, suggesting future projects such as those comparable to Wilder might have been capable of accommodating affordable housing requirements. She encouraged continued discussion regarding whether the exemption remains appropriate.

Councilmember Riley supported all four recommendations and thanked the subcommittee for its work. While acknowledging limited opportunities for large singlefamily developments in Orinda, she noted the ordinance could be revisited in the future if additional development opportunities arise.

Mayor Iverson praised the subcommittee’s thoughtful work and acknowledged the effort to strike balance, but stated she remained opposed to adopting the ordinance at this time.

She argued Orinda’s primary housing issue is a lack of overall production rather than an imbalance between market-rate and affordable housing. She noted recent affordable housing production has largely occurred through State density bonus incentives and fully affordable projects, questioning whether additional local requirements would unnecessarily burden development.

Mayor Iverson also expressed concern that inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fees could discourage housing production in a city already challenged by topography, wildfire constraints, and a difficult development environment. She referenced past projects such as Wilder, which experienced significant financial challenges, and argued that layering additional regulations could further discourage investment in Orinda. While supportive of the ordinance framework itself, she suggested preparing the ordinance but delaying adoption until a clearer need arises.

Item H.1
Packet Page 22
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10 05.19.26
Councilmember Hoxie asked whether adoption of an inclusionary ordinance was required under the Housing Element. City Manager Smith clarified that the City was required to evaluate and consider inclusionary zoning but was not obligated to adopt an ordinance.

She added that HCD had not specifically required implementation at this time.

Discussion then shifted to the proposed comparability provisions for affordable units developed under State density bonus law. City Manager Smith explained that without an inclusionary ordinance, the City has limited authority to require affordable units to be comparable in quality, size, or integration with market-rate units. She noted staff has observed projects proposing smaller or lower-quality affordable units and viewed the ordinance as an important tool to establish minimum comparability standards.

City Attorney Wolff added that staff currently relies primarily on persuasion and fair housing principles when negotiating for comparable units, but an inclusionary ordinance would provide stronger legal support for requiring integration and consistency between affordable and market-rate units.

Councilmember Riley expressed concern about the City’s limited leverage without such standards in place. City Manager Smith responded that while many local developers have been cooperative, the City would otherwise rely largely on relationships and voluntary compliance.

Mayor Iverson acknowledged the importance of comparability goals but questioned whether duplicating regulations already addressed under fair housing laws could further complicate housing development. She emphasized her broader concern about increasing regulatory layers contributing to California’s housing challenges.

Councilmember Hoxie stated she appreciated retaining some local control over affordable housing quality and remained generally supportive of moving forward, though she also did not want the ordinance to discourage development opportunities.

Vice Mayor Gee emphasized that the proposed ordinance was not intended to prevent housing projects but rather to provide reasonable standards while preserving flexibility for developers. She also noted the broader political environment surrounding housing policy, observing that neighboring jurisdictions such as Lafayette and Moraga already have inclusionary ordinances in place. She expressed concern that Orinda could become a target for criticism or increased state scrutiny if it failed to demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts.

City Manager Smith suggested that if the Council wished to preserve flexibility, a frontend waiver process could be incorporated into the ordinance, allowing developers to seek early relief from affordability requirements before investing substantial time and resources into project planning. Mayor Iverson responded positively to that concept, noting it could provide both greater certainty for developers and maintain an element of local control.

Councilmember Riley supported the idea of including strong introductory policy language emphasizing comparability goals, flexibility, and the availability of waivers, describing it as a potentially business-friendly compromise that could help guide future discussions with developers.

Item H.1
Packet Page 23
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 10 05.19.26
City Manager Smith summarized the Council’s direction to staff, identifying two primary areas for further analysis: whether affordable housing comparability requirements could be implemented outside of an inclusionary zoning ordinance, and whether developers could receive earlier certainty regarding affordability requirements before investing significant time and resources into formal applications. She noted the number of projects potentially affected would likely remain small, as most multifamily developments would continue to utilize State density bonus law due to its broader developer protections. Staff will further investigate these issues and return to the Council and Affordable Housing Subcommittee with additional information.

Mayor Iverson requested that the Affordable Housing Subcommittee also review how other jurisdictions have addressed comparability standards within State density bonus projects, particularly in cities with larger-scale developments. Vice Mayor Gee agreed with that additional direction and supported the broader follow-up analysis.

Councilmember Hoxie requested further clarification regarding whether Orinda Grove would be classified as a single-family or multifamily development under the proposed ordinance framework. While City Manager Smith noted the project was approved under significantly different economic conditions in 2008, Councilmember Hoxie reiterated her interest in continuing discussion regarding the proposed single-family exemption. Smith responded that the issue largely remains a policy decision, as current feasibility analyses suggest inclusionary requirements for single-family projects may not be financially viable, and many such developments would likely rely on State density bonus protections regardless.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – None.

L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:51 p.m. to the next Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, June 09, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item H.1
Packet Page 24

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Agreement with TJKM Transportation Consultants for the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, Walkways Master Plan Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 32-26 to Approving an Agreement with TJKM Transportation Consultants for the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, Walkways Master Plan Update.

BACKGROUND:

The current Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan, adopted in January 2011, presented a long-term vision to guide the development of Orinda’s bicycle facilities, walkways, and trails over a 20-year period. Most of the projects identified in the current plan have either been completed or in the process of being implemented. An update to the Master Plan will ensure the current needs of the community are met.

DISCUSSION:

The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, Walkways Master Plan Update on February 5, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the City received three (3) proposals in response to the RFP. The following firms submitted proposals: Alta Planning + Design, Inc., Fehr & Peers, and TJKM Transportation Consultants. Staff reviewed the proposals in accordance with qualifications-based selection requirements (State Government Code 4526).

Item H.2
Packet Page 25
Following the initial evaluation, staff invited all three of the consultants to participate in interviews. Interviews were conducted on April 4-5, 2026, and provided an opportunity for the firms to further demonstrate their experience with similar bicycle and walkway master plans, task management, public outreach and data collection.

Based on the combined evaluation of written proposals and interview performance, TJKM was ranked as the most qualified consultant and received the highest overall score.

Staff unsealed TJKM’s cost proposal and based on the scope and hours estimate in each task, determined that the total fee of $205,890 is reasonable and appropriate for the scope of services to be provided. As with other professional services contracts, billing is based on time and materials actually expended.

The objective of the 2026 Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan Update is to review and incorporate relevant projects from the 2011 Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan and provide new analysis that examines bicycle and pedestrian safety and needs, creating a comprehensive document that prioritizes multi-modal school commuter safety, safety in school zones and multi-modal transportation throughout the City. The plan will have long-term effects on the prioritization and development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the City to increase user safety.

The City’s existing bicycle network consists of paths (Class 1), bicycle lanes (Class II), and bicycle routes (Class III – sharrows) that are mainly along principal arterials, Camino Pablo and Moraga Way and minor arterials such as Glorietta Boulevard. Some walkways and bicycle facilities exist at the south City limits, where there is a concentration of three schools, Del Rey Elementary, Orinda Intermediate School, and Miramonte High School.

There are gaps in some areas without walkways, and no separate bicycle facilities exist except for on Moraga Way. Trail considerations would include locations such as the de Laveaga Trail, EBMUD trail at Wagner Ranch, St. Stephen's pedestrian and bicycle trail, and public trails in Wilder.

E-bike and scooter usage has become more common as a complementary mode of transportation for communities. The Master Plan should consider how to safely integrate newer modes of transportation.

The City wishes to create a comprehensive Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan Update which will:
 Present and detail the existing bicycle network and pedestrian facilities;  Identify current gaps and future opportunities to improve pedestrian and bike ridership;
Item H.2
Packet Page 26
 Provide connections between the existing bicycle and pedestrian network in the Town of Moraga, City of Lafayette, and Tilden Park and consider greater regional connections and future developments outside of the City;  Support and advance the City’s efforts toward creating safe routes to school and ensuring equitable access to planned or developed facilities and amenities throughout the City;
 Provide recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian needs and facility recommendations;
 Identify and prioritize projects to enhance the existing bicycle and pedestrian network; and
 Propose an implementation plan.

The recommended consultant, TJKM, will work closely with City staff and will be responsible for providing planning, engineering, and support necessary efforts for the preparation and adoption of the Updated Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A budget appropriation for the total not-to-exceed cost of the subject professional services contract (including amendments, if authorized, of up to $31,000) is reflected in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Adjustment which is on the agenda for tonight’s City Council meeting. Funding will be split 50% from Fund 205 Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) and 50% from Fund 330 CCTA Return to Source (RTS).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

2. Infrastructure Strategy and Improvement
d) Focus on capital projects that enhance circulation, mobility, and transportation and improve road safety overall.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 32-26
B. TJKM Contract with Scope of Services, Schedule, and Proposal Prepared by: T. Ryan O’Kane, Senior Engineer
Respectfully Submitted by,
Scott Christie, Director of Public Works &
Engineering
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item H.2
Packet Page 27
RESOLUTION NO. 32-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS FOR THE

BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2026, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, Walkways Master Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2026 the City received three proposals in response to the RFP; and
WHEREAS, Staff reviewed the proposals in accordance with qualifications-based selection requirements (State Government Code 4526) and determined TJKM to be the most qualified firm; and
WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed TJKM’s cost proposal for the work and their associated rate sheets and found it to be reasonable and consistent with industry rates, with a proposed not to exceed amount of $205,890; and
WHEREAS, the approval of this Agreement is contingent on budget update approval, which is being considered at the June 9, 2026 City Council meeting.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda hereby approve an agreement with TJKM Transportation Consultants for the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan Update.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute contract in substantial conformance to the form provided in the associated staff report, and also authorizes the City Manager to increase the contract amount, if justified, by an amount up to $31,000, subject to budget availability.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting of the Council held on June 9, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item H.2
Packet Page 28
1 CITY OF ORINDA

SERVICES CONTRACT
TJKM Transportation Consultants (“Provider”) and the City of Orinda (“City”), a municipal corporation, agree as follows. City and Provider are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

1. Purpose of Contract.
a. City requires certain special services for the purpose of the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, Walkways Master Plan Update RFP dated February 5, 2026. b. Provider is qualified to provide these services and is willing to provide them according to all of the terms of this agreement, including all insurance requirements set forth herein.

2. Duties of Provider.
a. Provider agrees to perform services described in Exhibit A, which is attached to this agreement and incorporated by this reference. Provider agrees to perform these services diligently in accordance with the standards of its profession and to City’s satisfaction.

Provider promises and agrees to furnish to City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately perform the services described in this agreement.
b. The parties may, from time to time, agree in writing that Provider, for additional compensation, shall perform additional services. c. Provider shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this agreement. Provider shall notify City in writing of any changes in Provider’s staff assigned. City may, in its sole discretion, determine that a person assigned to perform services is not performing in accordance with the standards required herein. If the City makes such a determination, Provider shall replace such person immediately.

3. Time of Performance.
a. This agreement shall not be effective and no payments shall be made to Provider until:
(i) City has received satisfactory evidence that Provider has met all of the insurance requirements, and
(ii) All required signatures have been obtained.
b. The effective date of this agreement shall be the date on which the last signature is affixed or on receipt of satisfactory evidence of insurance, whichever is later.

Item H.2
Packet Page 29
2 c. The services of Provider shall begin no sooner than the effective date and shall continue until all work is approved by City. All work shall be completed no later than June 30, 2027. If a Schedule of Performance is provided in Exhibit A, Provider must deliver the services according to that schedule.
d. Time is of the essence for the performance of the services. Provider must have sufficient time, resources, and qualified staff to deliver the services on time, according to any Schedule of Performance specified in Exhibit A.

4. Compensation.
a. City agrees to pay Provider at the rates described in Provider’s proposal (Exhibit B), based on actual costs on a time & materials basis, not to exceed a maximum contract price of $205,890 for satisfactory performance of the services under this agreement. b. Provider shall bill City on a monthly basis for work done in the preceding month. Provider’s project manager shall review and sign the invoice. The billings shall contain, as a minimum, total hours worked on the project by position, hourly rates, total amount due for the period and a contract payment status summary showing total billed to date compared to total authorized contract amount. In addition, Provider shall describe work that was completed during the monthly billing period both in qualitative terms (e.g., listing project activities) and in quantitative terms (e.g., scope of work completion percentage). City, at its sole discretion, shall evaluate the billing and determine whether or not the amount billed is commensurate with the state of completion of the work. If City determines that the amount billed exceeds the status of completion of either an individual task or the entire project, then City may reduce the amount of the progress payment accordingly.
c. The parties shall agree in writing to any changes in compensation due to changes in Provider’s services prior to performance of those changed services. d. To the extent that Provider’s insurance documentation is not in compliance with the requirements of this agreement and the City Attorney is required to intervene to explain and obtain the proper documentation from Provider’s insurer, the cost of the City Attorney’s services will be deducted from the contract price to which Provider would otherwise be entitled under the terms of this agreement.

5. Provider Status.
a. Provider is an independent contractor and is solely responsible for its acts and omissions. Provider is not City’s agent, employee, partner, joint venture, or representative for any purpose. Provider has no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City. Provider is solely responsible for the means and methods of performing the services under this agreement and for the persons hired to work under this agreement. Provider shall direct and control its personnel and shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with this agreement and as required by law. Provider is responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel. Provider shall pay of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of Provider’s business, and shall provide City with proof of Item H.2
Packet Page 30
3 compliance upon request. Provider is not entitled to health benefits, worker’s compensation, or other benefits from the City.
b. Provider is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. Provider and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall not have any claim under this agreement or otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick leave, personal time off, overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits, social security, disability, unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any kind. Provider shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, fees, contributions, or charges applicable to Provider’s business including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes. City shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes or benefits on behalf of Provider. Should any court, arbitrator, or administrative authority, including but not limited to the Internal Revenue Service or the State Employment Development Division, determine that Provider, or any of its employees, agents, or subcontractors, is an employee for any purpose, then Provider agrees to a reduction in amounts payable under this agreement, or to promptly remit to City any payments due by the City as a result of such determination, so that the City’s total expenses under this agreement are not greater than they would have been had the determination not been made.

6. Conflict of Interest.

Provider understands that its professional responsibility is solely to City. Provider warrants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any direct or indirect interest, that would conflict with its performance of this agreement. Provider shall not employ a person having such an interest in the performance of this agreement.

Provider and its agents or employees working under this agreement shall submit statements of economic interest under the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.) if requested to do so by City.

7. Work Product, Intellectual Property and Records.
a. Ownership. All documents furnished to Provider by City and all reports or work product (including electronically stored documents) prepared by Provider under this agreement are City’s property and shall be given to City at the completion of Provider’s services without restriction or limitation on use or dissemination by City. Provider grants City a royaltyfree, exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish and use all original computer programs, writing, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, diagrams, charts, computations, drawings, and other works of similar nature produced in the course of the performance of this agreement. Provider shall not publish any such material without the prior written consent of City.
b. Right to Use. Provider represents and warrants that it has the legal right to utilize all intellectual property it will utilize in the performance of this agreement. Provider further represents that it shall ensure City has the legal right to utilize all intellectual property involved in and/or resulting from Provider’s performance of this agreement.

Item H.2
Packet Page 31
4 c. Confidential Information. In the performance of this agreement, Provider may be given access to confidential information owned or controlled by the City, which may contain proprietary or confidential details the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to City. Provider shall hold in confidence all City information provided by City to Provider and use it only to perform this agreement. Provider shall exercise the same standard of care to protect City information as a reasonably prudent contractor would use to protect its own proprietary data.
d. Recordkeeping. Provider shall maintain and make available to City accurate books and accounting records relating to its work under this agreement. Provider will permit City to audit, examine, and make excerpts and transcripts from such books and records, and to make audits of all invoices, materials, payrolls, records, or personnel and other data related to all other matters covered by this agreement, whether funded in whole or in part under this agreement. Provider shall maintain such data and records in an accessible location and condition for a period of not less than three years after final payment under this agreement or until after final audit has been resolved, whichever is later.

8. Assignment; Subcontracts.

Provider’s services are considered unique and personal. Provider shall not assign or transfer its interest or obligation under this agreement without City’s prior written consent.

Provider shall not subcontract its duties under this agreement without City’s prior written consent. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, subcontractors or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, subcontracting or transfer. Any changes related to the financial control or business nature of Provider as a legal entity is considered an assignment of this agreement and subject to City approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power of the business entity.

9. Licenses.

Provider represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals legally required for Provider to practice its profession and/or provide services under this agreement. Provider shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect such licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals at all times during the term of this agreement.

10. Insurance Types and Limits.

Provider shall procure and maintain for the duration of this agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with its performance under this agreement. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
a. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis for bodily injury and property damage, including products-completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate Item H.2
Packet Page 32
5 limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
b. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), or if Provider has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (nonowned), with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
c. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Workers’ Compensation insurance will not be required if Provider furnishes to City a written verification that it has no employees. d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Provider’s profession, with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.

If Provider maintains higher limits or broader coverage than the minimums shown above, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits or broader coverage maintained by the contractor.

11. Additional Insurance Requirements.

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
a. Additional Insured Status: City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds on the Automobile Liability policy and on the Commercial General Liability policy.
b. Primary Coverage: For any claims related to this agreement, Provider’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Provider’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
c. Notice of Cancellation. Provider shall not cancel, assign, or change any policy of insurance required by this agreement or engage in any act or omission that will cause its insurer to cancel any insurance policy required by this agreement except after providing 30 days prior written notice to the City. If an insurance policy required by this agreement is unilaterally cancelled or changed by the insurer, the Provider shall immediately provide written notice to the City and obtain substitute insurance meeting the requirements of this agreement.

Nothing in this subsection relieves Provider of its obligation to at all times maintain all insurance required by this agreement.

Item H.2
Packet Page 33
6 d. Waiver of Subrogation: Provider hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of Provider may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Provider agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. e. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions: Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City may require Provider to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.
f. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers licensed to do business in the State of California and with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to City.
g. Claims Made Policies: If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:
(i) The retroactive date must be shown and must be before the effective date of this agreement or the beginning of work, whichever is earlier.
(ii) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the of work. (iii) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the effective date/beginning of work. Provider must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.
h. Subcontractors: Provider shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein. i. Special Risks or Circumstances: City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

12. Verification of Insurance.

Provider shall furnish City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required herein.

Such evidence of insurance shall be attached hereto as Exhibit B and considered an integral part of this agreement, which shall not become effective until satisfactory evidence of insurance has been received by City. All evidence of insurance must be received and approved by City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive Provider obligation to provide them. City reserves the right to require Item H.2
Packet Page 34
7 complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

13. Indemnification.

To the fullest extent allowed by law, including but not limited to Civil Code section 2782.8, Provider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, losses, injuries, damage, demands, expenses, and costs (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and expert fees) of every nature, arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Provider’s in the performance of this agreement. Provider shall not be obligated to indemnify City against liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct by City.

Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Provider from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. The obligations of Provider under this Section 13 will not be limited by the provisions of any workers’ compensation act or similar act.

Provider agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this Section 13 from each and every subcontractor, or any other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Provider in the performance of this Agreement.

The provisions of this section survive termination of this agreement.

14. Equal Employment Opportunity.

Provider is an equal opportunity employer and agrees to comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. In the performance of this agreement, Provider shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, ethnicity, creed, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, or medical condition, or any other protected classification. Provider shall comply with all anti-discrimination laws, including Government Code Sections 12900 and 11135, and Labor Code Sections 1735, 1777, and 3077.5. Provider agrees to provide records and documentation to the City on request necessary to monitor compliance with this provision.

15. Compliance with Laws.
a. General Laws. Provider shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations applicable to this agreement. Provider will promptly notify City of changes in the law or other conditions that may affect the services or Provider’s ability to perform. b. Labor Laws. Provider shall comply with all labor laws applicable to this agreement. If the services include a “public works” component, Provider is required to comply with prevailing wage laws under Labor Code Section 1720 and other labor laws.

Item H.2
Packet Page 35
8 c. Provider shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all applicable laws affecting its performance under this agreement.

16. Notices.

Any notice to be given under this agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the parties as follows:

City
City Manager
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Provider
TJKM Transportation Consultants
Nayan Amin, TE, President
4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550
Pleasanton, CA 94588

17. Litigation.

If either party brings an action to enforce this agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and discovery costs).

18. Waivers.

Waiver of a breach or default under this agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this agreement.

19. Modification.

No waiver, modification or termination of this agreement is valid unless made in writing.

20. Severability.

If any provision of this agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this agreement shall remain in effect to the greatest extent permitted by law.

21. Termination.
a. Termination Without Cause:
(i) At any time and without cause, either party may terminate this agreement by giving 10 days written notice. In the event of such termination without cause, City shall pay Provider for services rendered to date and Provider shall deliver to City any work product, whether complete or incomplete.

Item H.2
Packet Page 36
9 (ii) If the City terminates this agreement, the time spent in closing out the services will be compensated up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the total funds expended to date in the performance of the services, provided the City so approves in writing. b. Termination For Cause: In the event of Provider’s substantial failure to meet its obligations under this agreement, City may elect to give Provider 10 days written notice and an opportunity to cure. If Provider has not cured the defects in its performance within 10 days, City may terminate the agreement for cause. After termination for cause, City shall pay Provider for services satisfactorily rendered to date, and Provider shall deliver to City any work product, whether complete or incomplete.
c. Suspension: City may, at any time, temporarily suspend Provider’s performance, in whole or in part, by giving a written notice of suspension to Provider. If City gives such notice, Provider shall immediately suspend its activities under this agreement as specified.

22. Entire Agreement.

This agreement, together with its attachments, sets forth the entire understanding between the Parties and supersedes any oral or written understanding they may have had prior to the execution of this agreement. No other contract, statement, or promise relating to the subject matter of this agreement shall be valid or binding. If there is any inconsistency between any term, clause, or provision of the main agreement and any term, clause, or provision of the attachments or exhibits thereto, the terms of the main agreement shall prevail and be controlling.

23. Governing Law and Venue.

The formation, interpretation, and performance of this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation, and performance of this agreement shall be in Contra Costa County.

24. Authority to Enter Agreement.

Provider has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this agreement and bind each respective Party.

25. Successors and Assigns.

This agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the Parties.

26. Headings and Construction.

Headings appearing herein are descriptive only and for convenience in reference to this agreement. References to Provider include its agents, servants, and employees.

Item H.2
Packet Page 37
10 References to City include its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement.

City of Orinda
__________________________________
City Manager Date
Attest
___________________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form
___________________________________
City Attorney
TJKM Transportation Consultants
__________________________________
Date
__________________________________
Printed Title
__________________________________
Printed Name
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Scope of Services and Schedule
Exhibit B – TJKM Proposal RFP and Cost Proposal Dated March 12, 2026 Exhibit C – Evidence of Insurance (To Be Provided)
Item H.2
Packet Page 38
Exhibit A
Scope of Services and Schedule
(pages attached)
Item H.2
Packet Page 39
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 1 OF 9
1 TASK 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND WORK PLAN
A. Project Management and Controls

1. The consultant shall designate a Project Manager acceptable to the City.

The Project Manager will be responsible for the work including developing the work plan; implementing the project management procedures and controls; and maintaining effective communications among the subconsultants, City, and other involved agencies and organizations for the duration of the project.

Deliverables:
• Project directory
• Monthly Invoice Submittals
• Kick-Off Meeting
• Agendas and meeting summaries for meetings
B. Preparation of Work Plan
The consultant shall develop a work plan and schedule that will provide an overview of the objectives of the Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan, encompass the full scope of work, establish a meeting and presentation schedule (team meetings, City Council, Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), and public meetings for community participation), and establish communication channels with City staff, local and regional bicycle/pedestrian committees, and the general public.

Deliverables:

Detailed work plan and schedule.

Item H.2
Packet Page 40
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 2 OF 9
2 TASK 2 – EXISTING CONDITIONS, DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW The purpose of Task 2 is to establish the present conditions, challenges, and opportunities of Orinda’s current Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan, the existing bicycle and pedestrian network and any available data and studies.

The consultant will perform a detailed review of the current Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan and the General Plan, in addition to other relevant City, local, and regional documents to prepare an Existing Conditions Report/Memorandum which analyzes and incorporates the following:

1. Current projects and programs, as well as projects implemented since the previous 2011 masterplan

2. Existing bicycle and pedestrian route networks and facilities (crosswalks, bike racks, curb ramps, sidewalks, etc.)

3. City and regional policy related to pedestrian and bicycle travel

4. Collision data for the past 10 years (bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle)

5. Analyze traffic volume and speed data
The consultant will utilize this analysis and research to create an inventory of existing facilities and programs that demonstrate current challenges and opportunities for the City, supplemented by maps and graphics that demonstrate progress made since 2011 and challenge and opportunity areas within the City.

Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Existing Conditions Report including existing conditions maps (PDF).

Item H.2
Packet Page 41
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 3 OF 9
3 TASK 3 – PUBLIC OUTREACH AND MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY Public outreach will be an important component of the City’s Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan. Outreach will aim to include the community throughout the plan development process, ensuring that the Final Plan will be based on community priorities, opinions, and feedback.

This task includes various phases of outreach, beginning with strategy development and a Public Participation Plan. Proposed outreach methods could include pop-ups, walking/biking tours, and community workshops accompanied by online interactive maps and surveys. The consultant will be expected to attend up to two public meetings/outreach and one Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) meeting to review deliverables and provide an update.

Outreach efforts in this task should focus on the ways residents use existing facilities, safety concerns, e-bikes and scooters, and work to identify major barriers to pedestrian and cyclist usage throughout the City.

Deliverables:
• Public Participation Plan that summarizes the recommended community outreach activities to be performed
• Attendance and presentation (as needed) at one TSAC meeting to receive feedback from committee members on major deliverables
• One (1) round of revision with TSAC on the Public Participation Plan • Facilitation and materials for three outreach events, including summary of participation and feedback.
• Online surveys, interactive maps, etc.
• Preparation of outreach materials such as FAQ sheets
Item H.2
Packet Page 42
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 4 OF 9
4 TASK 4 – CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEMANDS ASSESSMENT The needs and demands assessment describes the barriers to pedestrian and bicyclist activity in Orinda through multiple levels of analysis.

This task includes the creation of a needs and demands summary memo to ensure the proposed system meets the needs of all ages and abilities and enables users to travel to high use centers. The consultant shall incorporate information from the previous task to perform three types of analyses as part of the needs and assessment memo:
• Network demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• Connectivity gaps throughout the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network • Relative comfort and safety for pedestrians and cyclists The Network Demand analysis should examine locations in the community that are major destinations or activity generators along with commuting profiles and include a traffic count for cyclists and pedestrians at key locations throughout the City.

The Connectivity analysis will document the existing bicycle and pedestrian networks and identify connectivity gaps between neighborhoods, community facilities, high use centers, and trails or pathways around Orinda. This analysis shall note geographical and infrastructure barriers and identify Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues relative to bicycle and pedestrian access and infrastructure.

The Comfort and Safety analysis will utilize collision and accident data to identify areas for safety improvement and perform a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis on all existing bike and pedestrian paths in the City. E-bike and E-scooter safety should be considered throughout this analysis, identifying infrastructure gaps and areas of concern for these modes of travel.

The needs and demands assessment memo shall include identification of additional opportunities to enhance the safety and accessibility of the network.

Deliverables:
• Traffic counts for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Needs and Demands Assessment memo
• Accompanying maps and Exhibits to present the analysis performed Item H.2
Packet Page 43
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 5 OF 9
5 TASK 5 – GOALS AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Goals and Policy Development
This task promotes the development of short- and long-range direction for bicycle and pedestrian routes and facility planning by reviewing existing plans and policies in relation to public feedback and current needs, demands, and stresses on the network.

The consultant will draft new goals and policies that reflect City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The consultant should consider areas to integrate e-bike and e-scooter usage/restrictions into existing or new policies and goals.

Ultimately, these new goals and policies will guide the creation of a safe, connected, and comfortable transportation network for all users.

Deliverables
• Draft goals and policies in a memorandum format
Item H.2
Packet Page 44
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 6 OF 9
6 TASK 6 – RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
A. Network Recommendations
The objective of this subtask is to establish Orinda's proposed bicycle and pedestrian network through recommended projects, informed by previous phases.

This subtask involves the development of the new Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian network, demonstrating additions since the Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan adopted in 2011 and additional routes and linkages to complete the network, including identification of existing routes that should be revised based on current findings and needs. The new bicycle and pedestrian network should consider connections to local and regional bicycle and pedestrian networks.

Recommended projects can include network improvements, spot improvements, inclusion of planned CIPs, and programs and policies to promote education, enforcement, and evaluation. The recommendations shall include bicycle and pedestrian systems and programs as well as recommended project improvements.

Deliverables:
• Proposed bicycle and pedestrian network map with opportunities for new routes, facilities, etc. (PDF)
B. Implementation Plan and Prioritization
To assist The City of Orinda in prioritizing which projects to implement in the short-, medium-, and long-term, an analysis shall be conducted to determine which projects may provide the greatest return on investment.

The consultant is encouraged to consider criteria related to safety, connectivity, demand, and equity were used to identify priority projects.

The Consultant should consider using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping analysis to aid in this task. This subtask prioritizes recommended projects based on agreed upon evaluation criteria and provides an overview of funding opportunities for projects with feasible timeframes for completion.

This subtask involves the development of an implementation plan that includes details on cost, responsible department, scheduling, and Item H.2
Packet Page 45
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 7 OF 9
appropriate funding. The consultant will create a scoring matrix to prioritize projects in the implementation plan. The implementation plan should also include identification of high impact, low-cost projects that the City can immediately accomplish.

The consultant shall coordinate with staff to identify potential funding sources. Projects should be clearly identified and cross-referenced with approved or future projects in the City’s CIP budget.

Deliverables:
• Implementation plan in memorandum format addressing the implementation strategy, with funding strategies.
• Prioritized bicycle and pedestrian project network map (PDF, GIS) C. Recommended Programs
Provide program recommendations such as education, enforcement and evaluation, to support the recommended improvements in the master plan.

These recommendations will prioritize bicycle and pedestrian access to schools, and include Safe Routes to School programs.

Deliverables:
• Safe Routes to School Program in memorandum format addressing the implementation plan with funding strategies
Item H.2
Packet Page 46
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 8 OF 9
7 TASK 7 – DRAFT AND FINAL PLAN
This task will assemble information from the above tasks into a Draft 2026 Bicycles, Trails and Walkways Master Plan Update for review and comment by staff. Once in draft form, the Master Plan will be presented to the public (via online comment), TSAC (via in-person meeting), and City Council (via inperson meeting). Following comments and feedback received, the consultant will prepare a final version of the Plan and present the final Plan to City Council for adoption.

Deliverables:
• Draft Bicycle, Trials and Walkways Master Plan Document, maps, GIS data, etc.
• Up to three draft revisions (Staff, TSAC/Public, Council) • Draft presentation to City Staff
• Draft presentation to public
• Materials and presentation to TSAC and City Council Meetings (in-person) • Final Bicycle, Trials and Walkways Master Plan
Item H.2
Packet Page 47
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE

SCOPE OF SERVICES

EXHIBIT A
PAGE 9 OF 9
Project Schedule (Dates are subject to change)
Issue RFP 2/05/2026
RFI deadline (Questions Due) 2/26/2026
Proposal Submission Deadline 3/12/2026
Complete Selection Process (may require
interviews for shortlisted firms)
5/04/2026
City Council – Consider Approval of Contract 5/19/2026
Award of Contract 5/20/2026
Sign and Process Contract 6/04/2026
Notice to Proceed 6/08/2026
Final Report Submission 5/28/2027
Item H.2
Packet Page 48
Exhibit B
TJKM Proposal RFP and Cost Proposal Dated March 12, 2026 (pages attached)
Item H.2
Packet Page 49
Proposal for 2026 Bicycle, Trails, and
Walkways Master Plan Update
RFP No. DPW-83
March 12, 2026
Item H.2
Packet Page 50
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tab # 1: Cover Letter ........................................................................................................................................................... ii Tab #2: Project Understanding............................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Understanding .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Tab #3: Work Plan Approach and Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 2 Project Management Plan............................................................................................................................................. 2 Approach to Work Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Schedule....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Tab #4: Staff Plan: Experience, Qualifications and References ............................................................................................ 9 Firm Qualifications ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Project Team............................................................................................................................................................... 11 Previous Experience/References ................................................................................................................................ 13 Tab #5: Resumes -............................................................................................................................................... Resumes 1 Tab #6: Acknowledgement of City Consultant Agreement and Certification Of Insurance Requirements Item H.2
Packet Page 51
March 12, 2026
Cover Letter
March 12, 2026
TAB #1
Item H.2
Packet Page 52
CALIFORNIA | FLORIDA | TEXAS
Corporate Office/Mailing Address: 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.463.0611 | Fax: 925.463.3690 | www.TJKM.com
March 12, 2026
Attn: Ryan O’Kane
Senior Engineer
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Subject: Proposal for 2026 Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan Update Dear Mr. O’Kane:

TJKM Transportation Consultants (TJKM) is pleased to submit our proposal to assist the City of Orinda with the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan Update. We appreciate the opportunity to support the City in developing a comprehensive, implementable plan that enhances safety, connectivity, and accessibility for bicyclists, pedestrians, and trail users throughout the community.

Founded in 1974, TJKM is a premier traffic engineering, transportation planning, and traffic operations firm providing services throughout California, Florida, and Texas. Our projects range in size from short-term engagements developing meaningful safe mobility solutions for a wide range of transportation issues to long-term planning for new developments, communities, and transportation systems. TJKM has been involved in more than 10,000 transportation projects and averages over 250 new projects each year.

Project Understanding
The City of Orinda is preparing the 2026 Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan Update (Plan) to guide the development of a safe, connected, and accessible network for bicyclists, pedestrians, and trail users. Incorporated in 1985 and home to approximately 19,500 residents, Orinda is known for its scenic hillside setting, family-oriented character, and strong recreational culture. The City’s current Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan, adopted in 2011, established a long-term vision for improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and many of the recommended improvements have since been implemented. Updating the plan provides an opportunity to address evolving travel patterns, safety needs, and emerging mobility options such as e-bikes and scooters while strengthening connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, and regional trails.

Safety will be a central focus of the updated Plan. Between 2017 and 2021, 109 injury collisions were reported on Orinda roadways, including nine severe injury collisions and no fatalities. Twenty-two percent of collisions on the High Injury Network (HIN) involved pedestrians and bicyclists, and all pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurred at intersections, highlighting the importance of improving intersection design and operations for all roadway users. The updated Plan will build upon the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) by focusing on locations with higher injury risks and identifying strategies that reduce conflicts between motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

The Plan will evaluate the City’s existing network of Class I paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes along key corridors such as Camino Pablo, Moraga Way, and Glorietta Boulevard. The study will identify gaps in the active transportation network and enhance access to key destinations and trail systems, including the de Laveaga Trail, the EBMUD trail at Wagner Ranch, St. Stephen’s Trail, and the trails within Wilder.

TJKM brings extensive experience preparing Active Transportation Plans, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, Vision Zero Plans, Comprehensive Safety Action Plans, and LRSPs for cities throughout California. Our team combines data-driven technical analysis with meaningful community engagement to develop plans that are both visionary and implementable. For Orinda, we will apply Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based network analysis, collision analysis, and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) evaluation to identify network gaps, prioritize improvements, and develop a low-stress bicycle and pedestrian network that serves users of all ages and abilities.

Our approach integrates technical analysis, community outreach, and policy alignment with the City’s LRSP and other planning initiatives to create a clear and structured roadmap for implementation. The project will be organized into seven tasks covering project management, existing conditions analysis, community outreach, needs assessment, policy development, recommended improvements, and preparation of the Final Plan.

Project Team
We have assembled a dedicated team with the technical expertise and project management experience necessary to successfully deliver this project. To meet the City’s needs, we propose a fully integrated team led by Mr. Nayan Amin, TE as Principal-in-Charge and Ms. Ruta Jariwala, PE, TE as Project Manager. Our key staff will remain actively involved throughout the project, supported by a deep bench of technical specialists who will contribute as needed to ensure the successful completion of each task.

Item H.2
Packet Page 53
Mr. O’Kane
March 5, 2026

Page 2 of 3 ends

The proposed Project Manager, Ms. Ruta Jariwala, brings over 26 years of professional experience in transportation planning, traffic engineering, and multimodal operations. Her expertise includes transportation planning, traffic operations, freeway and arterial management studies, signal coordination, traffic signal systems, traffic impact studies and environmental analysis, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) planning, design, and construction oversight. Her experience integrating multimodal considerations into transportation planning will be valuable in developing a comprehensive Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan for the City.

Ms. Jariwala and the TJKM team bring extensive experience preparing Active Transportation Plans and bicycle and pedestrian improvement programs for numerous California cities, including Tulare, Exeter, Fresno, Albany, Monrovia, Hayward, Mountain View, Patterson, Scotts Valley, Stockton, and Fairfax, among others. This experience provides a strong understanding of best practices in active transportation planning, safety analysis, and project prioritization.

Importantly, Ms. Jariwala has direct experience working with the City of Orinda, having served as the Project Manager for the City’s LRSP. TJKM is also currently on the City’s On-Call Consulting Bench and has supported the City on numerous assignments, including parking studies, traffic impact analyses, traffic operations evaluations, and warrant analyses. This familiarity with the City’s transportation system, policies, and priorities will allow the team to efficiently advance the Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan and deliver recommendations aligned with the City’s goals.

We are confident that our team’s experience, collaborative approach, and commitment to quality will help the City of Orinda successfully update its Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan.

Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Summary of Proposal Characteristics Section in proposal Consultant’s understanding of the
project, as demonstrated by the
work plan and approach and
feedback regarding the proposed
plans and specifications for the
proposed project.

Our team has a strong understanding of the City of Orinda’s goals for updating the Plan. The City seeks a comprehensive and community-informed plan that enhances safety, closes network gaps, and strengthens connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, and regional trails. Our work plan outlines a structured process that combines data-driven analysis, stakeholder engagement, and alignment with the City’s LRSP to develop prioritized improvements and a clear implementation strategy supporting safe travel for users of all ages and abilities.

Starting on Page 1
Recent experience in performing
similar studies or projects.

Our team has extensive experience preparing Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, Active Transportation Plans, Safe Routes to School Programs, Transportation Master Plans, and Comprehensive Safety Action Plans throughout California. These projects demonstrate our ability to evaluate multimodal networks, identify safety improvements, and develop prioritized programs that position cities for successful funding and implementation.

Starting on Page 13
Qualifications of the project team,
including sub-consultants, being
assigned to the project and
feedback regarding the proposed
plans and specifications for the
proposed project.

The proposed team includes experienced transportation planners and engineers specializing in multimodal planning, safety analysis, trail planning, and community engagement. Key staff bring expertise in collision analysis, LTS evaluation, network gap analysis, and project prioritization, supported by specialists in GIS analysis and public outreach. Together, the team provides the technical and engagement expertise necessary to deliver a comprehensive and implementable master plan.

Starting on Page 9
Feedback from references given
regarding past performance,
including quality of work and
delivery of work within schedule
and budget.

TJKM and our project team have a strong track record of delivering multimodal planning projects for cities throughout California. Our references highlight our responsiveness, clear communication, and ability to deliver high-quality work on schedule and within budget while supporting practical implementation of recommended improvements.

Starting on Page 13
Proposed project schedule. The proposed schedule provides a clear roadmap for completing the plan while allowing adequate time for technical analysis, community engagement, and City review. Key milestones include data collection, outreach activities, network analysis, preparation of draft recommendations, and final plan adoption, ensuring a wellcoordinated and efficient planning process.

Starting on Page 8
Item H.2
Packet Page 54
Mr. O’Kane
March 5, 2026

Page 3 of 3 ends

Statements
TJKM has reviewed the contract form, conflicts of interest provisions, timeline, and insurance requirements for this contact and is able to meet these requirements.

TJKM is in receipt of Addendum 1 dated March 2, 2026.

TJKM has reviewed the City’s standard consultant agreement and is willing to accept the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement and will provide a Certificate of Insurance compliant with the City’s requirements upon award.

Contact and Commitment
As President of the firm, I am authorized to bind TJKM to a contract and you have my personal assurance that all the resources necessary to address the City’s needs will be made available. I can be reached at (408) 410-2977 or by email at [email protected]. During the Proposal process, you can reach Ms. Jariwala at (408) 421-0768 or [email protected].

We look forward to the opportunity to partner with the City on this important project.

Sincerely,
TJKM Transportation Consultants
Nayan Amin, TE, President
Item H.2
Packet Page 55
March 12, 2026
Project Understanding
TAB #2
Item H.2
Packet Page 56
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 1
TJKM Transportation Consultants (TJKM) is pleased to submit our Proposal for 2026 Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan Update to City of Orinda.

TAB #2: PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Project Understanding
The City of Orinda is updating its Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan (Plan) adopted in January 2011, to ensure the current needs of the community are met. The Plan presents a long-term vision to guide the development of Orinda’s bikeways, walkways, and trails over a 20-year period. Most of the projects identified in the current plan have either been completed or in the process of being implemented.

At TJKM, we look at each community’s unique needs to design safe and efficient transportation alternatives that meet the needs of all users. TJKM incorporates the Safe System Approach and conducts projects that enhance the accessibility and safe accommodation of bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation modes. TJKM has prepared Active Transportation Plans and conducts numerous safety studies including LRSP and Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plans.

Engaging the community with innovative outreach that achieves equity goals will be an important part of the project. TJKM has extensive experience in stakeholder outreach and facilitating community dialogue.

Our overall approach is summarized below:

Implementation Focus: Implementation tools are a key outcome of this Plan to allow Orinda to quickly move forward with identified project and program needs. These include updated policies and goals with performance metrics so future actions and decision-making support the vision of active transportation. TJKM’s engineering team will play a key role in the implementation work, resulting in implementable projects with realistic generalized planning-level cost estimates.

Community Values: We understand from our experience on similar projects the community’s concerns with quality of life and traffic impacts. We will build on our experience through our community outreach process that will help us identify concerns, build consensus for desired community attributes, and allow our team to incorporate the values of the community into plan alternatives. We will utilize our time with community members to discuss their thoughts on what makes this community different from other communities in the region. Is it the people, the architectural character, the history, or perhaps something else that makes it special? By documenting existing conditions, we can communicate with the community and stakeholders and allow them to respond to what they feel most strongly represents their community. The feedback received will be utilized to develop a responsive plan that reflects the community’s spirit and develop a Plan that represents character and identity unique to the community.

Innovative Solutions: The Plan will balance technical considerations and safety for all modes of transportation with good design and complete streets principles. Our team of innovators works to balance current and local standards with new developing approaches.

Our team will draw from our history in bicycle/pedestrian planning, land use and economic analysis, innovation to assist in developing alternatives that are feasible. We will utilize current local and national best practices, treatment selection tools, and other methods to evaluate a range of solutions including standard and innovative solutions. We will identify which solutions are included in state and federal guidelines and identify jurisdictions that have successfully implemented.

Building On Prior Planning Efforts: Orinda has a rich history of planning and design project initiatives that provide a strong foundation for creating a connected active transportation network. These previous efforts offer valuable insights and resources that can be leveraged to enhance and expand the City’s active transportation infrastructure. By building on these established plans, Orinda can efficiently progress towards a comprehensive network that meets the community’s mobility needs and sustainability goals.

Creating a Comprehensive Network of Low-Stress Facilities: At TJKM, we recognize that developing a truly comprehensive active transportation network requires designing facilities that are low-stress, safe, and comfortable for individuals of all ages and abilities.

Our approach focuses on creating an environment where everyone - from children to seniors (ages 8 to 80) - can travel confidently and securely. We also see a significant opportunity to enhance recreational activities by providing safe and comfortable connections to trails, encouraging more people to engage in outdoor activities. By prioritizing low-stress routes, we aim to make active transportation an attractive and viable option for the entire Orinda community.

Item H.2
Packet Page 57
March 12, 2026
Work Plan Approach & Schedule
TAB #3
Item H.2
Packet Page 58
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 2
TAB #3: WORK PLAN APPROACH AND SCHEDULE
Project Management Plan
The TJKM Project Management Plan is based on proven management, lessons learned, and administrative systems developed to enhance communication among the City of Orinda, the TJKM Project Manager, team members, and other affected agencies. This approach has been used successfully on numerous projects. The TJKM Project Management Plan has the following elements:
• Coordination and Communication: Frequent and effective communication between the City and TJKM is needed to maintain the project schedule and ensure a quality product. The key to our success is an integrated team approach. Our goal is "no surprises" and a partnership that has common understanding and expectations every step of the way. Ms. Jariwala will maintain close communication with the City’s Project Manager by phone, written communications, and meetings. She strongly believes in the benefit of scheduled monthly progress meetings and will meet with the City’s Project Manager monthly to discuss project issues, status, schedule, budget, and invoicing items. This will ensure that our "no surprises" goal is maintained, and the City is thoroughly aware of all aspects.
• Cost Control: Control of project costs will be accomplished by monitoring on a task level basis. This detailed task level will roll up into milestone summaries and a project summary. Our cost accounting system is a "live" database the project manager can access to determine the financial status of the project at any time. Cost control reporting to TJKM’s Project Manager will be implemented through the invoicing process. Progress reports will also be included to relay information on project progress and critical issues. • Schedule Control: Establishing a schedule that meets the project objectives is relatively easy. Maintaining this schedule during changing priorities, unforeseen conditions, public consensus building, etc., is a challenge that the TJKM Team effectively manages.

The project work plan will be broken down by function and separated into defined tasks. Tasks will be linked logically and will be sufficiently detailed to allow for realistic representation of the project. Progress will be monitored by percent complete for each task.
• QA/QC Procedures: TJKM’s QA Procedures are utilized throughout the Project. QC starts at the proposal stage and continues through to the completion of all assignments. To assure that errors, omissions, and ambiguities in submittals/drawings are limited to a minimum, the responsibilities for technical review, peer review/coordination checking, and technical audit functions are assigned to the appropriate team members. TJKM’s approach integrates our subconsultants work into the QC system through the use of established procedures and our peer review/independent checking capability augmented with technical audits. TJKM’s QC Program is an integral part of TJKM’s entire service process, which is integrated into our work plan, and CADD design and drafting processes. The formal QC Reviews consist of "Constructability Reviews" and "Project Manager and Project Engineer Reviews".

All formal QC Reviews will result in comments recorded on Comment Sheets. TJKM’s established QC Plan ensures that you will receive thorough and accurate design documents and reports that are prepared in formats consistent with local agency and Caltrans guidelines. Mr. Patel has responsibility for implementation of the QC Plan.

Approach to Work Plan
TASK 1 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND WORK PLAN
A. Project Management and Controls
TJKM has designated Ms. Jariwala as Project Manager. She has over 26 years of professional experience in the areas of transportation planning, including bicycle and pedestrian planning and safety studies including Active Transportation Plans and Safety Action Plans. She will be responsible for the work including developing the work plan; implementing the project management procedures and controls; and maintaining effective communications among the sub-consultants, City, and other involved agencies and organizations for the duration of the project.

Deliverables: Project directory; Monthly invoice submittals; Kick-off meeting; Agendas and meeting summaries for meetings B. Preparation of Work Plan
TJKM will develop a work plan and schedule that will provide an overview of the objectives of the Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan, encompass the full scope of work, establish a meeting and presentation schedule (team meetings, City Council, Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC), and public meetings for community participation), and establish communication channels with City staff, local and regional bicycle/pedestrian committees, and the general public.

Deliverables: Detailed work plan and schedule
Item H.2
Packet Page 59
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 3
TASK 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS, DATA COLLECTION, AND REVIEW TJKM will conduct data collection necessary to provide a comprehensive assessment of existing conditions relevant to active transportation in Orinda. With assistance from the City, TJKM will compile and organize available information on existing conditions for the project area such as demographics, traffic volumes, state route planning and construction plans, aerial and base maps, and existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. TJKM will then prepare a series of base maps for design and analysis work that can be easily understood by the public for use at meetings and the public events. Available data will also be collected and verified with desktop review. TJKM will share the final map (with all GIS shape files) with the City. TJKM will develop a GIS map of the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and trails facilities as well as key items such as land use data and collision analysis. TJKM will also collect data in the following areas for incorporation into the deliverables described in Task 6:
• Collision Data: TJKM will obtain the latest ten years of bicycle and pedestrian collision data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System and the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for cross-checking. We will reference supplemental information from City, and previously completed LRSP Report, 2023 such as complaint database, if available. • Prevailing Travel Speeds: TJKM will determine prevailing travel speeds on the City’s arterial and collector street based on a review the existing speed limits, and a review of the most recent speed surveys conducted by the City (to be requested from the City).
• GIS Data: Through various sources including the City, County, and others, TJKM will collect GIS shapefiles relevant to the project. • As-Build: We will collect as-built drawings from the City of Orinda to evaluate the feasibility of planned improvements and proposed improvements.
• Mode Share and Active Transportation Travel Patterns: The TJKM Team will collect Origin-Destination (OD) trip data for pedestrian and bike activity from the City of Orinda or any other agency, if available. This OD data will be used to estimate the length of bicycling and walking trips and trip purposes. • Trip Destinations: Our team will identify and review key destinations for bicycling and walking trips within the City of Orinda, with input from City staff and members of the public.
• Socio-Economic Data: A socio-demographic and land use analysis related to the need, demand, and potential for biking (e.g., vehicle ownership, gender, age, etc.) will be developed. • Planned Networks Evaluation: Our team will evaluate the currently planned active transportation networks, including previously planned bike lanes and planned pedestrian improvements. • Field Observation: As needed, TJKM will conduct field reconnaissance for verifying roadway configurations and infrastructure deficiencies and opportunities for improvements. This will occur at targeted locations identified by the existing conditions analysis and confirmed with the City.

TJKM has developed for past clients and projects a webbased tool to conduct collision analysis using GIS maps, implementable actions, and performance measures for cities and counties across several geographic boundaries. We
propose to develop a similar tool to conduct the collisions analysis for this project. This Dashboard will not only allow agencies to keep track of all the collisions but will also help them to identify HIN for different queries and needs analysis.

The process for identifying HIN corridors, intersections, emphasis areas, and preliminary counter measures for
specific issues will be automated. It will provide a
functionality that will assist City staff to generate the data in graphical format for easy of presentations at Council and other public meetings. It will also embed the equity impact analysis based on the equity definition as stated by Orinda. The Dashboard can remain active for ongoing analysis and administration by the City.

Level of Traffic Stress
TJKM will also perform a LTS analysis for bicycle facilities, as developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute. LTS analysis uses roadway conditions on a street segment or intersection to predict the comfort experienced by a bicyclist.

The goal is to identify where there are high-stress connections or crossings that should be addressed to improve overall connectivity of the low-stress bicycle facility network. TJKM will utilize bicycle network data in Geographic Information Systems format to conduct the analysis and produce the final maps. The maps will identify key barriers to low-stress connectivity, suggesting where bicycle facility improvements should be focused to create comfortable routes to destinations that will be appealing to a greater number of potential bicyclists.

Item H.2
Packet Page 60
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 4
Review of Existing Plans, Programs, and Practices
A successful Plan requires a solid understanding of the existing policy and regulatory framework which impacts active transportation, including General Plans, planning studies, expenditure plans, and guidelines. To ensure the Plan visions and goals are aligned with prior planning efforts and are consistent with local and regional policies and guidelines, TJKM will review at a minimum the following documents:
• Street Design Guidelines
• City’s Capital Improvement Programs
• Circulation Element of the General Plan
• City GIS data on street types, traffic volumes, and right-ofway information • Safe Routes to School Route Maps
• Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan (2011)
• Connect Orinda Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (2019) • Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Transportation Safety and Implementation
• Guide Vision Zero (2021)
• Local Roadway Safety Plan
• Orinda Downtown Precise Plan Existing Conditions Report (2020) Engineering reports, traffic data, crash information, and planning documents
• Contra Costa Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (2018) • City of Orinda Safety Element (2023)
• Orinda Way Streetscape Master Plan (2000)
• CCTA Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(2017)
• Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (2020)
We will summarize contents and key transportation and safety elements of the aforementioned documents in the Existing Conditions Report in addition to highlighting current “best-practices” related to collisions, data collection and how to implement potential countermeasures.

Deliverables: Draft and Final Existing Conditions Report including existing conditions maps (PDF) TASK 3 - PUBLIC OUTREACH AND MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY At TJKM we recognize that community input goes beyond what planners hear at indoor workshops held in the middle of the workweek.

Engagement can and should be more transparent and active by “taking it to the streets” where people work, play, and naturally gather.

This approach was reinforced by the fact that the Plan focuses on how to improve the City’s streets, which make outdoor public events even more relevant. The Plan specifically should formulate non-traditional tools and activities that draw out the rich, hands-on, experiential input from the street experiences of the community.

Broader community engagement will take place in two phases: 1) Visioning and 2) Ideas. During the Visioning Phase, community members will be invited to share their vision for the future of the city, identify assets and challenges, and learn about the concept of active transportation. The Ideas Phase will solicit community’s feedback on a set of Plan recommendations and alternatives.

TJKM will create a Public Participation Plan (PPP) that will include gathering input from a wide variety of stakeholders and a diverse cross-section of the community. This PPP will clearly identify details of outreach steps, activities, events, and efforts needed to provide project information to the community and to gather valuable and focused input from residents and stakeholders. With a focus on transportation-related issues, TJKM will pro-actively identify concerns of the community with meaningful engagement that is tailored and appropriate for the respective audience. Outreach and engagement strategies will include a variety of hybrid and/or in-person events such as public workshops or community meetings and pop-up engagement at pre-existing events throughout the city. The outreach plan will include a plan to engage residents from various communities like historically marginalized, BPIOC, economically disadvantaged, or even underrepresented. Our goal will be to engage the residents and stakeholders in a meaningful way that encourages open dialogue and communication and identifies concerns throughout the planning process. The communication methods could include walk and bike tours, open house workshops, pop-up events, and informational and interactive activities. The TJKM Team will ensure that the meetings are widely publicized thought various outreach means, resulting in the highest participation of stakeholders and public. The PPP will be delivered to the City within three weeks of the kickoff meeting.

Our approach is to work with our clients to develop appropriate interpretation strategies for each project, which could range from simultaneous interpretation, to holding workshops in the primary language spoken within the community with interpretation back to English.

TJKM will work with the City to determine the feasibility of in-person events or whether to host meetings virtually. We have achieved much success in conducting virtual meetings. All public outreach feedback and information will be captured and documented in an Appendix of the Final Plan.

TJKM will facilitate up to two public meetings/outreach and attend one TSAC meeting to review deliverables and provide an update.

Item H.2
Packet Page 61
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 5
Within this task, TJKM proposes to develop a project website with a customized URL. The website will consist of the following:
• Project overview
• Progress update and public drafts
• Interactive map input
• ArcGIS Online Map Series
• Upcoming events
An online survey will be an efficient way to engage the public early in the process, both to communicate project objectives and to elicit feedback on specific issues, trip types, and destinations that should be considered for prioritization. The results of the survey will be integrated into early analysis and help inform future deliverables and may include the development of an email contact list for project updates. We suggest that the City posts the survey link along with the project website information on the City’s website, Facebook page, or Nextdoor to increase public awareness of the project. TJKM has an experienced graphic and social media team that will generate required materials for distribution along with suggested paths for unique outreach with emphasis on the transportation plan and opportunities for engagement. Along with flyers and mailers, other potential outreach opportunities such as pop-up events tied to existing community gatherings or outreach to local user groups and other interested stakeholders not normally involved with decision making.

However, TJKM is aware that existing and potential users, may not have internet access; therefore, a mailer will be designed for City distribution that includes a description of the project as well as other information pertaining to the project scope and schedule. All public engagement materials, including the website, will be provided in English and Spanish.

Deliverables: PPP that summarizes the recommended community outreach activities to be performed; Attendance and presentation (as needed) at one TSAC meeting to receive feedback from committee members on major deliverables; One round of revision with TSAC on the PPP; Two public outreach meetings; One city council meeting; Facilitation and materials for three outreach events, including summary of participation and feedback; Online surveys, interactive maps, etc.; Preparation of outreach materials such as FAQ sheets
TASK 4 – CITYWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEMANDS ASSESSMENT TJKM will utilize the data summarized in Task 2, including network maps and the bicycle LTS analysis, to provide a needs and demand assessment that evaluates barriers to pedestrian and bicyclist activity in Orinda and ensures the proposed network serves users of all ages and abilities. Building on the existing conditions analysis, the assessment will include three types of analyses as part of the needs and assessment memo:
• Network demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities – which will identify major destinations and activity centers, such as schools, parks, commercial areas, and transit stops and evaluate commuting patterns to understand where pedestrian and bicycle facilities are most needed. Bicycle and pedestrian counts will be conducted at key locations to supplement available data and provide insight into existing and potential demand.
• Connectivity gaps throughout the City’s bicycle and pedestrian network – which will document the existing bicycle and pedestrian network and identify gaps between neighborhoods, community facilities, and regional trails. This effort will also evaluate physical and geographic barriers, as well as American with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility issues that may limit safe and convenient travel for users with mobility challenges.
• Relative comfort and safety for pedestrians and cyclists – which will examine collision data and apply a LTS evaluation to understand the perceived safety of existing facilities. The analysis will also consider emerging micromobility modes such as ebikes and e-scooters, identifying areas where infrastructure improvements could enhance safety and usability.

Together, these analyses will inform a clear understanding of current barriers and opportunities, resulting in targeted recommendations to improve connectivity, safety, and accessibility across Orinda’s pedestrian and bicycle network.

Deliverables: Traffic counts for bicyclists and pedestrians; Needs and demands assessment memo; Accompanying maps and exhibits TASK 5 - GOALS AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Creating goals, objectives, and performance measures is key in creating and implementing a successful plan. TJKM will develop a range of goals (short, medium, and long), objectives, and performance measures that align with prior plans and goals of the City and region and in accordance with local, state, and federal policies and guidelines. Examples of measuring successful performance indicators include comparing increases in bicycling and walking mode share, growth and investment in active transportation infrastructure, miles of new bike paths, bike lanes, or sidewalks, among others. These will form the baseline indicators for performance measures. Additionally, during project outreach efforts we will introduce goals and objectives to the community to solicit input. This approach will help in developing performance measures that utilize Active Transportation Master Plan community support as an indicator to help with prioritizing projects into short, medium, and long-term categories. We will identify the responsible party for each action and potential targets for achieving each goal.

Item H.2
Packet Page 62
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 6
Based on this evaluation, TJKM will develop a set of updated goals and policy recommendations that align with the City’s LRSP and support a safer, more connected transportation network. The framework will also consider the growing role of micromobility, including e-bikes and e-scooters, and identify where guidance, policies, or restrictions may be appropriate to ensure safe integration within the City’s bicycle and pedestrian system.

The resulting goals and policies will provide a clear policy foundation to guide future planning, project prioritization, and implementation strategies, ultimately supporting a safe, comfortable, and accessible network for users of all ages and abilities.

Deliverables: Draft goals and policies in a memorandum format TASK 6 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
A. Network Recommendations
TJKM will develop a list of bicycle and pedestrian recommendations building from the existing conditions, and needs assessment detailed in Task 3, as well as community outreach in Task 2. project lists will be based on industry best practices and our expertise in crafting context-appropriate active transportation facility networks for our clients.

Pedestrian Network Recommendations
The proposed pedestrian network will include recommendations for sidewalks and Class I shared use paths (consistent with the bicycle network recommendations). TJKM will also identify locations for accessibility upgrades and crossing improvements, including enhanced crossing features such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB).

Bicycle Network Recommendations
The proposed bicycle facility network will consider recommendations for four classes of bikeways: Class I shared use paths (consistent with the pedestrian network recommendations), Class II bicycle lanes, Class III bicycle routes, and Class IV separated bikeways. As appropriate for local contexts, TJKM will incorporate current best practices in bikeway design that build on these four classes with additional features and enhancements that improve safety and reduce traffic stress for people bicycling, including buffered bicycle lanes (a form of Class II) or bicycle boulevards (a form of Class III). Intersection and crossing recommendations will also be provided, as appropriate, along with bicycle parking and other amenities.

The proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Recommendations will be delivered to the City as a Workbook (Excel) that contains details such as facility type, location and or start/end points, length, and additional details necessary to describe the recommendation.

In addition, maps of the network recommendations will be provided in PDF format.

TJKM will provide the draft recommendations files and schedule a meeting with the City to discuss comments. Recommendations will be revised based on one set of consolidated, internally consistent comments received from the City before being incorporated into the Draft Plan.

Deliverables: Proposed bicycle and pedestrian network map with opportunities for new routes, facilities, etc. (PDF) B. Implementation Plan and Prioritization
The TJKM Team will develop a ranked list of proposed improvements within the City of Orinda for all modes of transportation, including all ages and abilities network, in order to enhance safety and connectivity. Along with a matrix formula that relates the list to plan goals and objectives, proposed improvements will be presented graphically on maps, and through plans/sections of potential high priority projects and illustrative concepts. The TJKM Team will also develop strategies and identify opportunities to enhance safety, connectivity, enforcement, education, and evaluation for all modes of transportation. The list will include updated GIS maps showing the planned improvements and include relevant policy recommendations where applicable.

As an interdisciplinary transportation planning and design firm, TJKM is uniquely positioned to find a balance among the City’s mobility goals and challenges and its commitment to maintaining a natural aesthetic through pragmatic designs that are meaningful yet sustainable within Orinda’s existing framework.

The improvement list will notate the context, plan history, and community outreach process, in addition to describing existing and desired future cycling and walking conditions, to make Orinda streets even more complete for all modes of transportation and friendlier for walking and bicycling.

TJKM will evaluate and rank recommended projects based on the matrix formula to be developed during Task 6.7 above (which will be tied to plan goals and objectives) and develop guidance for implementation. The TJKM Team will provide an implementation and funding plan identifying strategic ways to fund and deploy active transportation improvements quickly through quick-build and other strategies such as a network deployment approach identified in documents such as the NACTO Complete Connections working paper.

Item H.2
Packet Page 63
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 7
The TJKM Team will develop planning-level cost estimates for each project. Once the networks and cost estimates have been prioritized, an Implementation Plan, will be created to be used with applicable agencies and for the City of Orinda to comment and approve. This framework will help the City prioritize projects and phase them into short-, medium-, and long-term implementation horizons. The Plan will also highlight high-impact, low-cost improvements that can be implemented quickly to deliver immediate safety and accessibility benefits. TJKM will craft a Technical Memorandum that will refine concepts, collate, and expand the summary memoranda from previous tasks into a coherent set up recommendations for review. An implementation matrix will be created to be used with applicable agencies and for the City of Orinda to comment and approve.

Coordination with City staff will be conducted to identify local, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities, and recommended projects will be cross-referenced with existing and planned improvements in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to ensure alignment and maximize implementation opportunities.

Funding will be pursued through a mix of competitive grants (Active Transportation Program, HSIP, RAISE, Safe Streets for All), local transportation sales tax funds, developer impact fees, and quick-build–friendly sources such as Safe Route to School or micromobility revenue. Each project package will be “grant-ready” with concept designs, cost estimates, and benefit analyses to maximize competitiveness and position the city for sustained network expansion.

TJKM will create a Funding Source Matrix to identify local, regional, state, and federal resources along with sustainable and ‘green’ revenue sources to help Orinda achieve its Active Transportation Plan improvements. The Funding Source Matrix will be structured to provide short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategies and those funding opportunities likely to be associated with those strategies. Our expertise with grant writing, scheduling deadlines, and winning grants for other municipalities will ensure Orinda has the best opportunity for funding success.

TJKM will:
• Engage community and City staff through targeted workshops, surveys, and focus group discussions to ensure strong, representative input.
• Apply a feasibility-first screening process that evaluates available right-of-way, traffic volumes, cost escalation factors (e.g., drainage inlet relocations), and benefit-to-cost tradeoffs. • Select and refine the Initial Project to the 15 percent design stage, including detailed concepts, signing and striping plans, and planning-level cost estimates scaled to fit within the Citywide Active Transportation Plan budget.

Deliverables: Implementation plan in memorandum format addressing the implementation strategy, with funding strategies; Prioritized bicycle and pedestrian project network map (PDF, GIS)
C. Recommended Programs
TJKM will review non-infrastructure programs that exist or have existed in the past in Orinda. We will use information collected from the City and publicly available sources such as school districts and community organizations to document and evaluate existing programming. Programs typically fall within four of the “Five E’s” of active transportation planning: engagement, education, encouragement, evaluation, and engineering (represented by the network recommendations and design standards). • Engagement involves listening to and working with school communities and community organizations to understand their needs and build support for their programs.
• Education programs can address people driving, as well as pedestrians and bicyclists to distribute information on sharing roads and trails safely.
• Encouragement programs will create community interest and increase participation in walking, bicycling, and trails. • Evaluation programs are invaluable to the success of bicycle, pedestrian, and trails planning efforts, and include measuring public reaction to programs and projects.

After conducting this review of existing programs, TJKM will develop recommendations for future programs. These recommendations will prioritize bicycle and pedestrian access to schools and include Safe Routes to School programs.

Deliverables: Safe Routes to School Program in memorandum format addressing the implementation plan with funding strategies TASK 7 - DRAFT AND FINAL PLAN
TJKM will incorporate the items described in the above tasks to create a Plan that creates a clear pathway to promote equity, increase active transportation mode share, and significantly improve transportation safety in the City. We will support City staff through the adoption process and be available to answer questions and provide presentation support.

Item H.2
Packet Page 64
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 8
The TJKM Team will provide the Plan document as a first draft (administrative draft), second draft (public review draft), and final document. TJKM will assume a consolidated round of comments will be provided for each version. We will also be prepared to make additional minor adjustments to the document if changes are requested by City Commissions, City Council Committees, and/or City Council before the Final Plan adoption. TJKM will assist with the City Council adoption of the Citywide Active Transportation Plan.

Deliverables: Draft Bicycle, Trials, and Walkways Master Plan Document, maps, GIS data, etc.; Up to three draft revisions (Staff, TSAC/Public, Council); Draft presentation to City staff and the public; Materials and presentation to TSAC and City Council Meetings (in-person); Final Bicycle, Trials, and Walkways Master Plan Schedule
Our proposed team is an experienced team with specific strengths in each of the areas required to deliver this project on schedule and within budget to the satisfaction of the City of Orinda. Our proposed team has a proven track record of successful similar projects and is dedicated to providing high-quality products. With our available resources and experience, TJKM is equipped to provide the level of responsiveness required by the City, all while providing professional and quality services. We have developed an individualized approach for each task that, combined with an active project management and team-oriented approach, will ensure the delivery of timely, high-quality services.

The personnel listed in our organization chart are available to work on the project for the entire duration of the project. Our proposed staff has the availability to accept and complete this key project on schedule and within budget. Below we have included the schedule containing milestones and completion dates and upon selection we will provide a detailed schedule.

Item H.2
Packet Page 65
March 12, 2026
Staff Plan: Experience,
Qualifications & References
TAB #4
Item H.2
Packet Page 66
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 9
TAB #4: STAFF PLAN: EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS AND REFERENCES Firm Qualifications
TJKM Transportation Consultants (TJKM), founded in 1974, is a transportation planning, traffic engineering, and traffic operations firm that provides professional services locally in California, Texas, and Florida. The TJKM Team is spread out amongst seven offices with selected senior staff members that permanently reside in California. For over 50 years, our clients have entrusted us with their critical work.

We serve a full range of clients, including municipalities, congestion management agencies, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, transportation agencies, private developers, other consulting firms, and attorneys. Our engineers and planners have worked on the public side of the desk for years as municipal engineers, developing superior skills in collaborating with the public and city councils and, more importantly, crafting excellent relationships with the right people. We have hands-on experience and understand the latest requirements, technologies, trends, and standards. Our experience with local agency processes keeps projects moving forward as planned, and our expertise from thousands of engagements helps us complete projects within budget. Our motivation comes from satisfying clients’ objectives and improving communities.

Our goal is to provide the most cost-effective implementable solutions that meet the unique needs of each client while keeping within budget and on schedule. We are professionals with a passion for safe and sustainable transportation - fully committed to the highest client satisfaction.

EXPERTISE

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
At TJKM, we look at each community’s unique needs to design safe and efficient transportation alternatives that meet the needs of all users. This includes analyzing conditions for the bicycle network and pedestrian facilities as well as vehicular traffic and transit operations. The goal being to integrate all modes to achieve safer and more accessible communities. TJKM conducts projects that enhance the accessibility and safe accommodation of bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation modes.

Our team members are recognized for their expertise in designing safe and inclusive pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. We will conduct a comprehensive analysis of current pedestrian and bicycle networks, identifying high-risk areas, gaps in connectivity, and unsafe infrastructure. They will evaluate factors such as crosswalk safety, sidewalk conditions, bike lane availability, and intersections that pose risks to non-motorized users. Based on this analysis, we will develop targeted recommendations to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, including infrastructure improvements, design modifications, and safety education programs. Their work will ensure that the region's transportation network is safer and more accessible for all users, particularly the most vulnerable.

MULTIMODAL PLANNING AND DESIGN
TJKM has developed designs for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects from planning level to detailed plans, specifications for construction. TJKM has designed pedestrian safety and bicycle gap closure projects that involve installation of Class II, III, and IV bicycle facilities. We bring significant experience in the preparation of a full set of electrical drawings, signage, striping plans, estimate and specifications (PS&E) for various pedestrian safety devices including RRFB and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB). We conduct analysis for Bicycle LTS and Pedestrian LTS. We have assisted numerous jurisdictions secure grant funding for competitive programs such as Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ).

Item H.2
Packet Page 67
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 10
Our multimodal planning and design studies focus on transportation facility design.

Multimodal design alternatives are typically prepared and reviewed with City staff and community members in public forums. To aid in the decision-making process, TJKM develops alternative screening criteria encompassing a variety of factors. These include corridor transit stop provision; minimum and optimal vehicle and bicycle lane widths, sidewalk and pedestrian realm design; roadway geometry; traffic calming and pedestrian crossing strategies; collision history; travel speed (possible reduction); motor vehicle traffic volumes, queuing, and delay; and parking supply and demand (both onstreet and off-street). While we develop these solutions, we are keenly aware of the special needs of persons with disabilities and compliance with state and federal ADA regulations. The end result is typically a prioritized list of feasible alternatives for local agency selection.

SCHOOL RELATED CIRCULATION
TJKM has evaluated bicyclist and pedestrian safety and designed improvements as part of numerous Safe Route to School projects, and our staff is highly cognizant of the dynamics of school route safety through our experience as city traffic engineers. We understand the characteristics of school-age children, as well as the often-limited resources available to implement improvement measures. We strive to balance competing priorities and recommend safety measures that can be implemented in both the short and long term. We work with all project stakeholders to build consensus on improving safety for all students traveling to and from schools.

PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
TJKM project managers have a combined total experience of about 100 years in community engagement and stakeholder collaboration. We value the diversity of the community’s views by promoting public engagement and feedback. We actively work with agencies and stakeholders to make sure everyone has an opportunity to engage in the process and provide their feedback. This allows the community to express their concerns and feel heard when it comes to improvements in their community. We are comfortable in this setting and skilled in presenting technical information clearly and concisely for a non-technical audience. We have successfully conducted virtual and inperson meetings for hundreds of projects utilizing highly effective outreach approaches such as:
• Public workshops
• Focus groups
• Hosting walking/biking tours
• Specially designed Project Websites for project information/ announcements/feedback • Pop-up events/tactical urbanism
• Printed and/or online surveys

POLICY DEVELOPMENT
We have highly skilled planners and engineers on the team who have worked on major policies in transportation, parking, public transit and public works related matters. We have worked on General Plan amendments, Bike Master Plans, Pedestrian Master Plans, Traffic Calming Programs, Vision Zero Initiatives, Traffic Impact Fees, and Development related In-lieu Fees for hundreds of cities, requiring extensive policy development supported by the City staff, elected officials, residents, businesses and other stakeholders. Several of our team members worked in leadership roles at numerous cities, and bring highly valuable experience devising practical policies that really work.

Item H.2
Packet Page 68
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 11
Project Team
Our Team Organization Chart illustrates our proven
“chain of command” for performance on similar projects.

The proposed organization is a fully integrated team
under the management of Mr. Nayan Amin, TE as
Principal-In-Charge and Ms. Ruta Jariwala, PE, TE as
Project Manager. Ms. Jariwala will work closely with City staff to ensure understanding of the project objectives from the start to project completion. We can confidently state that our key staff and our vast base of highly
qualified technical members will be available for your
project from beginning to end.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Below we have identified the roles and responsibilities of proposed staff for this project.

Nayan Amin
Principal-In-Charge and
QA/QC
Mr. Amin will provide strategic input and be responsible for the overall quality assurance and quality control. He will guarantee procedures are followed to provide you with quality deliverables.

Ruta Jariwala
Project Manager
Ms. Jariwala will be responsible for daily activities to manage the overall project. She will ensure effective and efficient project delivery by monitoring the budget and schedule reporting. She will confirm that all work products meet your expectations.

Colin Burgett
Task Lead
As Task Lead for Infrastructure Recommendations and Prioritizations, Mr. Burgett will be responsible for working with coordinating with support staff for any items needed. He will work with the team to ensure all required items are completed on schedule.

Grishma Pandya
Task Lead
As Task Lead for Existing Conditions and Data Analysis/Network Evaluation, Ms. Pandya will oversee and coordinate with support staff to ensure work is completed on time. Under her direction, the team will stay on schedule. She will also provide support for Infrastructure Recommendations and Prioritization task items.

Erik Bjorklund
Support Staff
Mr. Bjorklund will provide support on the Infrastructure Recommendations and Prioritization task items. He will work closely with Mr. Burgett to provide a quality product within the schedule.

Praveena Samaleti
Support Staff
Ms. Samaleti will provide support on the Existing Conditions and Data Analysis/Network Evaluation task items. She will work closely with Ms. Pandya to provide the required work for this task.

Rutvij Patel
Support Staff
Mr. Patel will provide support on the Infrastructure Recommendations and Prioritization task items. He will work with Mr. Burgett to complete the work required for this task.

Utsav Domadia
Support Staff
Mr. Domadia will provide support on the Existing Conditions and Data Analysis/Network Evaluation task items. He will work closely with Ms. Pandya to provide a quality product on time.

Aaditya Patel
Support Staff
Mr. Patel will provide support on the Existing Conditions and Data Analysis/Network Evaluation task items. He will work closely with Ms. Pandya to provide a quality product on time.

Himangi Mutha
Support Staff
Ms. Mutha will provide support on the Existing Conditions and Data Analysis/Network Evaluation task items. She will work closely with Ms. Pandya to provide a quality product on time.

Item H.2
Packet Page 69
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 12

AVAILABILITY
Our proposed team members will be made available to the City as needed for the duration of the project and will not be substituted without approval from the City. With our current workload we can confidently state that our key staff and a vast base of highly qualified technical members that will be fully available for your projects from beginning to end.

Below is a list of projects staff are currently involved with and a percentage of time available applied to each project.

Name & Role Current Work Commitments % of Involvement Availability Nayan Amin
Principal-In-Charge &
QA/QC
Safe Streets and Roads for All, Various US Agencies 15% 40% Vision Zero Safety Action Plans, Various US Agencies 10% Various Engineering and Planning Projects 15%
QA/QC on deliverables for Projects 20%
Ruta Jariwala
Project Manager
Safe Streets and Roads for All, Various US Agencies 15% 45% Vision Zero Safety Action Plans, Various US Agencies 10% CMP Monitoring Project, Santa Clara County 15%
Various Engineering and Planning Projects 15%
Colin Burgett
Task Lead
Downtown Specific Plan, Castro Valley 15%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Fairfax 20% 40%
Various Planning Studies and Projects 25%
Grishma Pandya
Task Lead
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, Calaveras County 15%
45%
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Fairfax 15%
Parking Study, Visalia 10%
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bike Update, Monrovia 10% Vision Zero Plan, Dinuba 5%
Erik Bjorklund
Support Staff
Dublin Boulevard Extension, Alameda County 20%
Various Projects, Tracy 35% 30%
Various Single Traffic Signals, California 15%
Praveena Samaleti
Support Staff
CMP Monitoring Project, Santa Clara County 20%
Various Traffic Impact Studies, California 35% 35%
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bike Update, Monrovia 10% Rutvij Patel
Support Staff
On-Call Design Task Orders, Caltrans District 5 10%
40% HSIP Cycle 11 Pedestrian Crossing Improvements, Pico Rivera 15% Safety and Street Lighting Project, Concord 10%
Various Design Projects, Various US Agencies 25%
Utsav Domadia
Support Staff
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, Pico Rivera 25%
Active Transportation Plan, Fresno 10% 40%
Safety Action Plan, Fresno County 25%
Aaditya Patel
Support Staff
Concord Comprehensive Safety Action Plan 20%
30%
Safety Action Plan, Fresno County 15%
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, Shafter 25%
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, Eagle Pass 10%
Vision Zero Project, Livermore 5%
Himangi Mutha
Support Staff
Vision Zero Project, Livermore 25%
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bike Update, Monrovia 15% 35% Active Transportation Plan, Tulare 25%
Item H.2
Packet Page 70
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 13
Previous Experience/References
Nearly 85 percent of our clients are repeat clients. Our objective on every assignment is to provide the most cost-effective product that meets the specific needs and criteria of each client within the planned schedule and budget. We encourage the City of Orinda to contact our references to learn about our performance. We are confident that you will be pleased with what our clients have to say about us. Below we have provided examples of our previous experience with similar projects, including those with environments and terrain similar to Orinda.

CITYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE, FRESNO
Reference: Andreina Aguilar, City of Fresno, (559) 621-8674, [email protected] The City of Fresno updated its 2017 Active Transportation Plan to evaluate current conditions and make strategic improvements that reflect the community’s evolving transportation needs. Fresno’s policies continue to support opportunities for residents to lead healthier lives through safer, more extensive multimodal networks. The City’s vision emphasizes a safe and efficient multimodal system that reduces energy dependence, fosters vibrant neighborhoods, and provides seamless regional connections. Building upon the foundation of the 2017 Active Transportation Plan, the 2021 General Plan, the LRSP, and other relevant local policies and programs, TJKM expanded on Fresno’s progress by strengthening pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to meet all-ages-and-abilities design standards.

The TJKM Team developed strategies to enhance safety and connectivity, established a safety education program, prepared a Safe Routes to School toolbox, and created conceptual designs for priority projects. As part of the planning effort and in support of Fresno’s Vision Zero Action Plan, TJKM also led a comprehensive public outreach program. This included a Traffic Garden event designed to engage the community - particularly school-age children - by teaching bicycle safety, traffic rules, and the importance of proper riding gear in a fun, interactive environment.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, TULARE
Reference: Steven Sopp, City of Tulare, (559) 684-4216, [email protected] TJKM is developing an Active Transportation Plan for the City of Tulare and is nearing project completion (project website: tularesafestreets.com). The Active Transportation Plan will guide the City in identifying and prioritizing active transportation improvements; establishing performance-based goals and policies; enhancing safety for people walking, rolling, and bicycling; and promoting multimodal travel for residents of all ages and abilities. The plan also positions Tulare to be more competitive for future state and federal grant funding.

Using current plans, policies, programs, and community initiatives, TJKM built upon Tulare’s previous progress by strengthening key pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and advancing all-ages-and-abilities design standards. As part of this effort, the TJKM Team evaluated existing conditions, identified infrastructure gaps and opportunities, and proposed targeted improvements to City roadways along with potential funding sources for effective implementation.

The Active Transportation Plan is guided by data-driven analysis, extensive community engagement, and modern design guidance to ensure recommendations reflect both local priorities and industry best practices. It also serves as a foundational document that will inform future updates to the City’s General Plan and Circulation Element.

Item H.2
Packet Page 71
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 14

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, PATTERSON
Reference: Tiffany Rodriquez, City of Patterson, (209) 895-8075, [email protected] TJKM prepared an Active Transportation Plan for the City in a citywide process that included development of design concepts, community engagement, and improvement recommendations that responded to the input from the community and implementing and overseeing agencies. Components of the Plan included:
• Design tools for improvements
• An overall framework plan depicting the City’s future cycling and walking network • Identification of pedestrian and bicycle network deficiencies and development of implementable improvement options
• Conceptual designs for short-term and long-term improvements suitable for future Capital Improvement Program funding programming and grant applications
• A phasing plan and grant-focused funding strategy for prioritized projects, programs, and action steps The Final Plan was adopted by the City Council in April 2022.

COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN UPDATE, MONROVIA Reference: Sophia Sousa, City of Monrovia, (626) 932-5512, [email protected] TJKM assisted the City of Monrovia to develop their Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and update the City’s current Bicycle Master Plan. This planning effort identified and prioritized safety projects and programs in Monrovia to reduce fatal and severe injuries as well as identify recommendations and projects to enhance the transportation experience for all users in Monrovia. TJKM reviewed existing plans, policies and programs and perform data collection and analysis for both the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bicycle Master Plan update. An Outreach Plan was developed, and Stakeholder and Community meetings held to gain feedback and comment, along with development of interactive project webpages for both the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bicycle Master Plan update. Other tasks included an equity analysis, recommendations and priority projects, implementation and programming, and a Draft/Final Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and updated Bicycle Master Plan has been submitted to the city for their final review. The City will be taking the document to City Council early 2026.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, EXETER
Reference: Eddie Wendt, City of Exeter, (559) 804-9988, [email protected] TJKM assisted City of Exeter to develop an Active Transportation Plan to enhance walking and bicycling within the City of Exeter. As a guiding framework, the Active Transportation Plan aimed to foster safer, more accessible, and enjoyable streets and bikeways, particularly benefiting those who rely on non-motorized transportation for daily commuting. The Active Transportation Plan outlined key recommendations to bolster and encourage bicycling and walking while improving the infrastructure to support the City’s growing population. It also provided a thorough inventory of existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure, identifying areas for improvement, prioritizing enhancements, and outlines sources to secure funding for implementation using the existing Complete Streets with ADA Compliance and Active Transportation Safety Enhancement Plan.

Exeter’s Active Transportation Plan was also guided by an Equity Framework that focuses on addressing the needs of the City’s most vulnerable user groups, including low-income families, children, elderly residents, people with disabilities, and those without access to cars. The Active Transportation Plan sets forth a vision for a connected and complete pedestrian and bicycle network that provides optimal mobility, safety, and accessibility for all residents, regardless of age or ability.

This network is designed to be maintainable, scalable, and seamlessly integrated into the lifestyles of Exeter’s residents.

As part of the project scope, TJKM also prepared a Caltrans Active Transportation Plan Cycle 7 project application that was submitted in June 2024 for consideration. The Final Report was reviewed by the Council on August 27th, 2024, and was adopted in September 2024.

Item H.2
Packet Page 72
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
| 15

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AND CONNECTIVITY STUDY, DINUBA Reference: Elva Patino, City of Dinuba, (559) 591-5924 extension 304, [email protected] The project objective of the project was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of safety concerns, travel patterns, and infrastructure to improve walking and bicycling for its residents. TJKM assessed existing conditions by obtaining and reviewing relevant existing data, studies, and reports related to active transportation policies and guidance; reviewed existing transportation infrastructure and connectivity for gaps and deficiencies, as well as barriers to safe routes to school; and examined data available from SWITRS and the Dinuba Police Department.

Extensive public participation was conducted through the hosting of Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings, community meetings, City Council meetings, development of an interactive project website to engage the community to submit ideas, concerns, priorities, and desired facility and streetscape elements. A walking/bicycling tour was conducted as part of public outreach process.

TJKM developed a Needs and Demand Analysis, which assessed needs for enhancement, mobility, and safety for all modes of transportation. The assessment addressed: 1) the physical attributes of existing facilities; 2) the potential for vehicle trip reductions and air quality benefits; 3) potential for increased walking and bicycle usage; and 4) the needs of all users of the corridor. The assessment also identified opportunities for improvement for all modes of transportation, identify gaps and deficiencies within the existing system, and suggested locations where improvements should be prioritized. The project also involved the development of a neighborhood traffic calming program and a complete streets policy.

Based on the work completed for the project, the City of Dinuba applied for funding under the Caltrans HSIP and received $1.6M funds to implement the recommendations. In addition, based on the work completed under this project; and Local Road Safety Plan, Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan and Complete Streets Plan, TJKM assisted the City of Dinuba to apply for an Active Transportation Plan grant and was successful to receive $18 million.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, SCOTTS VALLEY
Reference: Amelia Conlon, City of Santa Cruz (formerly with Ecology Action), (831) 420-5110, [email protected] TJKM assisted Ecology Action and the City of Scotts Valley with strategic tasks focusing on successful completion and implementation of the City's Active Transportation Plan. The Plan was a partnership between the City and nonprofits:

Ecology Action and Bike Santa Cruz County, funded through a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Transportation Planning Grant. The Active Transportation Plan describes current conditions, list barriers to active transportation, and recommends infrastructure and non-infrastructure solutions which promote statewide goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while fostering livable communities, healthy transportation, and public involvement in transportation planning. Public input was gathered through outreach events including a community meeting led by TJKM and online comments. The outreach process defined the community’s vision of a sustainable pedestrian and bike-friendly city and identified key concerns and barriers to non-motorized travel. The Plan guides future improvements and secure grant funding. The planning team developed a detailed set of projects to enhance citywide mobility.

Item H.2
Packet Page 73
March 12, 2026
Resumes
TAB #5
Item H.2
Packet Page 74
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
Resumes | 1
TAB #5: RESUMES -
NAYAN AMIN, TE | PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE AND QA/QC
Registration: CA TE 2290
Education: M.S., Civil Engineering, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA | B.S., Civil Engineering, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India
Mr. Amin has 36 years of both public and private sector experience in the areas of transportation planning, including active transportation plans, transportation impact studies, transportation management plans, construction scheduling, construction area signs, signing and striping, traffic signal coordination, traffic operations, transit priority, traffic signal systems, freeway and arterial management studies, and intelligent transportation systems planning, design and construction oversight. He specializes in macro and microscopic model development and application for analysis of impacts across all modes of transportation. His projects include planning, design, and providing construction oversight on projects to enhance operations and safety for all modes of transportation.

Studies also include multimodal operations, light-rail, bus rapid transit, pedestrian, bicyclists and traffic safety and operations.

Project Experience
• Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bike Master Plan, Monrovia, CA: Principal-In-Charge. Assisting the City of Monrovia to develop their Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and update the current Bicycle Master Plan. Tasks include review of existing plans, policies and programs and perform data collection and analysis for both the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bicycle Master Plan update. Develop an Outreach Plan and hold Stakeholder and Community meetings, along with development of an interactive project webpages for both the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bicycle Master Plan update. Other tasks include an equity analysis, recommendations and priority projects, implementation and programming, and a draft/final Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and updated Bicycle Master Plan.
• Active Transportation Plan, Tulare, CA: Principal-In-Charge. Developing an Active Transportation Plan to guide the City in identifying and prioritizing active transportation improvements; establishing performance-based goals and policies; enhancing safety for people walking, rolling, and bicycling; and promoting multimodal travel for residents of all ages and abilities. Using current plans, policies, programs, and community initiatives, evaluated existing conditions, identified infrastructure gaps and opportunities, and proposed targeted improvements to City roadways along with potential funding sources for effective implementation.
• Citywide Active Transportation Plan, Fresno, CA: Principal-In-Charge and QA/QC. The team is prepared an update to the Plan. We built upon the previous success that Fresno experienced through the enforcement of these plans and policies as well as enhancement to critical pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to adhere to all Ages and Abilities standards and objectives. The team also developed strategies and identified opportunities to improve safety and connectivity, developed a safety education program, conducted community outreach including two Pop-Up demonstration projects, and developed conceptual plans for potential projects.
• Active Transportation Plan, Scotts Valley, CA: Principal-In-Charge. The team assisted Ecology Action and the City of Scotts Valley with strategic tasks focusing on successful completion and implementation of the city's active transportation plan. The plan describes current conditions, list barriers to active transportation, and recommends infrastructure and non-infrastructure solutions which promote statewide goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while fostering livable communities, healthy transportation, and public involvement in transportation planning. Public input was gathered through outreach events including a community meeting led by TJKM and online comments. The plan guides future improvements and secure grant funding. The planning team developed a detailed set of projects to enhance citywide mobility. • Citywide Active Transportation Plan, Patterson, CA: Project Manager. The team prepared a citywide bicycle and pedestrian master plan. Core components of the plan included: An overall framework plan depicting the City’s future cycling and walking network; Identification of pedestrian and bicycle network deficiencies, and development of implementable improvement options; Design tools for improvements; Conceptual designs for short and long-term improvements suitable for future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding programming and grant applications; and A phasing plan and grant-focused funding strategy for prioritized projects, programs and action steps.
• Active Transportation Plan, Exeter, CA: Principal-In-Charge. The Team assisted the city in developing an Active Transportation Plan for the City of Exeter. Using the existing Complete Streets with ADA Compliance and Active Transportation Safety Enhancement Plan, Tasks include existing conditions review, identifying and updating pedestrian and bicycle projects and costs, Safe Routes to Schools projects, other non-motorized transportation modes, gather and review public input, and develop a draft and final report.

Item H.2
Packet Page 75
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
Resumes | 2
• Greater Downtown Active Transportation Plan, Stockton, CA: Project Manager. Retained to perform professional services for Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis for the City of Stockton Greater Downtown Active Transportation Plan. Twelve study intersections were selected for the project within the study area. As part of the project, evaluated under existing conditions 12 study intersections during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods. TJKM collected relevant data such as traffic volume and existing travel demand model data, details on newly constructed transportation improvements, and data on proposed development and transportation projects as it relates to this project. Attended monthly Project Development Team meetings with City of Stockton staff members and project stakeholders as well as project workshops. • Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, Belmont, CA: Project Manager that oversaw development of a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle master plan to encourage people of all ages to bike and/or walk more. The team prepared a thorough review of existing bicycle, pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School planning documents, including the City’s Complete Streets Policy, and conducted peak hour manual counts for pedestrians and bicyclists at key intersections, as well as analyzed pedestrian and bicycle collisions to offer countermeasures. Identified and worked with representatives from community groups, schools, police and fire departments, coalitions, and adjacent agencies to gain support of the plan, and conducted public outreach via public workshops, walking/biking tours, project websites, online surveys, and other strategies. Recommended capital projects based on existing conditions and input and assessed design policies and guidelines to maintain a natural aesthetic. • Citywide Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, Pico Rivera, CA: Principal-In-Charge. Assisting the City to develop a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan to enhance safety and operations for all modes of transportation of all ages. The project includes formation of Stakeholder Advisory Group; public outreach; collision data collection and analysis; identification of Safety Action countermeasures; development of policies and programs; development of educational and enforcement programs; proposed text for a General Plan update; and a Final Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. • Update/Expand Local Road Safety/Action Plans, Mendocino County, CA: Principal-In-Charge and QA/QC. The team assisted Mendocino Council of Governments to update and expand their existing Local Road Safety Plans (five separate reports/plans) to include all required SS4A Action Plan components thus enabling the County and Cities to apply for SS4A implementation grant funding. This update/expansion also included newly identified safety projects, including projects identified during the stakeholder outreach. In addition to the technical research and analysis required, equitable stakeholder and public outreach was conducted in all areas of the County, to inform the project.
• Vision Zero and Action Plan, Cupertino, CA: Principal-In-Charge. Assisted the City to develop a Vision Zero Action Plan to enhance safety and operations for all modes of transportation of all ages. The project included: formation of Stakeholder Advisory Group; public outreach; collision data collection and analysis; identification of Vision Zero countermeasures; development of policies and programs; development of a Capital Improvement List for the Action Plan and Action Plan Strategy; development of educational and enforcement programs; proposed text for a General Plan update; and a Final Vision Zero Action Plan.

Item H.2
Packet Page 76
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
Resumes | 3
RUTA JARIWALA, PE, TE | PROJECT MANAGER
Registrations: CA CE 73840 | CA TE 2465 | TX CE 135281 | FL CE 100796 Education: M.S., Civil Engineering, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA | B.S., Civil Engineering, Bombay University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Ms. Jariwala has 26 years of professional experience in the areas of transportation planning, including bicycle and pedestrian planning and safety studies such as Active Transportation Plans and LRSPs, as well as arterial management studies, signal coordination, traffic signal systems, traffic impact studies/environmental impact reports and intelligent transportation systems planning, design and construction oversight. She has extensive experience in macro and microscopic model development and application for analysis of traffic operations for express lane studies as well as multimodal operations, light-rail, bus rapid transit, pedestrian, bicyclists, and traffic safety studies.

Project Experience
• Citywide Active Transportation Plan, Fresno, CA: Project Manager. Prepared an update to the City Active Transportation Plan.

Built upon the previous success that Fresno experienced through the enforcement of these plans and policies as well as enhancement to critical pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to adhere to all Ages and Abilities standards and objectives. The team also developed strategies and identified opportunities to improve safety and connectivity, developed a safety education program, conducted community outreach including two Pop-Up demonstration projects, and developed conceptual plans for potential projects.
• Active Transportation Plan, Tulare, CA: Project Manager. Developing an Active Transportation Plan to guide the City in identifying and prioritizing active transportation improvements; establishing performance-based goals and policies; enhancing safety for people walking, rolling, and bicycling; and promoting multimodal travel for residents of all ages and abilities. Using current plans, policies, programs, and community initiatives, evaluated existing conditions, identified infrastructure gaps and opportunities, and proposed targeted improvements to City roadways along with potential funding sources for effective implementation.
• Safety Action Plan and Bike Master Plan, Monrovia, CA: Principal-In-Charge. Assisting to develop the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and update the current Bicycle Master Plan. Tasks include reviewing existing plans, policies and programs and performing data collection and analysis for both the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bicycle Master Plan update.

Developing an Outreach Plan and hold Stakeholder and Community meetings, along with development of an interactive project webpages for both the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bicycle Master Plan update. Other tasks include an equity analysis, recommendations and priority projects, implementation and programming, and a draft/final Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and updated Bicycle Master Plan.
• Active Transportation Plan, Exeter, CA: Principal-In-Charge overseeing the team that is assisting the City to develop an Active Transportation Plan for the City of Exeter. Using the existing Complete Streets with ADA Compliance and Active Transportation Safety Enhancement Plan, Tasks include existing conditions review, identifying and updating pedestrian and bicycle projects and costs, Safe Routes to Schools projects, other non-motorized transportation modes, gather and review public input, and develop a draft and final report.
• Active Transportation Plan, Scotts Valley, CA: Project Manager. The team assisted Ecology Action and the City of Scotts Valley with strategic tasks focusing on successful completion and implementation of the City's active transportation plan. The plan describes current conditions, list barriers to active transportation, and recommends infrastructure and non-infrastructure solutions which promote statewide goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while fostering livable communities, healthy transportation, and public involvement in transportation planning. Public input was gathered through outreach events including a community meeting led by TJKM and online comments. The Plan guides future improvements and secure grant funding. The planning team developed a detailed set of projects to enhance citywide mobility. • Citywide Active Transportation Plan, Patterson, CA: Principal-In-Charge. The team prepared a citywide bicycle and pedestrian master plan. Core components of the plan included: An overall framework plan depicting the City’s future cycling and walking network; Identification of pedestrian and bicycle network deficiencies, and development of implementable improvement options; design tools for improvements; conceptual designs for short and long-term improvements suitable for future CIP funding programming and grant applications; and A phasing plan and grant-focused funding strategy for prioritized projects, programs and action steps.

Item H.2
Packet Page 77
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
Resumes | 4
• Greater Downtown Active Transportation Plan, Stockton, CA: Task Lead. Retained to perform professional services for Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis for the City of Stockton Greater Downtown Active Transportation Plan. Twelve study intersections were selected for the project within the study area. As part of the project, evaluated under existing conditions 12 study intersections during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods. TJKM collected relevant data such as traffic volume and existing travel demand model data, details on newly constructed transportation improvements, and data on proposed development and transportation projects as it relates to this project. Attended monthly Project Development Team meetings with City of Stockton staff members and project stakeholders as well as project workshops. • Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Connectivity Study, Dinuba, CA: Task Lead. She provided planning services to complete the Dinuba Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Connectivity Study. Assessed existing conditions; reviewed existing multimodal transportation infrastructure and connectivity for gaps and deficiencies, as well as barriers to safe routes to school; and examined crash data available from SWITRS and the Dinuba Police Department and developed countermeasures that enhance safety and mobility for all travel modes. Extensive public participation was provided, including a walking/bicycling tour and an online survey.

The project also involved the development of a neighborhood traffic calming program and a complete streets policy. • Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, Belmont, CA: Task Leader involved in developing a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle master plan to encourage people of all ages to bike or walk more. She prepared a thorough review of existing bicycle, pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School planning documents, conducted peak hour manual counts for pedestrians and bicyclists at key intersections, as well as analyzed pedestrian and bicycle collisions to offer countermeasures. She also identified and worked with representatives from community groups, schools, police and fire departments, coalitions and adjacent agencies to gain support of the plan and conducted public outreach. • Local Roadway Safety Plan, Santa Cruz County, CA: Project Manager for the Santa Cruz County Local Roadway Safety Plan, which analyzed traffic collisions on the County’s roadways and recommend solutions with a particular emphasis on multimodal travel. Tasks included document review, stakeholder outreach, systemic safety analysis, emphasis areas, countermeasure selection, and safety projects.
• Castro Street Bike Lane Feasibility Study, Mountain View, CA: Principal-In-Charge. Assisted with the feasibility study in assessing options for improving bicycle accommodations along Castro Street between El Camino Real to California Street within Downtown Mountain View. The Study included review of existing roadway network, multimodal analysis, including LTS, parking analysis, community engagement, and development and evaluation of alternatives. Based on the alternative evaluation, TJKM recommended a most feasible alternative for short term as well as for long term which can be implemented along Castro Street study corridor.
• Local Roadway Safety Plan, Glendale, CA: Task Lead. Assisting with developing a Local Roadway Safety Plan. The Glendale Local Roadway Safety Plan is a living document including systemic safety analysis, identification of high-risk roadway segments and intersections, emphasis areas and 4 E’s strategies, a countermeasure toolbox, and priority safety projects viable to be phased in short, near, and long-term implementation. As part of the project, TJKM prepared and submitted four HSIP applications for Cycle 11 on behalf of the City in September 2022. Based on the submitted applications the TJKM Team helped the city to secure $6.5 million in HSIP Grant funding.
• Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) and Complete Streets Policy, Dinuba, CA: Task Lead. Assisted with developing the City’s first NTCP and Complete Streets Policy. The NTCP provides a well-defined toolbox to effectively utilize the most appropriate traffic calming solutions with proper community outreach and collaboration. Key tasks included: Develop a Traffic Calming Toolbox; Policies and guidelines for application of each strategy in the toolbox; Develop necessary forms and educational documents to establish community support; and Traffic calming involves strategies and physical measures to reduce vehicular speeds and cut-through traffic, thus improving safety for all travel modes. In addition, he developed a Complete Streets Policy to assist long-term citywide multimodal planning and decision making. Recommended a joint outreach effort for the NTCP and Complete Streets Policy, along with the ongoing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Connectivity Study.

Item H.2
Packet Page 78
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
Resumes | 5
COLIN BURGETT | INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIZATION TASK LEAD Education: M.C.R.P, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA | B.S., Political Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
Mr. Burgett has nearly three decades of professional experience with expertise in multimodal transportation and integrated transportation/land use planning. He specializes in strategic planning for large-scale projects, including citywide transportation plans, large area plans, campus plans, bicycle and pedestrian master plans, EIR transportation studies, bus rapid transit corridor studies, and transit station area plans. He has extensive experience with projects that emphasize corridor revitalization, transit-oriented development, and complete streets planning. Mr. Burgett manages projects that place a strong emphasis on facilitating the interactions between transportation systems, land use patterns and urban design components.

Project Experience
• Active Transportation Plan, Scotts Valley, CA: Task Lead assisted Ecology Action and the City of Scotts Valley with strategic tasks focusing on successful completion and implementation of the City's active transportation plan. Reviewed existing conditions and developed improvement options and concept designs. Conducted community outreach, facilitated workshop discussions to gather input on key needs, and presented improvement options to community members. • Active Transportation Plan, Pinole, CA: Project Manager for a citywide active transportation plan process that included community engagement, development of design concepts and improvement recommendations. Core components of the Plan included the Identification of pedestrian and bicycle network deficiencies and implementable improvement options. Developed conceptual designs for short-term and long-term improvements suitable for future CIP funding programming and grant applications.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Fairfax, CA: Project Manager. Assisting the Town of Fairfax with a comprehensive update to its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to reassess community needs and priorities, re-engage the public, and develop recommendations for short-term and long-term projects to enhance active transportation in Fairfax and to improve intercommunity travel to and from adjacent jurisdictions. TJKM conducted an Existing Conditions Review that was muti-faceted including a Geographic Information Systems and demographics analysis, Bicycle LTS analysis, collision data review and safety analysis. Worked closely with Town staff in providing materials for community outreach and presented key topics for review and input by the town’s bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. • Citywide Active Transportation Plan, Patterson, CA: Project Manager for a citywide active transportation plan process that included community engagement, development of design concepts and improvement recommendations. Core components of the Plan included the Identification of pedestrian and bicycle network deficiencies and implementable improvement options.

Developed conceptual designs for short-term and long-term improvements suitable for future Capital Improvement Program funding programming and grant applications.
• Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Connectivity Study and Complete Streets Policy, Dinuba, CA: Provided design input for proposed citywide bicycle and pedestrian network improvements. Developed a complete streets policy document that included recommended changes to the city’s street design guidelines to allow for cost-effective complete street improvements. • Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, Belmont, CA: Task Lead for a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle master plan, and the first such plan developed by the city. Reviewed existing conditions and collision analysis. Prepared a comprehensive needs assessment, incorporating public input as well as existing conditions findings, that informed network development and generated additional support for the citywide planning effort. Developed citywide bikeway network and pedestrian priority improvement recommendations. Worked with Team on cost estimates. Worked closely with City staff and technical advisory committee and led walking tour. Prepared a strategic implementation plan and CIP list with recommended phasing.
• 2040 General Plan Mobility Element, Seaside, CA: Project Manager that led a comprehensive update to Seaside’s Circulation Element incorporating complete streets components, multimodal performance metrics, revisions to citywide bikeway network, identification of pedestrian priority focus areas, and related land use and mobility projects in updating the CIP list. The bikeway network component included a comprehensive revision to the City’s planned bikeway network that included bicycle boulevard corridors, and bicycle lane options with lane width modifications on each of the City’s primary streets. • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, San Leandro, CA: Project Manager for a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian master plan. Key tasks included updates to the recommended bikeway network and incorporation of a pedestrian component. Pedestrian and bicycle improvement options were developed for high-priority and “hot-spot” locations. • Bicycle Master Plan, Oakland, CA: Principal author and Lead Planner of the City of Oakland’s first Bicycle Master Plan. Worked closely with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, developed the Plan components including bikeway network map, and led the plan through public review and adoption.

Item H.2
Packet Page 79
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
Resumes | 6
• Safe Routes to Downtown Study, Los Altos, CA: Principal-in-Charge who oversaw study focused on enhancing connections to Downtown Los Altos for pedestrians and bicyclists across Foothill Expressway. The study investigated potential surface access improvements across Foothill Expressway at its intersections with Main Street and with West Edith Avenue. The Safe Routes to Downtown Study developed several conceptual design alternatives to improve pedestrian crossings by redesigning the right-turn slip lanes, while also providing bicycle lanes for cyclists traveling on the expressway. • South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan, Richmond, CA: Provided transportation engineering input into the development of multimodal improvement options including, street cross-sections incorporating bicycle lanes, pedestrian improvements, and transit-only lanes; and conceptual design options for a proposed bicycle/pedestrian/transit bridge across Interstate 580. The Connectivity Plan contained specific recommendations to improve multimodal connectivity between Richmond’s Southern Shoreline and Central Richmond neighborhoods as well as adjacent communities including El Cerrito, Albany, and Berkeley.
• Central Avenue Complete Streets, Albuquerque, NM: Principal-in-Charge who oversaw the transportation components of a community planning effort that focused on multimodal improvement options to enhance mobility on a two-mile study corridor between Downtown Albuquerque and the Nob Hill district. Key tasks included the development of segment-specific cross-section recommendations to provide lane configuration options, to accommodate bicycle and transit lanes, on-street parking, and widened sidewalks. The project included stakeholder meetings, a community workshop, and a two-day charrette. • Mission Chavez Streetscape Plan, San Francisco, CA: Project Manager for the traffic operational components of a multimodal improvement plan developed as part of an area-wide streetscape plan. The Streetscape Plan identified changes to lane configurations on two key corridors, Folsom Street and South Van Ness Avenue, to accommodate enhanced bicycle circulation.

Assessed the potential effect of proposed bicycle improvement options on motor vehicle traffic, which demonstrated that a proposed “four to three” road diet, to allow for the installation of bicycle lanes on Folsom Street, could be accommodated without significantly impacting traffic circulation.
• Ocean Beach Master Plan, San Francisco, CA: Transportation Planner for the development of multimodal improvement options on the Great Highway corridor that provides access to San Francisco’s Ocean Beach, including segments of Sloat Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard. The Plan was undertaken by SPUR to develop a climate adaption and open space plan to address many key issues at Ocean Beach. A key element of the Plan included potential changes to Great Highway given on-going erosion, including reducing the number of travel lanes and closing one segment by rerouting motor vehicle traffic onto Sloat Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard, while maintaining public access to the beach. Given the proposed rerouting, key tasks focused on multimodal improvement options on Sloat Boulevard including, a significant reduction in the curb-to-curb width to provide shorter pedestrian crossings, the provision of parking, and the development of two potential roundabout configurations to maintain efficient travel flow at two key intersections.

Item H.2
Packet Page 80
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
Resumes | 7
GRISHMA PANDYA | EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS/NETWORK EVALUATION TASK LEAD Education: B.S., Architecture, Mumbai University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India | M.S. Urban and Regional Planning, San Jose State University, CA
Ms. Pandya has over three years of experience as an Assistant Transportation Planner. As an enthusiastic and dedicated Urban and Transportation Planner, she contributes to the development of sustainable and vibrant communities through thoughtful urban planning and efficient transportation systems. She has a strong educational foundation and four years of experience with a desire to make a positive impact. She assists to translate complex data and concepts into compelling visuals that enhance public understanding and support informed decision-making.

Project Experience
• Citywide Active Transportation Plan, Fresno, CA: Assistant Transportation Planner. Assisted in preparing an update to the City Active Transportation Plan. We built upon the previous success that Fresno experienced through the enforcement of these plans and policies as well as enhancement to critical pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to adhere to all Ages and Abilities standards and objectives. The team also developed strategies and identified opportunities to improve safety and connectivity, developed a safety education program, conducted community outreach including two Pop-Up demonstration projects, and developed conceptual plans for potential projects. Ms. Pandya assisted with preparing the Geographic Information Systems base maps.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Fairfax, CA: Task Lead assisting the Town of Fairfax with a comprehensive update to its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to reassess community needs and priorities, re-engage the public, and develop recommendations for short-term and long-term projects to enhance active transportation in Fairfax and to improve intercommunity travel to and from adjacent jurisdictions. Prepared an Existing Conditions report that was muti-faceted including a Geographic Information Systems and demographics analysis, Bicycle LTS analysis, collision data review and safety analysis.

Worked closely with Town staff in providing materials for community outreach and presented key topics for review and input by the town’s bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee.
• Active Transportation Plan, Tulare, CA: Assistant Transportation Planner. Assisting with developing an Active Transportation Plan to guide the City in identifying and prioritizing active transportation improvements; establishing performance-based goals and policies; enhancing safety for people walking, rolling, and bicycling; and promoting multimodal travel for residents of all ages and abilities. Using current plans, policies, programs, and community initiatives, evaluated existing conditions, identified infrastructure gaps and opportunities, and proposed targeted improvements to City roadways along with potential funding sources for effective implementation.
• Update/Expand Local Road Safety/Action Plans, Mendocino County, CA: Assistant Transportation Planner. Assisted Mendocino Council of Governments to update and expand their existing Local Road Safety Plans (five separate reports/plans) to include all required SS4A Action Plan components thus enabling the County and Cities to apply for SS4A implementation grant funding. This update/expansion also included newly identified safety projects, including projects identified during the stakeholder outreach. In addition to the technical research and analysis required, equitable stakeholder and public outreach was conducted in all areas of the County, to inform the project.
• Safety Action Plan and Bike Master Plan, Monrovia, CA: Support Staff. to develop the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and update the current Bicycle Master Plan. Tasks include review of existing plans, policies and programs and perform data collection and analysis for both the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and Bicycle Master Plan update. Other tasks include an equity analysis, recommendations and priority projects, implementation and programming, and a draft/final Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and updated Bicycle Master Plan.

Item H.2
Packet Page 81
March 12, 2026
Acknowledgment of City Consultant
Agreement & Certification of
Insurance Requirements
TAB #6
Item H.2
Packet Page 82
2026 BICYCLE, TRAILS, AND WALKWAYS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Orinda
TAB #6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CITY CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AND

CERTIFICATION OF INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
TJKM has reviewed the City’s standard consultant agreement and is willing to accept the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement and will provide a Certificate of Insurance compliant with the City’s requirements upon award. Upon selection our Project Manager and/or key personnel will comply with filling out the Form 700 - Statement of Economic Interests with the City of Orinda.

Item H.2
Packet Page 83
CALIFORNIA | FLORIDA | TEXAS
Corporate Oce 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925.463.0611 | www.TJKM.com
TJKM
Item H.2
Packet Page 84
Item H.2
Packet Page 85
Item H.2
Packet Page 86
Item H.2
Packet Page 87
Exhibit C
Evidence of Insurance
(pages attached)
1576240.1
Item H.2
Packet Page 88

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Accept Work and Contract with Eric F. Anderson Inc. for the Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement Project, CIP No. 4179
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider adopting Resolution No. 46-26 Accepting the Work and Contract with Eric F. Anderson Inc. (EFA) for the Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement Project, CIP No. 4179.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 46-26 Accepting the Work and Contract with Eric F. Anderson, Inc. (EFA) for the Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement Project, CIP No. 4179 BACKGROUND:

The existing accent tiles on the exterior second-floor frontage of the Library had become detached several years ago, and some sections were removed to prevent falling hazards.

Staff arranged to procure matching handmade decorative tiles, researched causes for the tile adhesion failures and developed specifications for proper replacement of the tile.

DISCUSSION:

At their January 13, 2026, meeting, the City Council awarded the subject construction contract to EFA for replacing the exterior accent tiles. EFA was the lowest responsive bidder, for an amount of $163,569. A 15% contingency was also authorized.

The work involved installing scaffolding, removal of tile and backing board, installing stucco coating for the tile base, installing tile and expansion joints and grouting the tile work. Work started March 9, 2026, and was substantially completed on May 5, 2026. No change orders were required; the contingency was not used.

Upon City Council adoption of Resolution No. 46-26, the City Engineer or Public Works Director will sign the Notice of Completion, and the City Clerk will record it with Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder’s office. Retention (5% of the contract value) will be released in accordance with the contract documents and the Public Contract Code.

Item H.3
Packet Page 89
FISCAL IMPACT:

The project budget (CIP No. 4179) has adequate remaining budget to cover the final contract value. Funding is provided by Library Parcel Tax (Fund 520). Final project cost, including prior expenses and tile procurement, is approximately $264,000.

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 46-26
B. Notice of Completion, EFA, 6-9-2026
Prepared by: Scott Christie
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item H.3
Packet Page 90
RESOLUTION NO. 46-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
ACCEPTING THE WORK AND CONTRACT WITH ERIC F. ANDERSON INC. FOR THE LIBRARY EXTERIOR ACCENT TILE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CIP NO. 5019
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Eric F Anderson Inc. (EFA) in the amount of $163,569 and authorized a 15% construction contingency; and
WHEREAS, the work consisted of installing replacement tile, provided by the city, along the second floor exterior frontage of the library building, and the final contract cost was $163,569; and
WHEREAS, Eric F Anderson Inc. has completed the work in accordance with the contract documents, and the Director of Public Works recommends acceptance of the Project as complete.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda hereby accepts work and contract with Eric F Anderson Inc. (EFA), under the terms and conditions of the above-referenced construction contract documents.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on June 9, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Item H.3
Packet Page 91

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:

City Clerk/Public Works Dept.

City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563

NO FEE DOCUMENT
(Government Code section 27383)
TITLE:

Notice of Completion for
Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement Project, CIP No. 4179 (Contractor: Eric F. Anderson, Inc.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the undersigned, those certain improvements, to wit:

Library Exterior Accent Tile Replacement Project, CIP No. 4179 Project location: Orinda Library in the City of Orinda, Contra Costa County, California:

Property Owner: Interest in Property or Right of Way is owned by Friends of the Library (a nonprofit organization, 26 Orinda Way, Orinda CA 94563) The contract which has heretofore been let to Eric F. Anderson, Inc., and which contract was filed for record in the City Clerk’s office in the City of Orinda, Contra Costa County, California, was actually completed in accordance with the plans and specifications, and the work was completed and accepted by the City of Orinda, on 6/9/2026
Information pertaining to the estimate of cost, names of bidders with prices bid, changes in adopted and approved plans and specifications, and the total cost of work is on file at the City Clerks’ office of the City of Orinda.

CITY OF ORINDA,
a municipal corporation
Date: ________________ By: ____________________________________ Scott Christie, Public Works Director
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the above Notice of Completion was duly accepted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting thereof held on 6/9/2026. ______________________________
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Item H.3
Packet Page 92

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Adoption of the Appropriation Limit for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider setting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 appropriation limit at $29,986,057. It is a requirement under Article XIII of the State Constitution to adopt an annual appropriations limit which sets the amount of tax revenue a government can legally spend. Charges for services, regulatory fees, grants, donations, and other non-tax proceeds are not subject to the limit. Exemptions are also made for voter-approved debt, qualified capital expenditures, and for the cost of compliance with court or Federal government mandates. The limit is allowed to increase annually based on inflation factors.

This limit is calculated by multiplying the preceding year's appropriations limit by the percentage change in population of the City or County and the percentage change in the California Per Capita Personal Income.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 36-26 Establishing the Annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

BACKGROUND:

California voters approved propositions, amending the State Constitution, which require that the annual City budget include a calculation of the Appropriations Limit, sometimes referred to as the Gann Limit. This requirement was imposed by Proposition 4 (1979) and later amended by Proposition 111 (1990), which made various amendments to Article XIIIB of the State Constitution. The legislation imposes a restriction on the amount of government revenue which may be appropriated in any fiscal year.

The appropriations limit is based on actual appropriations during the 1978-79 fiscal year and is increased each year using the growth of population and inflation. Since the City of Orinda was formed after the adoption of a requirement for an Appropriations Limit, the City’s initial appropriations limit was established by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. This was included on the ballot for the incorporation vote.

The Appropriations Limit does not apply to all revenues. It only applies to those revenues that are referred to as “Proceeds of Taxes” (such as property tax, sales tax, etc.). Charges for services, regulatory fees, grants, donations, and other non-tax proceeds are not Item H.4
Packet Page 93
subject to the limit. Exemptions are also made for voter-approved debt, qualified capital expenditures, and for the cost of compliance with court or Federal government mandates.

Qualified capital expenditures must have a useful life of ten or more years and a cost that equals or exceeds $100,000.

Under State law the limit can be increased each year based on a specific formula and specified growth factors. Each year as part of the Budget process, an adjustment factor is calculated and applied to the prior year’s limit.

The State of California Department of Finance provides growth factors related to changes in the per capita personal income and population each year which can be found at the following address: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/price-and-populationfactors/.

The law also requires that the City Council adopts the adjusted limit by resolution at a public meeting. The calculation must be made available for review 15 days prior to adoption. The City Council may also adopt adjustments and/or corrections to previously adopted limits if necessary.

DISCUSSION:

Each year the Appropriations Limit (Limit) is adjusted as the Annual Budget is reviewed and estimates are made for the Appropriation of funds.

The adjustment to the Limit is calculated by multiplying the adopted Limit from the previous year, by factors reflecting economic changes.

In order to maximize the limit, the factor that provides the greatest amount of growth is selected each year. The two sets of optional factors are:
a) The change in population – selecting between the annual change for the City of Orinda; or for Contra Costa County; and
a) The change in the State per capita Personal Income; or the percentage change in the assessed valuation caused by Orinda Non-Residential Building Construction.

As provided by the State of California Department of Finance (Attachment C), the City's population growth rate was -0.42% and the Contra Costa County population growth rate was -0.31%. Since reduction in Contra Costa County population is smaller than the reduction in the City of Orinda population, it is recommended to use as the population factor for the FY 2026-27 Appropriations Limit calculation.

For the second factor, the City has used the change in the State per capita income of

4.95% (Attachment B). Since the City’s assessed valuation is mostly residential, and no notable non-residential growth occurred in the past year, it is unlikely that the nonresidential growth would exceed the income factor. In the event there is significant nonresidential development in any year, this factor would be analyzed further.

Item H.4
Packet Page 94
On June 3, 2025, the City Council adopted the FY 2025-26 Appropriations Limit of $28,660,591 (Resolution No. 31-25).

The Schedule of Annual Appropriation Limit Calculation attached to the Resolution 36-26 (Attachment A) provides the calculation of the FY 2026-27 Appropriations Limit and Appropriations Subject to that Limit. Based on the adjustment factors utilized this year, the Appropriation Limit for FY 2026-27 is $29,986,057. Appropriations subject to this limit are $15,196,379, which is $14,789,678 (or 49.3%) under the Limit.

NEXT STEPS:

As part of the annual Financial Audit, the independent Auditors prepare “Agreed upon Procedures” reports to validate the computation of the Limit. This report is released at the same time as the Fiscal Year 2025-26 audit.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct cost to adopt an appropriations limit. However, there is a limitation on the amount of tax revenue the City can legally spend. As previously mentioned, in Fiscal Year 2026-27 the City remains 49.3% below the limit which restricts appropriations of taxes.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 36-26 Adopting FY 2026-27 Appropriation Limit B. California Department of Finance Price Factor Information C. California Department of Finance Population Change Information Prepared By: Bhavna Chaudhary, Senior Accountant
Respectfully Submitted by,
Douglas Alessio, Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item H.4
Packet Page 95
RESOLUTION NO. 36-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
WHEREAS, the establishment of an Appropriations Limit was imposed in 1979 by adoption of Proposition 4 by the voters Statewide, and amended in 1990 by the adoption by the voters of Proposition 111; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the State Constitution requires that appropriations from the proceeds of taxes cannot exceed an annual appropriations limitation; and WHEREAS, the initial base appropriations limit for the City of Orinda was established in Fiscal Year 1985-1986 as incorporated into the ballot measure approving incorporation for the City; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIIB establishes the methodology for annually adjusting this appropriations limitation; and
WHEREAS, the methodology provides that the prior year’s appropriation limitation may be adjusted by the greater of either the annual change in the local non-residential new construction or in the California per capita personal income multiplied by the greater of the annual change in County population or in the City population; and WHEREAS, for Fiscal Year 2026-27 the City has selected the “Growth in the Contra Costa County Population” and “Growth in State Per Capita Income”; and WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2026-27 base limit to which the adjustment is applied shall be the Fiscal Year 2025-26 (Prior Year) Appropriations Limit of $28,660,591, as adopted by the City Council on June 3, 2025 (Resolution No. 31-25).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the appropriations limitation for the City of Orinda for Fiscal Year 2026-27 is established at $29,986,057, as set forth in the schedule attached hereto and made part hereof.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda on June 9, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item H.4
Packet Page 96

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
CALCULATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
A. SELECTION OF OPTIONAL FACTORS

1. Change in Population: The City selects the change in Contra Costa County population.

Options Population
1/1/2025
Population
1/1/2026
% Increase
(Decrease)
a. City of Orinda* 19,494 19,412 -0.42%
b. Contra Costa County* 1,167,506 1,163,891 -0.31%

2. Change in State per capita personal income vs. Orinda non-residential building construction: The City selects the change in State per capita personal income.

Options % Increase
a. Change in State Per Capita Personal Income* 4.95%
b. Change in Orinda Non-Residential Assessed Valuation N/A** * The per capita personal income and population information is provided by the State of California Department of Finance each year and can be found at the following address:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/price-and-population-factors/. ** Change in non-residential assessed valuation was not available and given that the majority of the assessed valuation in Orinda is designated as residential this factor would be expected to be lower than the Change in Per Capita Income.

B. APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Factors Calculation
Population Change for Contra Costa
County
-0.31% 0.99690
Change in State Per Capita Personal
Income

4.95% 1.04950
Adjustment Factor for FY 2026-27 1.046247 0.99690 x 1.04950 Prior Year Appropriation Limit
(FY 2025-26)
$28,660,591
Appropriation Limit FY 2026-27 $29,986,057 $28,660,591 x 1.046247 C. APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO LIMITATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 a) Proceeds of Taxes $19,899,929
b) Amount of interest earned from "proceeds of taxes" $555,953 c) Exclusions for debt service and qualified capital
outlay $5,259,503
d) Appropriations Subject to Limitation $15,196,379 a+b-c e) Appropriations Limit (current year) $29,986,057
Item H.4
Packet Page 97
f) Under (Over) Limit $14,789,678 e-d Item H.4
Packet Page 98
May 1, 2026
Dear Fiscal Officer:

Price Factor and Population Information
Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2227 requires the Department of Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments.

Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2026, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2026–27. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the factors to calculate the 2026–27 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2228 provides additional information regarding the appropriations limit. Article XIII B, section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2026. Please note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised.

The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.
/s Erika Li
Attachment
Item H.4
Packet Page 99
May 2026
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2026–27 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2026-27 4.95
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2026–27 appropriation limit.
2026–27:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 4.95 percent
Population Change = -0.14 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 4.95 + 100 = 1.0495 100
Population converted to a ratio: -0.14 + 100 = 0.9986
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2026–27: 1.0495 x 0.9986 = 1.0480 Item H.4
Packet Page 100
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Alameda Alameda -0.06 79,301 79,252 80,023
Albany Alameda -0.24 20,614 20,564 20,564
Berkeley Alameda 0.42 127,123 127,654 127,654
Dublin Alameda -0.19 74,480 74,335 74,769
Emeryville Alameda 0.42 13,555 13,612 13,612
Fremont Alameda 0.23 233,428 233,974 233,974
Hayward Alameda -0.51 162,383 161,557 161,557
Livermore Alameda -0.38 86,447 86,118 86,118
Newark Alameda -0.39 49,156 48,962 48,962
Oakland Alameda -0.03 429,512 429,371 429,591
Piedmont Alameda -0.36 10,841 10,802 10,802
Pleasanton Alameda -0.67 76,659 76,149 76,149
San Leandro Alameda 0.05 87,387 87,431 87,431
Union City Alameda -0.55 67,036 66,665 66,665
Unincorporated Alameda -0.12 148,374 148,203 148,265
Incorporated Alameda -0.10 1,517,922 1,516,446 1,517,871 County Total Alameda -0.10 1,666,296 1,664,649 1,666,136 Unincorporated Alpine 0.08 1,181 1,182 1,183
County Total Alpine 0.08 1,181 1,182 1,183
Amador Amador -0.54 184 183 183
Ione Amador -0.29 5,101 5,086 8,632
Jackson Amador -0.18 4,942 4,933 4,933
Plymouth Amador -0.53 1,135 1,129 1,129
Sutter Creek Amador -0.50 2,588 2,575 2,575
Unincorporated Amador -0.32 22,174 22,103 22,166
Incorporated Amador -0.32 13,950 13,906 17,452
County Total Amador -0.32 36,124 36,009 39,618
Biggs Butte -0.66 1,983 1,970 1,970
Chico Butte 0.08 108,026 108,113 108,113
Gridley Butte -0.66 7,433 7,384 7,384
Oroville Butte -0.39 20,744 20,664 20,664
Paradise Butte 9.24 9,686 10,581 10,581
Unincorporated Butte -0.82 60,725 60,229 60,229
Incorporated Butte 0.57 147,872 148,712 148,712
County Total Butte 0.16 208,597 208,941 208,941
Angels City Calaveras -0.31 3,524 3,513 3,513
Unincorporated Calaveras -0.17 41,153 41,084 41,165
Incorporated Calaveras -0.31 3,524 3,513 3,513
County Total Calaveras -0.18 44,677 44,597 44,678
Colusa Colusa 0.79 6,545 6,597 6,597
Williams Colusa 0.46 5,595 5,621 5,621
Unincorporated Colusa -1.43 9,927 9,785 9,785
Incorporated Colusa 0.64 12,140 12,218 12,218
County Total Colusa -0.29 22,067 22,003 22,003
Antioch Contra Costa -0.27 118,756 118,440 118,440
Brentwood Contra Costa -0.39 66,332 66,070 66,070
Clayton Contra Costa -0.63 10,827 10,759 10,759
Concord Contra Costa -0.47 123,075 122,494 122,494
Danville Contra Costa -0.14 43,250 43,190 43,190
El Cerrito Contra Costa -0.43 26,280 26,166 26,166
Hercules Contra Costa -0.34 26,413 26,323 26,323
Lafayette Contra Costa -0.23 25,380 25,321 25,321
Martinez Contra Costa -0.69 36,774 36,521 36,521
Moraga Contra Costa -0.58 16,760 16,662 16,662
Oakley Contra Costa -0.13 47,100 47,039 47,039
Orinda Contra Costa -0.42 19,494 19,412 19,412
Pinole Contra Costa 2.29 18,468 18,891 18,891
Pittsburg Contra Costa -0.57 76,922 76,484 76,484
Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.62 33,646 33,853 33,853
Richmond Contra Costa -0.63 114,415 113,695 113,695
San Pablo Contra Costa -0.62 31,664 31,468 31,468
San Ramon Contra Costa 0.06 84,173 84,220 84,220
Walnut Creek Contra Costa -0.63 70,736 70,288 70,288
Unincorporated Contra Costa -0.25 176,957 176,511 176,595 Incorporated Contra Costa -0.32 990,465 987,296 987,296 County Total Contra Costa -0.31 1,167,422 1,163,807 1,163,891

Page 1 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 101
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Crescent City Del Norte 5.55 4,015 4,238 6,407
Unincorporated Del Norte -2.49 20,442 19,932 19,932
Incorporated Del Norte 5.55 4,015 4,238 6,407
County Total Del Norte -1.17 24,457 24,170 26,339
Placerville El Dorado -0.59 10,480 10,418 10,428
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado -0.30 21,537 21,472 21,472
Unincorporated El Dorado -0.27 158,273 157,851 157,952
Incorporated El Dorado -0.40 32,017 31,890 31,900
County Total El Dorado -0.29 190,290 189,741 189,852
Clovis Fresno 0.25 129,570 129,889 129,889
Coalinga Fresno -0.92 13,433 13,309 17,692
Firebaugh Fresno 1.91 8,703 8,869 8,869
Fowler Fresno 3.11 7,705 7,945 7,945
Fresno Fresno 0.08 560,132 560,594 560,948
Huron Fresno -0.99 6,957 6,888 6,888
Kerman Fresno 0.10 17,481 17,498 17,498
Kingsburg Fresno -0.08 13,358 13,347 13,347
Mendota Fresno -0.19 12,829 12,805 12,805
Orange Cove Fresno -0.76 9,752 9,678 9,678
Parlier Fresno -0.46 14,726 14,658 14,658
Reedley Fresno 0.58 26,690 26,845 26,845
Sanger Fresno 1.01 27,130 27,403 27,403
San Joaquin Fresno -0.98 3,672 3,636 3,636
Selma Fresno -0.44 24,593 24,484 24,484
Unincorporated Fresno -0.87 159,678 158,287 159,091
Incorporated Fresno 0.13 876,731 877,848 882,585
County Total Fresno -0.03 1,036,409 1,036,135 1,041,676 Orland Glenn -0.30 8,658 8,632 8,632
Willows Glenn -0.79 6,439 6,388 6,388
Unincorporated Glenn -0.65 14,103 14,011 14,011
Incorporated Glenn -0.51 15,097 15,020 15,020
County Total Glenn -0.58 29,200 29,031 29,031
Arcata Humboldt 2.99 19,002 19,570 19,570
Blue Lake Humboldt -0.78 1,158 1,149 1,149
Eureka Humboldt -0.51 26,132 25,999 26,163
Ferndale Humboldt -0.15 1,367 1,365 1,365
Fortuna Humboldt -0.85 12,289 12,185 12,185
Rio Dell Humboldt -1.01 3,257 3,224 3,224
Trinidad Humboldt -1.02 294 291 291
Unincorporated Humboldt -0.92 69,626 68,988 69,079
Incorporated Humboldt 0.45 63,499 63,783 63,947
County Total Humboldt -0.27 133,125 132,771 133,026
Brawley Imperial -0.44 28,937 28,810 28,810
Calexico Imperial -0.45 40,062 39,881 39,881
Calipatria Imperial -0.94 3,526 3,493 6,002
El Centro Imperial -0.68 45,988 45,675 45,716
Holtville Imperial -1.32 5,685 5,610 5,610
Imperial Imperial 0.53 22,862 22,984 22,984
Westmorland Imperial -1.29 2,086 2,059 2,059
Unincorporated Imperial -0.85 31,726 31,457 34,899
Incorporated Imperial -0.43 149,146 148,512 151,062
County Total Imperial -0.50 180,872 179,969 185,961
Bishop Inyo 0.08 3,849 3,852 3,852
Unincorporated Inyo -0.17 14,890 14,865 14,928
Incorporated Inyo 0.08 3,849 3,852 3,852
County Total Inyo -0.12 18,739 18,717 18,780
Arvin Kern -0.71 19,937 19,795 19,795
Bakersfield Kern 0.35 421,377 422,853 422,853
California City Kern -0.77 13,243 13,141 13,141
Delano Kern 0.40 46,111 46,295 52,384
Maricopa Kern -0.78 1,023 1,015 1,015
McFarland Kern 0.72 14,232 14,334 14,334
Ridgecrest Kern -0.32 28,068 27,979 28,638
Shafter Kern 5.24 23,283 24,502 24,545
Taft Kern -0.38 6,922 6,896 6,896
Tehachapi Kern -0.22 9,445 9,424 11,800

Page 2 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 102
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Wasco Kern -0.76 22,608 22,437 25,806
Unincorporated Kern -0.48 305,167 303,697 306,121
Incorporated Kern 0.40 606,249 608,671 621,207
County Total Kern 0.10 911,416 912,368 927,328
Avenal Kings -2.15 9,526 9,321 13,142
Corcoran Kings -0.81 13,639 13,528 21,504
Hanford Kings -0.45 61,113 60,837 60,837
Lemoore Kings -1.52 27,637 27,216 27,216
Unincorporated Kings -2.42 25,531 24,912 31,055
Incorporated Kings -0.91 111,915 110,902 122,699
County Total Kings -1.19 137,446 135,814 153,754
Clearlake Lake -0.35 16,701 16,642 16,642
Lakeport Lake -0.38 4,942 4,923 4,923
Unincorporated Lake -0.33 45,271 45,122 45,228
Incorporated Lake -0.36 21,643 21,565 21,565
County Total Lake -0.34 66,914 66,687 66,793
Susanville Lassen -1.15 9,217 9,111 12,063
Unincorporated Lassen -1.12 14,409 14,248 15,255
Incorporated Lassen -1.15 9,217 9,111 12,063
County Total Lassen -1.13 23,626 23,359 27,318
Agoura Hills Los Angeles -0.59 19,682 19,565 19,565
Alhambra Los Angeles -0.22 82,707 82,523 82,544
Arcadia Los Angeles 1.36 56,329 57,095 57,095
Artesia Los Angeles -0.29 16,166 16,119 16,205
Avalon Los Angeles -0.40 3,461 3,447 3,447
Azusa Los Angeles -0.24 48,668 48,549 48,549
Baldwin Park Los Angeles -0.10 70,800 70,729 70,729
Bell Los Angeles -0.36 33,331 33,211 33,211
Bellflower Los Angeles -0.32 76,449 76,203 76,203
Bell Gardens Los Angeles -0.50 38,679 38,484 38,484
Beverly Hills Los Angeles -0.29 32,209 32,116 32,116
Bradbury Los Angeles -0.44 905 901 901
Burbank Los Angeles 0.49 105,713 106,229 106,229
Calabasas Los Angeles -0.52 22,882 22,763 22,763
Carson Los Angeles -0.45 92,202 91,786 91,790
Cerritos Los Angeles -0.58 47,831 47,554 47,554
Claremont Los Angeles -0.29 38,372 38,262 38,262
Commerce Los Angeles -0.31 12,183 12,145 12,145
Compton Los Angeles -0.26 94,182 93,937 93,937
Covina Los Angeles -0.29 51,066 50,918 50,918
Cudahy Los Angeles 0.01 22,232 22,234 22,234
Culver City Los Angeles 0.22 40,640 40,730 40,730
Diamond Bar Los Angeles -0.48 53,796 53,538 53,538
Downey Los Angeles -0.14 112,442 112,279 112,279
Duarte Los Angeles 5.09 23,637 24,841 24,841
El Monte Los Angeles -0.11 108,267 108,144 108,192
El Segundo Los Angeles -0.29 16,975 16,925 16,950
Gardena Los Angeles 0.90 60,644 61,187 61,187
Glendale Los Angeles -0.27 193,810 193,286 193,286
Glendora Los Angeles -0.13 51,300 51,232 51,232
Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles -0.26 13,564 13,529 13,529 Hawthorne Los Angeles -0.41 85,865 85,515 85,515
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles -0.28 19,250 19,196 19,196
Hidden Hills Los Angeles -0.17 1,741 1,738 1,738
Huntington Park Los Angeles -0.42 53,172 52,951 52,961
Industry Los Angeles 0.00 420 420 420
Inglewood Los Angeles -0.62 106,645 105,986 105,986
Irwindale Los Angeles -0.60 1,511 1,502 1,502
La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles -0.38 20,071 19,994 19,994 La Habra Heights Los Angeles -0.65 5,529 5,493 5,493
Lakewood Los Angeles -0.16 80,718 80,585 80,585
La Mirada Los Angeles -0.49 48,234 47,998 47,998
Lancaster Los Angeles 0.64 172,826 173,939 178,159
La Puente Los Angeles -0.40 37,388 37,237 37,237
La Verne Los Angeles -0.28 31,555 31,466 31,466
Lawndale Los Angeles 0.19 31,072 31,130 31,130

Page 3 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 103
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Lomita Los Angeles -0.29 20,510 20,450 20,450
Long Beach Los Angeles -0.17 462,653 461,875 462,193
Los Angeles Los Angeles -0.87 3,834,752 3,801,319 3,806,201 Lynwood Los Angeles 0.34 66,675 66,901 66,901
Malibu Los Angeles -9.70 10,672 9,637 9,637
Manhattan Beach Los Angeles -0.51 34,508 34,333 34,333
Maywood Los Angeles -0.56 24,585 24,448 24,448
Monrovia Los Angeles -0.21 39,177 39,094 39,094
Montebello Los Angeles 0.60 62,619 62,994 62,994
Monterey Park Los Angeles -0.42 59,891 59,642 59,649
Norwalk Los Angeles -0.37 100,970 100,594 101,453
Palmdale Los Angeles -0.26 166,554 166,118 166,118
Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles -0.48 13,079 13,016 13,016 Paramount Los Angeles -0.39 52,560 52,353 52,353
Pasadena Los Angeles -0.23 141,466 141,145 141,145
Pico Rivera Los Angeles -0.41 61,219 60,966 60,966
Pomona Los Angeles -0.05 154,762 154,680 154,680
Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles -0.53 41,111 40,893 40,893 Redondo Beach Los Angeles -0.10 68,528 68,460 68,460
Rolling Hills Los Angeles -0.24 1,681 1,677 1,677
Rolling Hills Estates Los Angeles 1.60 8,601 8,739 8,739 Rosemead Los Angeles 0.12 51,233 51,295 51,295
San Dimas Los Angeles -0.44 34,064 33,915 33,915
San Fernando Los Angeles -0.20 24,025 23,976 23,976
San Gabriel Los Angeles 1.13 39,393 39,838 39,838
San Marino Los Angeles 0.08 12,503 12,513 12,513
Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.11 232,635 232,883 232,883
Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 1.37 18,797 19,055 19,229
Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.38 93,876 94,237 94,237
Sierra Madre Los Angeles -0.82 10,989 10,899 10,899
Signal Hill Los Angeles -0.56 11,430 11,366 11,366
South El Monte Los Angeles -0.02 19,493 19,489 19,489
South Gate Los Angeles 0.06 93,411 93,467 93,467
South Pasadena Los Angeles -0.42 26,492 26,380 26,380
Temple City Los Angeles 0.05 36,567 36,584 36,584
Torrance Los Angeles -0.47 144,041 143,363 143,363
Vernon Los Angeles -0.49 205 204 204
Walnut Los Angeles 1.11 28,310 28,623 28,623
West Covina Los Angeles -0.56 109,546 108,937 108,937
West Hollywood Los Angeles -0.38 35,418 35,283 35,283
Westlake Village Los Angeles -0.63 8,219 8,167 8,167
Whittier Los Angeles -0.34 88,327 88,029 88,029
Unincorporated Los Angeles -2.42 1,006,802 982,404 983,184 Incorporated Los Angeles -0.44 8,882,668 8,843,448 8,854,102 County Total Los Angeles -0.64 9,889,470 9,825,852 9,837,286 Chowchilla Madera -0.40 13,744 13,689 19,057
Madera Madera -1.02 68,458 67,759 67,759
Unincorporated Madera 2.25 77,837 79,591 79,591
Incorporated Madera -0.92 82,202 81,448 86,816
County Total Madera 0.62 160,039 161,039 166,407
Belvedere Marin -0.72 2,073 2,058 2,058
Corte Madera Marin -0.81 9,981 9,900 9,910
Fairfax Marin -0.66 7,463 7,414 7,414
Larkspur Marin -0.96 12,772 12,650 12,650
Mill Valley Marin -0.79 13,803 13,694 13,694
Novato Marin -1.00 51,992 51,473 51,638
Ross Marin 0.39 2,315 2,324 2,324
San Anselmo Marin -0.90 12,587 12,474 12,474
San Rafael Marin -0.49 60,184 59,890 59,890
Sausalito Marin -0.69 6,926 6,878 6,878
Tiburon Marin -0.80 8,912 8,841 8,841
Unincorporated Marin -0.70 60,692 60,265 63,052
Incorporated Marin -0.75 189,008 187,596 187,771
County Total Marin -0.74 249,700 247,861 250,823
Unincorporated Mariposa -0.18 16,864 16,833 16,846
County Total Mariposa -0.18 16,864 16,833 16,846

Page 4 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 104
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Fort Bragg Mendocino -0.90 7,207 7,142 7,142
Point Arena Mendocino -1.10 455 450 450
Ukiah Mendocino -0.93 16,290 16,138 16,138
Willits Mendocino -0.85 4,841 4,800 4,800
Unincorporated Mendocino -0.71 60,482 60,054 60,061
Incorporated Mendocino -0.91 28,793 28,530 28,530
County Total Mendocino -0.77 89,275 88,584 88,591
Atwater Merced -0.58 31,993 31,806 31,806
Dos Palos Merced -0.89 5,736 5,685 5,685
Gustine Merced -0.83 6,005 5,955 5,955
Livingston Merced -0.76 14,512 14,402 14,402
Los Banos Merced 0.33 49,091 49,255 49,255
Merced Merced 0.79 98,655 99,435 99,435
Unincorporated Merced -0.82 87,102 86,384 87,616
Incorporated Merced 0.27 205,992 206,538 206,538
County Total Merced -0.06 293,094 292,922 294,154
Alturas Modoc -0.11 2,772 2,769 2,769
Unincorporated Modoc -0.35 5,718 5,698 5,698
Incorporated Modoc -0.11 2,772 2,769 2,769
County Total Modoc -0.27 8,490 8,467 8,467
Mammoth Lakes Mono -0.68 7,083 7,035 7,035
Unincorporated Mono -0.20 5,372 5,361 5,447
Incorporated Mono -0.68 7,083 7,035 7,035
County Total Mono -0.47 12,455 12,396 12,482
Carmel-By-The-Sea Monterey -0.42 3,115 3,102 3,102
Del Rey Oaks Monterey -0.45 1,546 1,539 1,539
Gonzales Monterey -0.30 8,423 8,398 8,398
Greenfield Monterey 1.78 20,552 20,918 20,918
King City Monterey 0.87 14,245 14,369 14,369
Marina Monterey 1.67 22,938 23,322 23,322
Monterey Monterey -0.17 24,127 24,087 27,504
Pacific Grove Monterey -0.53 14,974 14,894 14,894
Salinas Monterey -0.57 160,784 159,866 159,866
Sand City Monterey -0.78 384 381 381
Seaside Monterey -0.36 26,438 26,342 31,681
Soledad Monterey 0.29 20,434 20,494 27,065
Unincorporated Monterey -0.46 104,061 103,582 103,716
Incorporated Monterey -0.08 317,960 317,712 333,039
County Total Monterey -0.17 422,021 421,294 436,755
American Canyon Napa 0.14 22,588 22,619 22,619
Calistoga Napa 2.32 5,162 5,282 5,282
Napa Napa -0.31 78,045 77,803 77,803
St. Helena Napa -0.41 5,339 5,317 5,317
Yountville Napa -0.10 2,025 2,023 2,567
Unincorporated Napa -0.33 21,798 21,725 22,786
Incorporated Napa -0.10 113,159 113,044 113,588
County Total Napa -0.14 134,957 134,769 136,374
Grass Valley Nevada -0.66 13,326 13,238 13,238
Nevada City Nevada 0.21 3,318 3,325 3,325
Truckee Nevada -0.02 16,895 16,891 16,891
Unincorporated Nevada -0.58 66,847 66,461 66,529
Incorporated Nevada -0.25 33,539 33,454 33,454
County Total Nevada -0.47 100,386 99,915 99,983
Aliso Viejo Orange -0.94 50,419 49,945 49,945
Anaheim Orange -0.06 340,565 340,363 340,433
Brea Orange -0.89 48,082 47,656 47,656
Buena Park Orange -0.44 83,219 82,850 82,850
Costa Mesa Orange -0.80 110,313 109,436 109,436
Cypress Orange -0.66 49,826 49,495 49,495
Dana Point Orange -0.83 32,539 32,268 32,268
Fountain Valley Orange -0.30 56,769 56,596 56,596
Fullerton Orange -0.48 140,901 140,224 140,224
Garden Grove Orange -0.34 171,646 171,055 171,077
Huntington Beach Orange -0.67 192,787 191,498 191,498
Irvine Orange 0.03 317,652 317,744 317,744
Laguna Beach Orange -0.48 22,549 22,440 22,440

Page 5 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 105
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Laguna Hills Orange -0.89 30,547 30,275 30,275
Laguna Niguel Orange -0.89 65,167 64,590 64,590
Laguna Woods Orange -0.95 17,132 16,970 16,970
La Habra Orange -0.41 61,524 61,269 61,269
Lake Forest Orange -0.56 88,017 87,522 87,522
La Palma Orange -0.92 15,184 15,045 15,045
Los Alamitos Orange -0.66 12,030 11,951 11,951
Mission Viejo Orange -0.90 91,219 90,401 90,401
Newport Beach Orange -0.89 83,041 82,306 82,306
Orange Orange -0.54 141,825 141,063 141,063
Placentia Orange -0.20 53,723 53,613 53,613
Rancho Santa Margarita Orange -0.94 46,657 46,217 46,217 San Clemente Orange -0.79 63,133 62,636 62,636
San Juan Capistrano Orange -0.45 35,491 35,331 35,331
Santa Ana Orange 0.00 312,796 312,808 312,808
Seal Beach Orange -0.85 24,621 24,411 24,496
Stanton Orange 2.01 40,600 41,415 41,415
Tustin Orange -0.60 79,650 79,175 79,175
Villa Park Orange -0.28 5,757 5,741 5,741
Westminster Orange -0.15 90,625 90,490 90,490
Yorba Linda Orange -0.56 66,566 66,190 66,190
Unincorporated Orange -0.18 132,760 132,520 132,530
Incorporated Orange -0.38 3,042,572 3,030,989 3,031,166 County Total Orange -0.37 3,175,332 3,163,509 3,163,696 Auburn Placer -0.19 13,532 13,506 13,506
Colfax Placer -0.54 2,031 2,020 2,020
Lincoln Placer 1.92 55,431 56,494 56,494
Loomis Placer -0.03 6,824 6,822 6,822
Rocklin Placer 0.48 74,483 74,842 74,842
Roseville Placer 2.66 161,162 165,455 165,455
Unincorporated Placer 0.23 115,417 115,684 115,684
Incorporated Placer 1.81 313,463 319,139 319,139
County Total Placer 1.39 428,880 434,823 434,823
Portola Plumas -1.60 2,121 2,087 2,087
Unincorporated Plumas -1.19 16,582 16,384 16,384
Incorporated Plumas -1.60 2,121 2,087 2,087
County Total Plumas -1.24 18,703 18,471 18,471
Banning Riverside 2.51 31,532 32,323 32,323
Beaumont Riverside 0.31 59,710 59,896 59,896
Blythe Riverside -0.84 12,813 12,706 15,878
Calimesa Riverside -0.79 11,029 10,942 10,942
Canyon Lake Riverside -0.72 10,987 10,908 10,908
Cathedral City Riverside -0.50 51,679 51,422 51,458
Coachella Riverside 1.51 44,624 45,300 45,300
Corona Riverside -0.35 159,873 159,309 159,309
Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.59 33,432 33,629 33,629
Eastvale Riverside 0.84 69,987 70,575 70,575
Hemet Riverside -0.39 91,839 91,479 91,479
Indian Wells Riverside -0.66 4,839 4,807 4,807
Indio Riverside -0.21 92,552 92,360 92,360
Jurupa Valley Riverside -0.78 106,120 105,291 105,349
Lake Elsinore Riverside 1.15 73,637 74,483 74,483
La Quinta Riverside -0.31 38,934 38,815 38,815
Menifee Riverside 1.76 115,813 117,847 117,847
Moreno Valley Riverside 0.30 210,740 211,365 211,365
Murrieta Riverside 0.33 111,951 112,315 112,315
Norco Riverside 0.12 22,250 22,277 23,276
Palm Desert Riverside 1.29 51,662 52,326 52,326
Palm Springs Riverside -0.51 44,120 43,893 43,893
Perris Riverside -0.09 81,100 81,027 81,027
Rancho Mirage Riverside 1.06 17,137 17,318 17,318
Riverside Riverside 0.19 321,263 321,884 321,884
San Jacinto Riverside 1.98 54,815 55,900 55,900
Temecula Riverside 0.85 112,662 113,618 113,618
Wildomar Riverside 3.93 37,373 38,841 38,841
Unincorporated Riverside 0.51 417,280 419,428 419,703

Page 6 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 106
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Incorporated Riverside 0.40 2,074,473 2,082,856 2,087,121 County Total Riverside 0.42 2,491,753 2,502,284 2,506,824 Citrus Heights Sacramento -0.86 87,239 86,487 86,487
Elk Grove Sacramento 2.07 184,495 188,319 188,319
Folsom Sacramento 2.47 88,634 90,825 95,680
Galt Sacramento 1.65 26,692 27,133 27,133
Isleton Sacramento -1.04 772 764 764
Rancho Cordova Sacramento 1.78 85,789 87,312 87,312
Sacramento Sacramento 1.28 532,956 539,765 539,765
Unincorporated Sacramento -0.74 607,401 602,889 602,889 Incorporated Sacramento 1.39 1,006,577 1,020,605 1,025,460 County Total Sacramento 0.59 1,613,978 1,623,494 1,628,349 Hollister San Benito 0.56 43,985 44,233 44,233
San Juan Bautista San Benito -0.19 2,085 2,081 2,081
Unincorporated San Benito 1.05 21,571 21,797 21,797
Incorporated San Benito 0.53 46,070 46,314 46,314
County Total San Benito 0.69 67,641 68,111 68,111
Adelanto San Bernardino -1.73 37,298 36,652 36,652
Apple Valley San Bernardino -0.53 75,633 75,229 75,236
Barstow San Bernardino -0.93 24,656 24,427 24,727
Big Bear Lake San Bernardino -0.79 4,959 4,920 4,920
Chino San Bernardino 0.42 92,161 92,550 95,946
Chino Hills San Bernardino -0.56 77,626 77,191 77,191
Colton San Bernardino -0.70 53,219 52,844 52,844
Fontana San Bernardino 0.60 218,460 219,774 219,774
Grand Terrace San Bernardino -0.90 12,933 12,817 12,817 Hesperia San Bernardino 0.72 102,613 103,349 103,349
Highland San Bernardino -0.60 56,997 56,655 56,655
Loma Linda San Bernardino -0.18 25,399 25,354 25,400
Montclair San Bernardino 2.19 37,557 38,378 38,378
Needles San Bernardino 0.15 4,789 4,796 4,796
Ontario San Bernardino 1.36 185,346 187,863 187,863
Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino -0.24 176,846 176,418 176,418 Redlands San Bernardino -0.27 74,013 73,811 73,811
Rialto San Bernardino 0.66 106,104 106,809 106,809
San Bernardino San Bernardino -0.46 221,973 220,961 222,292 Twentynine Palms San Bernardino -0.41 16,892 16,823 27,166 Upland San Bernardino -0.75 78,996 78,406 78,406
Victorville San Bernardino -0.63 136,737 135,871 139,680 Yucaipa San Bernardino -0.54 55,008 54,711 54,711
Yucca Valley San Bernardino -0.70 21,952 21,798 21,798
Unincorporated San Bernardino -0.55 291,844 290,253 299,046 Incorporated San Bernardino 0.01 1,898,167 1,898,407 1,917,639 County Total San Bernardino -0.06 2,190,011 2,188,660 2,216,685 Carlsbad San Diego -0.13 116,022 115,867 115,867
Chula Vista San Diego 0.41 281,586 282,738 282,999
Coronado San Diego -0.92 17,477 17,317 23,796
Del Mar San Diego -0.51 3,937 3,917 3,917
El Cajon San Diego -0.49 105,449 104,932 104,932
Encinitas San Diego -0.32 62,392 62,193 62,193
Escondido San Diego 0.17 151,932 152,196 152,196
Imperial Beach San Diego -1.12 26,362 26,066 26,066
La Mesa San Diego -0.25 61,863 61,707 61,707
Lemon Grove San Diego -0.75 28,445 28,233 28,233
National City San Diego 0.09 56,625 56,677 58,701
Oceanside San Diego -0.67 175,193 174,027 174,027
Poway San Diego -0.86 50,699 50,263 50,263
San Diego San Diego 0.52 1,394,988 1,402,217 1,419,531
San Marcos San Diego -0.10 97,647 97,554 97,554
Santee San Diego -0.39 60,044 59,812 59,812
Solana Beach San Diego -0.91 13,060 12,941 12,941
Vista San Diego -0.56 101,934 101,365 101,365
Unincorporated San Diego -0.62 471,773 468,849 508,222
Incorporated San Diego 0.16 2,805,655 2,810,022 2,836,100 County Total San Diego 0.04 3,277,428 3,278,871 3,344,322 San Francisco San Francisco 0.15 843,973 845,226 845,658

Page 7 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 107
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Incorporated San Francisco 0.15 843,973 845,226 845,658 County Total San Francisco 0.15 843,973 845,226 845,658 Escalon San Joaquin -0.75 7,359 7,304 7,304
Lathrop San Joaquin 5.55 38,791 40,942 40,942
Lodi San Joaquin 0.07 68,468 68,513 68,513
Manteca San Joaquin 1.64 94,951 96,511 96,511
Mountain House San Joaquin 5.64 29,048 30,687 30,687
Ripon San Joaquin -0.77 15,996 15,873 15,873
Stockton San Joaquin -0.20 323,047 322,406 322,436
Tracy San Joaquin 0.94 98,776 99,705 99,705
Unincorporated San Joaquin -0.43 136,350 135,764 138,154 Incorporated San Joaquin 0.81 676,436 681,941 681,971
County Total San Joaquin 0.61 812,786 817,705 820,125
Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo -0.79 17,922 17,780 17,780 Atascadero San Luis Obispo -0.19 29,182 29,127 30,184
El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 1.20 31,151 31,525 31,525 Grover Beach San Luis Obispo -0.31 12,541 12,502 12,502 Morro Bay San Luis Obispo -0.69 10,379 10,307 10,307
Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo -0.80 7,836 7,773 7,773
San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.63 49,849 50,165 50,165 Unincorporated San Luis Obispo -0.62 117,538 116,805 119,006 Incorporated San Luis Obispo 0.20 158,860 159,179 160,236 County Total San Luis Obispo -0.15 276,398 275,984 279,242 Atherton San Mateo 1.06 7,012 7,086 7,086
Belmont San Mateo -0.40 28,243 28,129 28,129
Brisbane San Mateo -0.34 4,678 4,662 4,662
Burlingame San Mateo 2.76 31,568 32,438 32,438
Colma San Mateo -0.35 1,410 1,405 1,405
Daly City San Mateo -0.31 102,215 101,898 101,898
East Palo Alto San Mateo 1.08 29,148 29,462 29,462
Foster City San Mateo -0.56 32,547 32,364 32,364
Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.86 11,309 11,406 11,406
Hillsborough San Mateo -0.46 11,301 11,249 11,249
Menlo Park San Mateo 1.41 33,190 33,657 33,785
Millbrae San Mateo -0.47 23,171 23,062 23,062
Pacifica San Mateo -0.46 37,241 37,068 37,073
Portola Valley San Mateo -0.07 4,328 4,325 4,325
Redwood City San Mateo -0.37 82,109 81,809 81,809
San Bruno San Mateo -0.37 42,567 42,411 42,411
San Carlos San Mateo -0.38 29,362 29,249 29,249
San Mateo San Mateo -0.33 104,361 104,020 104,020
South San Francisco San Mateo -0.29 65,431 65,239 65,239 Woodside San Mateo 0.35 5,206 5,224 5,224
Unincorporated San Mateo 0.02 61,874 61,886 61,886
Incorporated San Mateo -0.03 686,397 686,163 686,296
County Total San Mateo -0.03 748,271 748,049 748,182
Buellton Santa Barbara 5.44 5,077 5,353 5,353
Carpinteria Santa Barbara -1.02 12,742 12,612 12,612
Goleta Santa Barbara -0.97 32,725 32,409 32,409
Guadalupe Santa Barbara -0.83 8,721 8,649 8,649
Lompoc Santa Barbara -1.06 40,416 39,987 43,073
Santa Barbara Santa Barbara -0.78 85,723 85,055 85,083
Santa Maria Santa Barbara 1.51 111,356 113,041 113,041
Solvang Santa Barbara -1.04 5,680 5,621 5,621
Unincorporated Santa Barbara -0.64 137,059 136,175 139,133 Incorporated Santa Barbara 0.09 302,440 302,727 305,841 County Total Santa Barbara -0.14 439,499 438,902 444,974 Campbell Santa Clara -0.15 43,262 43,195 43,195
Cupertino Santa Clara -0.33 59,962 59,765 59,765
Gilroy Santa Clara -0.19 62,183 62,064 62,193
Los Altos Santa Clara -0.16 31,972 31,921 31,921
Los Altos Hills Santa Clara 0.56 8,604 8,652 8,652
Los Gatos Santa Clara -0.44 33,440 33,293 33,293
Milpitas Santa Clara 0.35 81,821 82,107 82,107
Monte Sereno Santa Clara 0.00 3,642 3,642 3,642
Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.37 46,901 47,074 47,074

Page 8 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 108
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Mountain View Santa Clara 1.83 86,944 88,533 88,533
Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.12 68,888 68,974 69,004
San Jose Santa Clara -0.29 983,264 980,434 980,434
Santa Clara Santa Clara 2.93 134,088 138,011 138,011
Saratoga Santa Clara 0.03 31,253 31,261 31,261
Sunnyvale Santa Clara 1.21 159,955 161,884 161,884
Unincorporated Santa Clara -0.22 90,972 90,768 91,499
Incorporated Santa Clara 0.25 1,836,179 1,840,810 1,840,969 County Total Santa Clara 0.23 1,927,151 1,931,578 1,932,468 Capitola Santa Cruz -0.29 9,697 9,669 9,669
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.10 62,999 63,065 63,065
Scotts Valley Santa Cruz -1.03 11,699 11,578 11,578
Watsonville Santa Cruz -0.73 50,826 50,454 50,454
Unincorporated Santa Cruz -0.92 127,415 126,242 126,303 Incorporated Santa Cruz -0.34 135,221 134,766 134,766
County Total Santa Cruz -0.62 262,636 261,008 261,069
Anderson Shasta -0.28 11,081 11,050 11,050
Redding Shasta 0.06 94,119 94,173 94,294
Shasta Lake Shasta -0.42 10,238 10,195 10,195
Unincorporated Shasta -0.46 66,651 66,346 66,395
Incorporated Shasta -0.02 115,438 115,418 115,539
County Total Shasta -0.18 182,089 181,764 181,934
Loyalton Sierra -0.92 763 756 756
Unincorporated Sierra -0.29 2,404 2,397 2,397
Incorporated Sierra -0.92 763 756 756
County Total Sierra -0.44 3,167 3,153 3,153
Dorris Siskiyou -0.49 820 816 816
Dunsmuir Siskiyou -0.56 1,621 1,612 1,612
Etna Siskiyou -0.46 658 655 655
Fort Jones Siskiyou -0.60 663 659 659
Montague Siskiyou -0.51 1,179 1,173 1,173
Mount Shasta Siskiyou -0.48 3,145 3,130 3,130
Tulelake Siskiyou -0.58 859 854 854
Weed Siskiyou -0.41 2,704 2,693 2,693
Yreka Siskiyou -0.75 7,767 7,709 7,709
Unincorporated Siskiyou -0.12 23,832 23,803 23,852
Incorporated Siskiyou -0.59 19,416 19,301 19,301
County Total Siskiyou -0.33 43,248 43,104 43,153
Benicia Solano -0.92 26,315 26,074 26,074
Dixon Solano 0.92 20,380 20,567 20,567
Fairfield Solano -0.51 117,455 116,858 121,389
Rio Vista Solano -0.36 10,382 10,345 10,345
Suisun City Solano 1.07 29,405 29,720 29,720
Vacaville Solano -0.73 97,944 97,229 103,195
Vallejo Solano -0.36 123,140 122,702 122,702
Unincorporated Solano -0.56 17,401 17,304 18,058
Incorporated Solano -0.36 425,021 423,495 433,992
County Total Solano -0.37 442,422 440,799 452,050
Cloverdale Sonoma -0.11 8,729 8,719 8,719
Cotati Sonoma -0.83 7,325 7,264 7,264
Healdsburg Sonoma 0.44 11,156 11,205 11,205
Petaluma Sonoma -0.40 59,395 59,160 59,160
Rohnert Park Sonoma -0.29 44,318 44,191 44,191
Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.57 178,786 179,798 179,798
Sebastopol Sonoma -0.77 7,407 7,350 7,350
Sonoma Sonoma -0.44 10,575 10,528 10,528
Windsor Sonoma -0.59 25,650 25,498 25,498
Unincorporated Sonoma -0.86 130,607 129,484 130,309
Incorporated Sonoma 0.11 353,341 353,713 353,713
County Total Sonoma -0.16 483,948 483,197 484,022
Ceres Stanislaus -0.49 49,318 49,075 49,075
Hughson Stanislaus 2.60 8,046 8,255 8,255
Modesto Stanislaus -0.22 220,526 220,048 220,048
Newman Stanislaus -0.64 12,442 12,362 12,362
Oakdale Stanislaus 0.52 23,367 23,489 23,489
Patterson Stanislaus 1.06 26,108 26,386 26,386

Page 9 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 109
About the Data
FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026, and Total Population January 1, 2026 City County
Percent Change
25-26
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-26
Total Population 1-
1-26
Riverbank Stanislaus 1.50 26,200 26,594 26,594
Turlock Stanislaus -0.19 72,727 72,592 72,592
Waterford Stanislaus -0.18 9,278 9,261 9,261
Unincorporated Stanislaus -1.03 110,231 109,097 109,097 Incorporated Stanislaus 0.01 448,012 448,062 448,062
County Total Stanislaus -0.19 558,243 557,159 557,159
Live Oak Sutter 0.10 9,745 9,755 9,755
Yuba City Sutter 0.52 71,205 71,572 71,572
Unincorporated Sutter 0.16 20,320 20,352 20,352
Incorporated Sutter 0.47 80,950 81,327 81,327
County Total Sutter 0.40 101,270 101,679 101,679
Corning Tehama -0.32 8,205 8,179 8,179
Red Bluff Tehama -0.04 14,428 14,422 14,422
Tehama Tehama -0.47 425 423 423
Unincorporated Tehama -0.38 41,754 41,596 41,740
Incorporated Tehama -0.15 23,058 23,024 23,024
County Total Tehama -0.30 64,812 64,620 64,764
Unincorporated Trinity -0.29 15,831 15,785 15,844
County Total Trinity -0.29 15,831 15,785 15,844
Dinuba Tulare 1.59 26,149 26,566 26,566
Exeter Tulare -0.17 10,305 10,287 10,287
Farmersville Tulare -0.65 10,406 10,338 10,338
Lindsay Tulare -0.87 12,823 12,712 12,712
Porterville Tulare -0.26 63,732 63,565 63,719
Tulare Tulare 0.61 72,495 72,936 72,936
Visalia Tulare 0.21 147,735 148,046 148,302
Woodlake Tulare 1.62 8,038 8,168 8,168
Unincorporated Tulare -0.08 136,645 136,536 136,582
Incorporated Tulare 0.27 351,683 352,618 353,028
County Total Tulare 0.17 488,328 489,154 489,610
Sonora Tuolumne 0.51 5,253 5,280 5,280
Unincorporated Tuolumne -0.27 46,712 46,587 48,953
Incorporated Tuolumne 0.51 5,253 5,280 5,280
County Total Tuolumne -0.19 51,965 51,867 54,233
Camarillo Ventura -0.30 68,973 68,764 68,764
Fillmore Ventura -0.78 17,125 16,992 16,992
Moorpark Ventura -1.19 34,573 34,161 34,161
Ojai Ventura -1.03 7,579 7,501 7,501
Oxnard Ventura -0.38 199,319 198,557 198,557
Port Hueneme Ventura -1.18 18,881 18,659 21,103
San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura -0.24 108,270 108,011 108,061 Santa Paula Ventura 0.75 31,738 31,976 31,976
Simi Valley Ventura -1.00 124,923 123,672 123,842
Thousand Oaks Ventura -1.14 122,688 121,286 121,286
Unincorporated Ventura -1.21 90,904 89,807 92,063
Incorporated Ventura -0.61 734,069 729,579 732,243
County Total Ventura -0.68 824,973 819,386 824,306
Davis Yolo 0.44 65,712 66,002 66,002
West Sacramento Yolo 0.89 55,376 55,871 55,871
Winters Yolo 0.26 8,007 8,028 8,028
Woodland Yolo -0.60 61,693 61,324 61,324
Unincorporated Yolo -0.25 34,766 34,679 34,679
Incorporated Yolo 0.23 190,788 191,225 191,225
County Total Yolo 0.16 225,554 225,904 225,904
Marysville Yuba -0.40 12,730 12,679 12,679
Wheatland Yuba 2.32 4,046 4,140 4,140
Unincorporated Yuba 2.26 67,345 68,870 70,873
Incorporated Yuba 0.26 16,776 16,819 16,819
County Total Yuba 1.86 84,121 85,689 87,692
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Page 10 of 10 ends

Item H.4
Packet Page 110

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Agreements for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) and the Group Program Inspection Agreement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND:

Contra Costa Clean Water Program Agreement
The CCCWP was established in 1991 to enable Contra Costa County, its cities, and the Flood Control District to jointly comply with stormwater regulations under the NPDES permit. Over the years, the Program Agreement has been periodically updated to reflect evolving regulatory requirements.

Group Program Inspection
The renewal of the Group Program Inspection Agreement is critical to ensure continued compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) 3.0, which became effective on May 11, 2022, and introduced new and enhanced requirements for Provision C.4 – Commercial and Industrial Site Controls. These updates significantly expand inspection obligations for permittees, including:
 Inspection Frequency and Coverage: MRP 3.0 mandates periodic inspections of commercial and industrial facilities to verify stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and pollutant source controls.
 Enhanced Documentation and Reporting: The permit requires detailed tracking of inspection findings, corrective actions, and follow-up activities, which must be accurately reported in annual compliance reports.

Item H.5
Packet Page 111
 Expanded Facility Categories: Additional facility types now fall under inspection requirements, increasing the workload and complexity for individual permittees.  Integration with Enforcement Protocols: MRP 3.0 emphasizes timely enforcement actions for non-compliance, requiring coordinated efforts and consistent application of enforcement procedures across jurisdictions.

The existing Inspection Activities Agreement, which facilitates shared inspection services through Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, West County Wastewater District, and Delta Diablo Sanitation District, has proven essential for meeting these obligations efficiently and cost-effectively. Without a renewed agreement, individual permittees would face significant challenges in maintaining compliance, including:
 Resource Constraints: Many jurisdictions lack the staffing and technical expertise to independently meet the expanded inspection requirements.  Cost Implications: Shared services reduce duplication of effort and allow economies of scale, minimizing overall program costs.
 Continuity of Compliance: The renewed agreement ensures continued inspection activities in compliance with NPDES permit conditions.

DISCUSSION:

Contra Costa Clean Water Program Agreement
Since January 2025, CCCWP Management Committee has reviewed a draft renewal agreement that introduces significant updates to administrative processes, committee structures, and compliance frameworks. Additionally, the amended and restated agreement for July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2041 (Attachment B) outlines long-term obligations, cost-sharing formulas, and governance provisions for all co-permittees.

Key updates in the draft renewal include:
 Administrative and Contracting Updates: Aligning contracting processes with Contra Costa County procurement standards and clarifying indemnification provisions.
 Committee Structure: Introducing tiered participation based on population size and formalizing roles for sub-committees such as Monitoring, Development, Public Information, and Regional Alternative Compliance (RAC).  Termination and Continuity: Revised withdrawal procedures and a provision allowing the expired agreement to remain in effect until renewal is executed, ensuring uninterrupted compliance.
 Program Staffing Flexibility: Options for staff augmentation to minimize operational disruptions.
 Cost Allocation: Future program costs will be apportioned based on population using a standardized formula.

Group Program Inspection
The renewed Group Program Inspection Agreement (Attachment D) incorporates administrative updates, invoicing improvements, backup staffing provisions, and alignment with MRP 3.0 requirements, ensuring that the Group Program remains a robust and collaborative mechanism for compliance. Additionally, including a provision to Item H.5
Packet Page 112
maintain the existing agreement in effect until the new one is executed will safeguard against service interruptions during the renewal process.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact for the CCCWP Agreement. Future costs will be allocated proportionally based on population as outlined in the Agreement’s cost-sharing formula. SUA assessments will continue to offset program costs for participating agencies.

Each year, the City of Orinda projects 15 commercial and industrial facility inspections to be completed to be in compliance with the MRP 3.0 requirements. The inspection costs projected to be paid to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is $10,037.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

2. Infrastructure Strategy and Improvement
b) Develop a long-term infrastructure vision and funding strategy.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 37-26
B. CCCWP Agreement (Final Draft)
C. Resolution 38-26
D. Group Program Inspection Agreement (Final Draft)
Prepared by: T. Ryan O'Kane, Senior Engineer
Respectfully Submitted by,
Scott Christie, Director of Public Works &
Engineering
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item H.5
Packet Page 113
RESOLUTION NO. 37-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTRA COSTA

CLEAN WATER PROGRAM AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008 issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Municipal Regional Permit”), requires the City of Orinda, as a permittee, to implement best management practices and other control measures in order to control the discharge of pollutants through its municipal stormwater system; and WHEREAS, the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek; the towns of Danville and Moraga; and the County of Contra Costa and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“CoPermittees”) are joint permittees under the Municipal Regional Permit; and WHEREAS, the Co-Permittees have historically been parties to a joint program agreement to establish the “Contra Costa Clean Water Program” for the purpose of administering joint obligations under the Municipal Regional Permit on behalf of the CoPermittees; and WHEREAS, the Co-Permittees desire to extend the joint program agreement by entering into an amended and restated agreement effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2041; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orinda desires to remain a party to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program by entering into the amended and restated joint program agreement.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve the Amended and Restated Contra Costa Clean Water Program Agreement (July 1, 2026 - June 30, 2041), attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement and take further actions as necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting of the City Council held on June 9, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

_______________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Item H.5
Packet Page 114
___________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item H.5
Packet Page 115

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER

PROGRAM AGREEMENT
(July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2041)

Item H.5
Packet Page 116
1 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
Amended and Restated Contra Costa Clean Water
Program Agreement between
The Contra Costa County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District
and
Agencies Named Below
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is jointly entered into by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”); the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek; the towns of Danville and Moraga; and, the County of Contra Costa (collectively, the “Parties” and individually each a “Party”; the Parties are sometimes referred to herein as "Co-Permittees" or individually as “Co-Permittee”, and sometimes as “Agencies" or individually as “Agency”). This Agreement is entered into as of July 1, 2026 (“Effective Date”).

RECITALS
A. The Parties are joint permittees under the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 or an equivalent regional stormwater NPDES permit issued to the Parties is collectively referred to herein as the “Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.” Under current law, each issuance of the Regional Municipal NPDES Permit is expected to expire five years from its effective date, but may be amended, revoked, or reissued before the expiration date, or administratively extended beyond the expiration date pending reissuance.

B. The cities, towns and County have previously entered into joint program agreements with the District. As set forth more particularly in Section B below, the Parties wish to extend the joint agreement until terminated by the written agreement of all Co-Permittees then Parties to this Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to amend and extend the prior agreement on the terms set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

A. Program Activities.

In accordance with the management and organizational structure set forth herein, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (“Program”) shall administer the joint obligations under the Regional Municipal NPDES Permit on behalf of the Parties and implement the activities jointly carried out pursuant to this Agreement by the Parties including, but not limited to, the following Item H.5
Packet Page 117
2 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
activities:

1. Provide the necessary administrative, technical, and clerical resources to implement all Program activities directed by the Management Committee in order to implement the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. By way of example, this includes the development of an old industrial control measure plan pursuant to Provision C.11.c of the current Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. Administrative activities may include attending all Management Committee and sub-committee meetings, and preparing committee staff reports, minutes and/or summaries of committee actions.

2. Administer all consulting services contracts (technical, legal, public relations and associated services) including the coordination, invoicing, and monitoring of all such activities.

3. Represent the Program at federal, state, regional and local governmental, civic, professional, and political organizations and agencies.

4. Coordinate the yearly compilation of the Program’s (Group Program) Annual Reports for submittal to the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Boards, but not the individual agencies’ annual reports under the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. However, the Program will develop Municipal Regional NPDES Permit compliance plans for individual agencies.

5. Conduct monitoring activities, which may include the permitting, environmental review of, purchase, installation and testing of equipment at designated sites.

6. Ensure all regulatory fees and assessments collected by the Agencies and necessary to obtain and implement the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit are lawful, appropriate and, if so, paid.

7. Ensure adequate information is available to all Co-Permittees for implementation of a comprehensive stormwater management ordinance and its regulations in compliance with the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.

8. Implement a comprehensive public information/participation program on behalf of all Co-Permittees. The Program will be responsible for developing independently or in cooperation with the Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Collaborative (“BAMSC”) original public information materials; and, Co-Permittees shall be responsible for reproducing and distributing these materials.

9. As part of the Program’s annual budgeting process, the Management Committee may fund the Program’s participation in special studies determined by the Program, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, BAMSC, California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), if any, or other appropriate entities. Such participation may include funding or in-kind Item H.5
Packet Page 118
3 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
services, such as Program representation on BAMSC as determined by the Management Committee.

10. Ensure adequate information is available for Co-Permittees to implement a comprehensive program for field inspection and investigation activities for unauthorized connections and illegal dumping.

11. Ensure adequate information is available for Co-Permittees to implement source controls, site design measures, and stormwater treatment and runoff control measures on new development and redevelopment projects, and to ensure ongoing operation and maintenance of post-construction stormwater management facilities.

12. Ensure adequate information is available for Co-Permittees to mitigate impacts to stormwater quality resulting from construction activities specifically focusing on proper site management; erosion control; sediment control; run-on and runoff control; nonstormwater management control; and, proper operation and maintenance of such construction site control best management practices (“BMPs”).

13. Expend funds collected by assessments for the District’s Stormwater Utility Areas Nos. 1 through 18 (“SUA”) and other sources in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the Program’s annual budget, as adopted by the Management Committee.

B. Termination.

This Agreement will remain in effect until terminated by the written agreement of all Co-Permittees then parties to this Agreement. Should any individual Co-Permittee desire to withdraw from the Program and terminate its obligations under this Agreement at any time, the following conditions must be met:

1. The Co-Permittee shall provide written notice to the Program Manager (as defined below) and Management Committee chairperson and vice chairperson of its intention to withdraw from the Program by no later than 5:00 p.m., of the December 31 immediately preceding the commencement of the following fiscal year (July 1 - June 30) before which it is seeking to terminate its obligations under this Agreement. To ensure an orderly transition, the withdrawing Co-Permittee shall also obtain written confirmation from the Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officer that such Co-Permittee has obtained or will obtain coverage under an NPDES Permit for its municipal stormwater discharges. A copy of the Executive Officer’s written confirmation shall be provided to the Management Committee chairperson and vice chairperson along with the notice of withdrawal.

2. The Co-Permittee shall be committed to fulfill all of its financial obligations outlined in this Agreement through the end of the fiscal year (June 30) in which it submits its notice of withdrawal. Termination shall be effective as of 11:59 p.m. on June 30 of that fiscal year.

Item H.5
Packet Page 119
4 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc

3. The Co-Permittee shall also fulfill all of its individual obligations for projects, studies, and other programs and activities undertaken on behalf of the Program or BAMSC through the duration of any such projects, studies, programs, and activities. The terminating Co-Permittee’s obligations under this Section B.3. shall survive termination as to that Co-Permittee until the terminating Co-Permittee’s obligations under this Section are fully satisfied.

4. In the event that a Co-Permittee does not fully fund its obligations under this Agreement from its SUA assessments or appropriate sufficient funds for any fiscal year beyond the 2025-2026 fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for the Co-Permittee’s financial obligations only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which the Co-Permittee appropriates sufficient funds. Thereafter, such Co-Permittee’s financial obligations shall be automatically suspended, and the Co-Permittee shall receive no benefit arising out of this Agreement, until the Co-Permittee appropriates sufficient funding to meet its financial obligations in such fiscal year(s).

C. Management Committee.

1. The Management Committee (“MC”) is the Program’s decision-making body. It shall be responsible for setting policies, providing directions, approving contracts and agreements, approving group submittals to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, authorizing expenditures, and advising on staffing in accordance with Section J below. Within five years following the effective date, and every five years thereafter, the Management Committee shall perform an evaluation of the Program and deliver a report to the Co-Permittees that includes the Management Committee’s findings.

2. Each Co-Permittee’s manager (i.e., city or town manager or county administrator) shall designate in writing and submit to the Program Manager, and chairperson or vice chairperson of the Management Committee, the Management Committee representative and alternate(s) for their jurisdiction. The designated Management Committee representative and alternate(s) may be identified by job classifications or as named individuals. The CoPermittee’s manager shall designate at least one (1) Management Committee representative and no less than two (2) alternate Management Committee representatives. The Management Committee representative or, in the absence of the representative, one alternative Management Committee representative, shall vote on behalf of their Agency at all Management Committee meetings. Each Co-Permittee shall have only one vote on the Management Committee, even if both the designated representative and an alternate(s) attend the same meeting. The voting decisions of the Management Committee representatives shall be binding upon their Agency, provided they are consistent with the delegations of authority contained in this agreement.

3. A Management Committee representative shall be an individual responsible for supervising or administering the stormwater management program for their appointing Agency. An alternate should, but need not, meet the foregoing criteria.

Item H.5
Packet Page 120
5 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc

4. A Management Committee representative’s term shall continue for the entire term of the Agreement unless changed by the Co-Permittee’s manager by providing written notification to the Program Manager.

5. Any decision made by the Management Committee shall be binding upon all Co-Permittees, provided it is consistent with the delegations of authority in this Agreement.

Except to the extent expressly set forth in this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement delegates legislative authority of any Agency or the discretion vested in each Agency’s governing body. If the Management Committee acts in a manner inconsistent with the authority delegated by this Agreement, any such action shall not be binding upon any Agency unless approved or ratified by that Agency’s governing body. This Agreement does not create a joint exercise of powers agency separate from the agencies, and the Contra Costa Clean Water Program is not a legal person that can enter into contracts or sue and be sued.

6. The Management Committee chairperson and vice chairperson shall be selected by a majority vote of the Management Committee members at each May Management Committee meeting and shall hold those offices beginning July 1 and ending June 30 of the following fiscal year.

D. Sub-committee Structures.

The following Program sub-committees are hereby established:

1. Administrative Committee ("AC") is a sub-committee responsible for administration, strategic planning, personnel, budget recommendations and conflict resolution.

2. Monitoring Committee ("MonCom") is a sub-committee responsible for water quality monitoring activities and coordination of associated special studies/projects.

MonCom is responsible for overseeing the preparation of guidance on TMDL pollutant control programs, stormwater quality management programs, and for reviewing, researching, and making recommendations to the Management Committee on matters related to pollutant control and load-reduction planning, tracking, and reporting.

3. Development Committee ("DC") is a sub-committee responsible for preparing guidance and training on construction site stormwater quality management programs, post-construction stormwater quality management programs, and for reviewing, researching, and making recommendations to the Management Committee on matters related to land development activities.

4. Public Information/Participation Committee ("PIP") is a sub-committee responsible for development of stormwater pollution prevention materials and products, information dissemination, training, marketing and public outreach for the Program and to assist each Co-Permittee.

Item H.5
Packet Page 121
6 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc

5. Municipal Operations Committee (“MOC”) is a sub-committee responsible for development of guidance and training on stormwater pollution prevention activities for municipal maintenance activities, commercial/industrial inspection programs, illicit discharge control activities, trash load reduction activities, and other municipal stormwater activities.

6. Select or Ad Hoc (“Ad Hoc”) Workgroups are established by the Management Committee as needed for a temporary period for the purposes of reviewing, researching and making recommendations to the Management Committee or a sub-committee on a permit compliance matter or a permit requirement covering multiple sub-committees (such as cost reporting, and asset management). Select or Ad Hoc Workgroups may act on behalf of the Management Committee or sub-committee if approved and directed by the Management Committee.

7. The Management Committee may amend the responsibilities of each subcommittee, dissolve a sub-committee, or add a new sub-committee.

8. Each Co-Permittee shall only be allowed one vote per sub-committee. CoPermittees may participate in the discussions of any sub-committee. However, participants at sub-committee meetings, other than approved members, shall not be allowed to vote on any item under consideration.

9. The first order of business for each sub-committee at its June meeting is to choose a chairperson and vice chairperson, who will serve as chairperson and vice chairperson for the following fiscal year. The second order of business for each sub-committee at its June meeting is to establish the sub-committee's work plan for the following fiscal year dealing with its goals, objectives, time lines and related items, consistent with the requirements in the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. Upon preparation of the sub-committee’s work plan, it shall be provided to the Management Committee for review and approval.

E. Committee Membership.

1. For the purposes of this agreement, a “Small Municipality” is designated as having a population of less than 30,000, a “Medium Municipality” is designated as having a population of between 30,000 and 65,000; and a “Large Municipality” is designated as having a population of more than 65,000, based on population data from the State of California’s Department of Finance. Contra Costa County is deemed a “Large Municipality”. The population data published in January of each year will be used for determining each Co-Permittee’s designation for the following fiscal year. Refer to Exhibit “A” for the Committee membership designation as of the effective date of this Agreement.

2. Each Co-Permittee designated as a “Small Municipality” shall have one voting representative on the Management Committee and a minimum of one voting representatives on one sub-committee.

Item H.5
Packet Page 122
7 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc

3. Each Co-Permittee designated as a “Medium Municipality” shall have one voting representative on the Management Committee and a minimum of one voting representative on two sub-committees.

4. Each Co-Permittee designated as a “Large Municipality” shall have one voting representative on the Management Committee and a minimum of one voting representative on three sub-committees as follows (except as stipulated in Section E.10. below):
• Administrative Committee
• Monitoring Committee
• Development Committee
• Public Information/Participation Committee
• Municipal Operations Committee, or
• BAMSC sub-committee duly recognized by the Management Committee

5. The District shall be a permanent member of the Administrative Committee, and it shall participate as a voting member on at least one additional sub-committee.

6. The Management Committee chairperson for any fiscal year shall also serve as chairperson of the Administrative Committee for that same fiscal year.

7. By the end of May of each fiscal year, the incoming Management Committee chairperson who will take office July 1, shall consult with all Co-Permittees and recommend membership on all sub-committees effective July 1 of the next fiscal year.

Recommendations shall be considered and acted upon by the Management Committee at its May meeting. Sub-committee members shall be encouraged to rotate every two years.

8. Participation in any Ad Hoc Workgroup duly created by the Management Committee shall be voluntary.

9. Each of the following sub-committees shall have the following minimum number of members:
• Administrative Committee 8
• Monitoring Committee 5
• Development Committee 5
• Public Information/Participation Committee 5
Item H.5
Packet Page 123
8 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
• Municipal Operations Committee 5

10. BAMSC Committee. Co-Permittees serving as voting members of any BAMSC sub-committee shall represent all Program Co-Permittees. Co-Permittees designated as voting members of a BAMSC subcommittee shall also participate on the Program’s subcommittee that has similar or equivalent subject matter jurisdiction, as determined by the Management Committee to best serve the interests of the Program.

11. Administrative Committee. The Management Committee will select members for the Administrative Committee that enhance the Administrative Committee’s manageability and overall effectiveness in attaining goals and objectives, taking into account factors that encourage awareness of matters affecting the Program. More specifically, the Administrative Committee shall consist of the following minimum membership and conditions, and shall generally follow the rotation guidelines contained in Exhibit "B":
• Management Committee chairperson 1
• Flood Control District 1
• Large Municipality 2
• Medium Municipality 2
• Small Municipality 2
Total 8
a) The Management Committee chair may recommend additional members for the Administrative Committee pursuant to Section E.7. above. b) In any fiscal year in which the Management Committee chairperson represents a municipality that is scheduled for membership on the Administrative Committee under the rotation guidelines in Exhibit “B”, then the Management Committee shall select another Co-Permittee for membership on the Administrative Committee from the municipality category from which the Management Committee chairperson represents. If the Management Committee chair represents the Flood Control District, then the Management Committee shall select another Co-Permittee from any of the three categories of municipalities. c) For the duration of a Co-Permittee’s term as the “Large Municipality” member serving on the Administrative Committee, that Co-Permittee shall also serve as the voting member of two additional sub-committees of their choice. d) Administrative Committee voting membership can only be changed during the fiscal year by the Management Committee chairperson, provided the minimum membership per Section E.11. is maintained.

Item H.5
Packet Page 124
9 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc

12. A quorum for each sub-committee shall consist of a majority of its voting members.

13. A sub-committee may adopt by-laws to govern its organizational structure and meetings, consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

F. Meeting Attendance

1. Program staff will take attendance at all meetings. Attendance at all Management Committee and sub-committee meetings shall be published in each meeting’s minutes/summary and the Program’s annual report provided to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

2. Management Committee representatives and sub-committee members are expected to attend at least 80% of their regularly scheduled meetings. If a Management Committee representative or a sub-committee member misses two consecutive meetings, then Program staff shall contact the member of the committee to clarify the rules and understand the reason for the repeated absences. If absences continue, then the Management Committee may request that the Co-Permittee’s manager appoint a new representative to the Management Committee or sub-committee, as the case may be.

G. Program Costs Participation and Allocation.

1. The program costs for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 are apportioned among the co-permittees as set forth in Exhibit “C”, attached hereto. In Fiscal Year 2025-2026, and in each fiscal year thereafter, all program costs for that fiscal year shall be apportioned among CoPermittees proportionally based on each Co-Permittee’s population as of January 1 immediately preceding the fiscal year, in relation to the total population of all Co-Permittees as of January 1 immediately preceding the fiscal year, calculated as follows:
[(Co-permittee’s population as of January 1) / (All co-permittee’s population as of January 1)] x 100 = Percentage of Program Costs Apportioned to Co-Permittee (“Cost Sharing Formula”).

Population data will be based on data annually published by the State of California, Department of Finance, on January 1 immediately preceding the Fiscal Year for which the calculation is made.

The population data published in January of the preceding year will be used to form the cost allocations of the following fiscal year.

2. The Management Committee shall annually prepare and approve a budget setting forth all anticipated Program costs and revenues for the following fiscal year.

3. Each Co-Permittee shall pay its share of the annual budget in accordance with the Cost Sharing Formula. If a Co-Permittee receives SUA assessments, then the District will apply lawfully collected SUAs to such Co-Permittee’s share of the annual budget. District staff shall annually submit an invoice to each Co-Permittee for each fiscal year reflecting each CoItem H.5 Packet Page 125
10 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
Permittee’s Program costs no later than February 28th of each year (for the first SUA disbursement statement); June 30th (for the second SUA disbursement statement); and October 31st (for the third SUA disbursement statement). Upon receiving an invoice from the Program, each Co-Permittee shall pay its invoice to the District within sixty (60) days of the invoice’s date.

4. A Co-Permittee will be delinquent if its invoiced payment is not received by the District within sixty (60) days after the invoice’s date. The District will follow the procedure listed below, or such other procedure that the Management Committee directs to effectuate payment: 1) verbally contact the Co-Permittee’s manager; and 2) submit a formal letter from the Management Committee’s chairperson to the Co-Permittee. If payment is not received within ninety (90) days of the invoice date, then the delinquent co-permittee may be subject to termination from this Agreement and withdrawal under Section B. Thereafter, the Cost Share Formula shall be revised to reflect the new Program membership and the Management Committee shall revise its budget and Program cost allocations in accordance with the Cost Sharing Formula to account for the delinquent Permittee’s costs. A terminated Co-Permittee shall remain obligated to District for its delinquent payments and any other obligations incurred prior to the date of termination.

5. The Management Committee may suspend or modify the scope of work being performed by any contractor retained by the District whenever any Co-Permittee has not paid its invoice within ninety (90) days of the invoice date.

6. Any delinquent payments by a Co-Permittee shall accrue compound interest at the average rate of interest paid by the Local Agency Investment Fund during the time that the payment is delinquent.

H. Optional Services.

Additional services requested by a Co-Permittee to fulfill requirements of the Regional Municipal NPDES Permit may be provided by Program staff as long as the services minimally burden Program staffing and are approved by the Management Committee. Such requests shall be submitted in writing to the Management Committee and shall explain the services requested of Program staff or contractors. Such services shall be completely paid for by the requesting Co-Permittee at the fully burdened labor rate of the applicable Program staff, and the Program shall bear no financial responsibility for the requested services. Such services requested by a Co-Permittee may include consultant or contractor assistance involving a contract directly between the individual Co-Permittee and the District, at the District’s discretion. The Program shall bear no financial responsibility for such contracts.

I. Contracting.

1. In accordance with the procedures set forth herein, and on behalf of the Program, the District shall enter into and administer all contracts for the Program and implementation of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. The District shall pay all contractors in a timely manner in accordance with the terms of the applicable contract.

Item H.5
Packet Page 126
11 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc

2. Prior to the District entering into a contract or amending a contract on behalf of the Program, the Management Committee shall establish an independent selection committee as an Ad Hoc Workgroup pursuant to Section D.7. The independent selection committee may prepare an RFP, conduct interviews and take such other actions as requested by the Management Committee. The independent selection committee shall thereafter make a recommendation on a proposed contract and contractor to the Management Committee. Upon considering the independent selection committee’s recommendation, the Management Committee shall thereafter make a recommendation to the District, which shall have final approval authority over the contract and contractor.

3. Contracts may be entered into with a maximum term of five years, provided each contract must include either a termination for convenience clause, or a clause allowing termination for non-appropriation of funds. Contracts entered into for a period less than five years may be extended, based upon satisfactory performance, for a total contract term of five years.

4. For a contract scope of work designated as a “technical service” by the Management Committee, then the independent selection committee shall also consider responses from Co-Permittees who respond in writing and request to provide the requested technical service as part of an RFP process.

5. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, all contracting processes on behalf of the Program shall comply with the District’s procurement process.

6. If a Co-Permittee other than Contra Costa County or the District intends to contract on behalf of the Program, then a separate agreement between the District and such CoPermittee shall be executed setting forth the terms of the Co-Permittee’s contracting role. The Management Committee shall review and approve such separate agreement.

J. Staffing.

1. The Program is not a legal entity capable of employing staff, suing or being sued, or entering into contracts, among other activities that only legal entities may perform.

Program staff, including the Program Manager, are employees of Contra Costa County and/or the District, who are assigned to administer the Program. The Program Manager is the primary Contra Costa County employee assigned to manage the Program. In the event that Contra Costa County does not assign an employee to serve as the Program Manager and the Program Manager position is vacant, the Management Committee may recommend that the District contract with a qualified firm or public agency to perform the services of Program Manager until Contra Costa County appoints a Program Manager. The Management Committee may also request that the District contract for other Program services that are not performed by a Contra Costa County employee in accordance with Section I above.

2. To the extent requested by the District and/or Contra Costa County, the Management Committee shall annually advise the District and/or Contra Costa County regarding Item H.5
Packet Page 127
12 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
staff evaluations, job classifications and salary ranges. With respect to any Program staff who qualify as independent contractors, the Management Committee shall annually advise the District regarding the consultant’s satisfactory performance of their contractual obligations. The Administrative Committee shall advise the Management Committee on such evaluations.

3. The Management Committee shall negotiate an administrative overhead rate with any appropriate agency providing services to the Program.

4. Program staff shall provide a written record of all policies, rules and regulations duly adopted by the Management Committee.

5. Contra Costa County shall be responsible for all health and safety trainings and other certifications required by law for its employees; however, the Program may pay for Program staff training that relates to the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.

K. Indemnification.

Each Party to this Agreement agrees to protect, indemnify and hold harmless the other parties and their officers, employees, contractors and volunteers from and against all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, expenses, and damages (collectively, “Liabilities”) but only to the extent that the Liabilities arise out of or are connected with the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnifying Party or any of its officers, employees, contractors, or volunteers while performing the indemnifying Party’s obligations under this Agreement. This section shall survive and remain enforceable following the termination or expiration of this Agreement, or following any Party’s withdrawal from this Agreement.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Item H.5
Packet Page 128
13 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
Dated: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT:

By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF ANTIOCH
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF BRENTWOOD
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF CLAYTON
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF CONCORD
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Item H.5
Packet Page 129
14 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
Dated: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: TOWN OF DANVILLE
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF EL CERRITO
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF HERCULES
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF LAFAYETTE
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Item H.5
Packet Page 130
15 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
Dated: CITY OF MARTINEZ
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: TOWN OF MORAGA
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF OAKLEY
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF ORINDA
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF PINOLE
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney

Item H.5
Packet Page 131
16 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
Dated: CITY OF PITTSBURG
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF RICHMOND
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF SAN PABLO
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Dated: CITY OF SAN RAMON
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney

Item H.5
Packet Page 132
17 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
Dated: CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
By:

Its:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Attorney
Item H.5
Packet Page 133
18 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
EXHIBIT “A”

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP DESIGNATION BEGINNING FY 2026-2027 Municipalities Population
(Based on
1/1/2024 Data)
Category 1 Management
Committee
Min. Number
of Sub-Committee(s) 2
Antioch 115,632 Large x 3
Brentwood 64,811 Medium x 2
Clayton 10,683 Small x 1
Concord 121,513 Large x 3
Contra Costa County 3 174,289 Large x 3
CCC Flood Control District 3 0 Non-Population x 1 4
Danville 42,567 Medium x 2
El Cerrito 25,700 Small x 1
Hercules 26,063 Small x 1
Lafayette 24,808 Small x 1
Martinez 36,439 Medium x 2
Moraga 16,784 Small x 1
Oakley 45,736 Medium x 2
Orinda 19,191 Small x 1
Pinole 18,192 Small x 1
Pittsburg 75,085 Large x 3
Pleasant Hill 33,352 Medium x 2
Richmond 112,735 Large x 3
San Pablo 31,088 Medium x 2
San Ramon 82,525 Large x 3
Walnut Creek 69,433 Large x 3

1 Membership designation categories are determined by population size. Small Municipality has population under 30,000; Medium Municipality has population between 30,000 and 65,000; and Large Municipality has population larger than 65,000. 2 Participation in the required minimum number of sub-committee(s) per fiscal year, in addition to mandatory Management Committee participation.
3 Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District are represented as one agency for this designation purpose.
4 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is a standing member of the Administrative Committee.

Item H.5
Packet Page 134
19 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
EXHIBIT “B”

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

PARTICIPATION ROTATION GUIDELINE
Municipalities by
Size Designation &
Geographic
FY
26/27
FY
27/28
FY
28/29
FY
29/30
FY
30/31
FY
31/32
FY
32/33
C o u n t y w i d e ( A l l )
Flood Control District x x x x x x x
A p p o i n t e d M a n a g e m e n t C h a i r
Agency: x x x x x x x
L a r g e - S i z e C o m m u n i t i e s ( p o p u l a t i o n > 6 5 , 0 0 0 ) All: Contra Costa County x x
Central: Concord x x
Central: Walnut Creek x x
East: Antioch x x
East: Pittsburg x x
Lamorinda: San Ramon x x
West: Richmond x x
M e d i u m - S i z e C o m m u n i t i e s ( p o p u l a t i o n 3 0 , 0 0 0 - 6 5 , 0 0 0 ) Central: Martinez x x
Central: Pleasant Hill x x x
East: Oakley x x
East: Brentwood x x
Lamorinda: Danville x x x
West: San Pablo x x
S m a l l - S i z e C o m m u n i t i e s ( p o p u l a t i o n < 3 0 , 0 0 0 ) Central: Clayton x x
Lamorinda: Lafayette x x
Lamorinda: Orinda x x
Lamorinda: Moraga x x
West: Hercules x x
West: El Cerrito x x
West: Pinole x x
Item H.5
Packet Page 135
20 13074-0002\2978003v15.doc
EXHIBIT “C”
Item H.5
Packet Page 136
RESOLUTION NO. 38-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY

DISTRICT AND THE CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THE INSPECTION OF CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL AND

COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL REGIONAL PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008 (“Municipal Regional Permit”) requires the City of Orinda, as a permittee, to conduct inspections of certain industrial and commercial businesses as part of its municipal stormwater program; and
WHEREAS, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (“Inspection Agency”) also conducts inspections of certain industrial and commercial businesses as part of its wastewater regulatory obligations; and
WHEREAS, efficiencies can be achieved by having Inspection Agency conduct stormwater inspections on behalf of City concurrently with Inspection Agency’s wastewater inspections, which benefits the City of Orinda and its regulated businesses; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”) provides administrative support and funding for the inspections; and WHEREAS, the District, the Inspection Agency, and City of Orinda have been coordinating inspections in a similar manner since 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue the inspection program with the District and the Inspection Agency under a new agreement among the three parties.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Inspection Activities Agreement between the District, the Inspection Agency, and the City of Orinda attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement and to take any such actions, as necessary, to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting of the City Council held on June 9, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

_______________________
Item H.5
Packet Page 137
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item H.5
Packet Page 138
-1-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

INSPECTION ACTIVITIES AGREEMENT
AMONG

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,

CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT,

AND THE
CITY OF _____
This Contra Costa Clean Water Program Inspection Activities Agreement ("Agreement"), is entered into as of July 1, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and among the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ("District"), the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (“Inspection Agency”), and the City of _____ (“City”). The District, the Inspection Agency, and the City are sometimes referred to herein together as the “Parties,” and each individually as a “Party.”

RECITALS
A. The County of Contra Costa ("County"), the District, and the 19 incorporated cities and towns in the County have joined together to form the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (the "Program"), pursuant to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Agreement, dated July 1, 2010, and as amended from time to time (the "Program Agreement"). The parties to the Program Agreement are the County, the District, and the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon and Walnut Creek (the "Program Members").

B. Through the Program, the Program Members jointly implement some of their obligations under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, as may be amended or re-issued from time to time (“Municipal Regional Permit”). The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”) most recently re-issued the Municipal Regional Permit on May 11, 2022.

C. District provides administrative support services to the Program, including collecting and distributing funds that pay for Program responsibilities under the Municipal Regional Permit.

D. The Municipal Regional Permit requires Program Members, which operate municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), to effectively prohibit the discharge of non-stormwater into storm drain systems and watercourses.

E. Among other things, the Municipal Regional Permit requires the Program Members to conduct inspections of certain industrial and commercial businesses, as specified in Provision C.4 of the Municipal Regional Permit, and illicit discharge control activities, as specified in Provision C.5. of the Municipal Regional Permit, as those provisions may be amended from time to time in the Municipal Regional Permit (collectively, the “MS4 Inspections”). MS4 Inspections include, but are not limited, to inspection, investigation, reporting, and related obligations under the Municipal Regional Permit and as further directed by District.

F. The Municipal Regional Permit directs Program Members to effectively prohibit all non-stormwater discharges (i.e., materials other than stormwater) into municipal storm drains and creeks; conduct inspections of industrial and commercial stormwater facilities; control illicit discharges by conducting field surveys of the storm drainage conveyance system and identifying and eliminating the sources of non-stormwater discharges; and prohibit illicit connections and discharges resulting from inappropriate or illegal processes, activities, or housekeeping practices. The MS4 Inspections, carried out by the Inspection Agency on behalf of the City, further the City’s compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit.

G. Independent of City’s obligations under the Municipal Regional Permit, Inspection Agency also conducts inspections of certain industrial and commercial businesses as part of its wastewater regulatory obligations (“Wastewater Inspections”). District, Inspection Agency, and City believe that efficiencies can be achieved by having Inspection Agency conduct MS4 Inspections on behalf of City Item H.5
Packet Page 139
-2-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3
concurrently with Inspection Agency’s Wastewater Inspections, which benefit the Parties and regulated businesses. Inspection Agency desires to provide MS4 Inspections on behalf of the City under the terms set forth herein
H. District, Inspection Agency, and City, as well as the other Program Members and sanitation districts previously entered into a prior inspection agreement dated October 26, 2009 (“2009 Agreement”).

This Agreement supersedes and replaces the 2009 Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties to this Agreement agree as follows:

1. Term. The term of this Agreement begins on the Effective Date, and this Agreement shall remain in effect until it is terminated pursuant to Section 2 below. Commencing on the Effective Date, the 2009 Agreement is terminated and superseded by this Agreement and is no longer of any force or effect.

2. Termination.

A. Inspection Agency Termination. Inspection Agency, at its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to District and City at least 180 days prior to the effective date of the termination.

B. District Termination. District, at its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Inspection Agency and City at least 180 days prior to the effective date of the termination. Notwithstanding the foregoing, District may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Inspection Agency and City at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the termination if City is in breach of the Stormwater Utility Area Agreement described in Section 3.

C. City Termination. City, at its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Inspection Agency and District at least 90 days prior to the effective date of the termination.

Alternatively, City may temporarily suspend receiving MS4 Inspections by Inspection Agency pursuant to this Agreement, at its sole discretion, upon giving the District and Inspection Agency at least 90 days written notice. In the event that City suspends receiving MS4 Inspections, such suspension shall not affect enforcement activities relating to any MS4 Inspection initiated prior to the suspension. Inspection Agency shall be compensated for such work.

D. Mutual Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written agreement of the District, Inspection Agency, and City.

E. Effect of Termination. Upon the effective date of any termination of this Agreement, Inspection Agency shall cease performing MS4 Inspections. District shall compensate Inspection Agency for all services performed prior to such effective date in accordance with Section 8. If the Inspection Agency is in default upon the effective date of any termination of this Agreement, then District shall compensate Inspection Agency for services not affected by the default. Inspection Agency and City shall meet and confer about responsibility for any previously initiated code enforcement actions or reports that are then in the process of being drafted. Inspection Agency shall continue to prosecute such actions and prepare such reports until City assumes responsibility. Inspection Agency shall be compensated for such work.

3. Stormwater Utility Area Agreement. City has executed a separate Stormwater Utility Area Agreement with the District that, among other things, provides for the invoicing from, and payment to, Inspection Agency for MS4 Inspection costs on behalf of City.

4. Responsibilities of Inspection Agency. On behalf of City, Inspection Agency will perform all the following services in accordance with the Municipal Regional Permit and applicable laws and regulations:

A. Conduct MS4 Inspections, including illicit discharge control inspection activities, of industrial and commercial facilities and the exterior of residential properties to determine the regulated Item H.5
Packet Page 140
-3-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3
facility’s compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit and applicable law. MS4 Inspections may have an educational component, as directed by District. The location and frequency (i.e., bi-annual, annual, semiannual, etc.) of an inspection, investigation, or educational effort shall be at the direction of District, as approved by the City, and shall take place between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays ("Normal Working Hours").

B. Perform MS4 Inspections outside of Normal Working Hours if mutually agreed to by District, City, and Inspection Agency or if directed by District due to an emergency. In the event of an emergency, Inspection Agency will be compensated for any applicable overtime pay actually incurred by Inspection Agency.

C. Prepare inspection and investigation reports for each MS4 Inspection.

D. Issue notices of violation, warning notices, and compliance orders (collectively, “Corrective Orders”) to owners or operators of regulated facilities on behalf of City where Inspection Agency determines that violations or potential violations of the Municipal Regional Permit or applicable laws or regulations have occurred or may occur. City hereby delegates to Inspection Agency authority to issue Corrective Orders on its behalf in connection with MS4 Inspections. For the avoidance of doubt, City retains the authority to issue Corrective Orders, provided such Corrective Orders are not duplicative of Corrective Orders issued by Inspection Agency. Inspection Agency has developed, or shall develop, a standardized approach to recommending and documenting corrective actions taken by operators of regulated facilities in order to address a Corrective Order issued by Inspection Agency. Inspection Agency shall promptly notify City and District’s representatives identified in Section 7 of any Corrective Order issued by Inspection Agency, by email at the address below, by the close of the business day following the date of issuance.

E. Inspection Agency will cooperate with City if City elects to utilize its civil or criminal code enforcement authority to address a Corrective Order directly with the owner or operator of a regulated facility.

Such cooperation includes documentation of violations, preparation of documents for use in complaints and at hearings, and assistance in hearing preparation (i.e., preparing declarations, interviews with legal counsel, etc.) and presentation (i.e., provision of witness testimony as requested). If Inspection Agency’s performance of such enforcement services would result in an unreasonable expenditure of resources, then Inspection Agency will notify City and District, and Inspection Agency’s further involvement in such enforcement services shall be agreed upon by the Parties.

F. At the Direction of City, Inspection Agency will also refer Corrective Orders and related investigations and reports to appropriate enforcing entities, such as the District Attorney.

G. Retain all records relating to inspection activities and completed investigations through the latest of: the term of this Agreement, three years in accordance with City’s retention schedule, or the retention period set forth in the Municipal Regional Permit, whichever is longer, as evidence of City’s compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit. These records shall become property of City upon termination of this Agreement, at which time Inspection Agency shall promptly deliver them to City. These records shall be made available for inspection by City or District during normal business hours.

H. Train, supervise and manage its staff and contractors necessary to conduct MS4 Inspections in a consistent and lawful manner.

I. Provide advice and comments to District regarding District's preparation of educational materials for distribution to owners and operators of regulated facilities and the public. Inspection Agency shall also provide advice and comments to District regarding the Contra Costa County Green Business Program, as requested by District.

J. Provide comments to City and District regarding ordinances and policies necessary to conduct MS4 Inspections and carry out enforcement activities.

K. Purchase, operate, and maintain, at Inspection Agency’s own cost, all equipment necessary to conduct MS4 Inspections. Such capital and maintenance costs may be invoiced to District pursuant to Section 8 of this Agreement if the equipment is solely intended for MS4 Inspections and not Wastewater Inspections.

Item H.5
Packet Page 141
-4-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3
L. Provide quarterly reports to District, which describe all MS4 Inspections and Corrective Orders during the prior quarter, concurrently with the quarterly invoices specified in Section 8.C below. The final report of the fiscal year (fourth quarter) will include a status report to City of Corrective Orders initiated by Inspection Agency by owner or operator name. The final report will also include a hard or electronic copy of the Inspection Agency’s databases of regulated facilities.

M. Utilize reasonable efforts to conduct MS4 Inspections fairly and in a uniform manner.

N. In accordance with Section 8.D below, provide an annual fiscal year budget to District that estimates the cost of performing the MS4 Inspections and other requirements of this Section 4 (“Annual Budget”).

5. Responsibilities of District. District will perform the following services in accordance with the Municipal Regional Permit and applicable laws and regulations:

A. Recommend revisions to City’s ordinances and regulations, as may be necessary, to allow Inspection Agency to lawfully perform MS4 Inspections and issue Corrective Orders.

B. Authorize and prioritize inspections and investigations, with direction from City and Inspection Agency.

C. Provide timely input on the scope of the next fiscal year’s MS4 Inspections during Inspection Agency’s budget process and approve Inspection Agency’s Annual Budget in accordance with Section 8.D.

D. Reimburse Inspection Agency for authorized costs in accordance with Section 8.

E. Recommend remedial actions to City and Inspection Agency in order to correct an owner or operator’s violation of the Municipal Regional Permit or other applicable laws.

F. Provide educational materials for distribution to owners and operators of regulated facilities and the public.

G. Provide comments to Inspection Agency regarding the format of MS4 Inspections, Corrective Orders, and reports.

H. Perform other responsibilities as agreed to in writing between the District, Inspection Agency, and City.

I. Notify City of issues affecting its compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit in a timely manner.

J. Provide City with quarterly reports regarding MS4 Inspections and budget summaries.

6. Responsibilities of City. City will perform the following obligations in accordance with the Municipal Regional Permit and applicable laws and regulations:

A. Provide Inspection Agency with a current roster, and future updates to that roster, of employees responsible for carrying out the stormwater program and related enforcement activities, including phone numbers and email addresses.

B. In accordance with Section 4.E., provide direction to Inspection Agency regarding enforcement actions.

C. Cooperate with City and District to carry out their respective obligations under this Agreement.

7. Agency Representative. Each Party shall designate in writing to each other an MS4 Inspections program coordinator and an alternate coordinator. The purpose of designating an MS4 Item H.5
Packet Page 142
-5-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3
Inspections program coordinator is to facilitate communication between the Parties. Each Party shall direct matters such as complaints, claims, legal challenges, and other disputes regarding the MS4 Inspections to its MS4 Inspections program coordinator who will transmit the matter to the District for resolution.

8. Financial.

A. District shall reimburse Inspection Agency for all authorized expenditures in furtherance of its obligations under Section 4 above, including the Inspection Agency’s actual costs for performing inspections and related administrative activities. The costs eligible for reimbursement include, but are not necessarily limited to, labor, benefits, overhead, supplies, equipment, vehicle, laboratory, consultant, and legal fees and costs. However, Inspection Agency, as practicable, shall promptly notify the District if it believes that legal costs will be incurred in connection with the MS4 Inspections or Corrective Orders so that the Parties may reach an agreement regarding the cost of legal services, if desired. Inspection Agency shall not mark up any costs it incurs in providing any of the required services in the invoice.

B. Inspection Agency’s labor costs shall be itemized at base cost per individual for time spent plus an overhead multiplier for benefits, administrative overhead, supplies, equipment and insurance.

Inspection Agency’s overhead multiplier for the following fiscal year shall be submitted to the District as part of Inspection Agency’s Annual Budget and approved by District annually.

C. Inspection Agency shall submit quarterly invoices to the District for services performed under Section 4 of this Agreement. Each invoice shall include an itemized accounting of the total cost of all services performed under Section 4. Inspection Agency shall submit each quarterly invoice according to the following schedule for each fiscal year (each July 1-June 30): (i) First Quarter (July 1-Sept. 30) – by October 31; (ii) Second Quarter (Oct. 1-Dec. 31) – by January 31; (iii) Third Quarter (Jan. 1-Mar. 31) – by April 30; and (iv) Fourth Quarter (Apr. 1-June 30) – by July 31. District will pay each undisputed invoice within 45 days of receipt. In the event that District disputes the amounts stated on any invoice, within 30 days District shall submit to Inspection Agency a written notice of dispute and the basis for the dispute. The Parties shall endeavor to resolve any such disputes within a reasonable time after District’s receipt of a notice of dispute.

Any dispute that is not resolved within five (5) business days shall be referred to the Parties’ respective managers for resolution.

D. Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, District shall approve Inspection Agency’s Annual Budget. City shall also review and approve the Annual Budget prior to District’s final approval.

Discussions for the annual budget shall begin in January prior to the upcoming fiscal year. Inspection Agency shall submit its Annual Budget by March 31st of each year and District shall act on such Annual Budget by April 30th of each year. If District does not approve the Inspection Agency’s budget by April 30th, then Inspection Agency may terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 2.B., except that such termination shall take effect as of July 1st of such year. Inspection Agency shall not exceed its City and District-approved written Annual Budget without first obtaining advance written approval of City and District.

9. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Inspection Agency shall carry insurance in the amounts, and in accordance with the provisions, set forth in Exhibit A.

10. Indemnification.

A. District Indemnity. District shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Inspection Agency and City and each of them and their elected officials, officers, directors, agents, and employees from and against all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands, damages, consequential damages, liabilities, and expenses (collectively “Claims”) that arise out of or relate to the District's willful misconduct or the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the District in the performance of this Agreement, except that City shall be solely liable for any fines resulting from its sole violations of the Municipal Regional Permit.

B. Inspection Agency Indemnity. Inspection Agency shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless District and City, and their respective elected officials, officers, directors, agents and employees from and against all Claims that arise out of or relate to Inspection Agency's willful misconduct or the negligent acts or errors or omissions in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, inclusive of Claims involving search and seizure without required warrants (except in those situations where Inspection Item H.5
Packet Page 143
-6-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3
Agency has reasonably relied on City’s determination or representation as to whether a warrant is required), and trespassing (except in those situations where Inspection Agency has reasonably relied on City’s representation as to whether consent has been obtained), except that City shall be solely liable for any fines resulting from its violations of the Municipal Regional Permit.

C. City Indemnity. City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Inspection Agency and District and each of them and their officers, directors, agents, and employees from and against all Claims that arise out of or relate to the City’s willful misconduct or the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the City in the performance of this Agreement. City shall also indemnify, defend and hold harmless Inspection Agency, and their respective officers, directors, agents, and employees from and against all Claims which are not covered by Section 10.B, inclusive of those that are based on the constitutionality or legality of the MS4 Inspection program and the rules and regulations it is intended to enforce, inverse condemnation claims and petitions for writ of mandate.

D. Survival. The obligations in this Section 10 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

11. Notices. Notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and personally delivered, sent by overnight carrier with delivery charges prepaid for next day delivery, or sent by First Class U.S. Mail with postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:

If to District, to: Joe Smithonic
Senior Civil Engineer
Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
If to Inspection Agency, to: Colleen Henry
Environmental Compliance Program Administrator
CCCSD Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553
If to City, to: Name
Title
Agency Name
Address, City, Postal Code
A notice shall be deemed given on the same day it is personally delivered, on the business day following the date it is deposited with an overnight carrier for next day delivery, and on the third day after the postmark date if it is sent by First Class U.S. Mail. A courtesy copy of any notice may be sent concurrently by email, but emailing a courtesy copy of any notice does not substitute for providing notice in accordance with this section. A Party may change its address for notices by providing written notice to the other Parties in accordance with this section at least five days before the new address becomes effective.

12. Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute arising under this Agreement, the Parties may jointly agree to submit the dispute to mediation before an agreed-upon mediator. If the Parties cannot agree to a mediator within 30 days after a Party makes a written request for mediation to the other Parties, a mediator may be selected by petition of any Party to the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa. Each Party shall be responsible for paying a proportional share of the fees and expenses incurred in connection with any mediation. Each Party shall pay its own costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with any mediation under this section.

13. Audits. During the term of this Agreement, and for three years following its expiration or termination, in order to make audits each Party shall have the right to access any other Party’s books, documents, papers, and other records related to the performance of this Agreement. If any Party requests copies of another Party’s records pertinent to the performance of this Agreement, copies of those records shall be delivered to the requesting Party within 30 days following a request for such records. The requirements of this Section shall survive for three years following the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

Item H.5
Packet Page 144
-7-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3

14. Amendments. This Agreement may only be amended by written mutual agreement of all Parties hereto.

15. Governing Law. This Agreement is made and will be performed in the State of California, County of Contra Costa, and is governed by California law.

16. Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, promises, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement are, to any extent, adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void, or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, priorities, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

17. Assignment. No Party may assign any of its right, title, or interest under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Parties hereto. Any purported assignment of any Party’s rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Parties shall be deemed void and without effect.

18. Entire Agreement; Construction. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the Parties and all prior understandings or agreements, oral or written, regarding this matter are superseded. The section headings and captions of this Agreement are, and the arrangement of this Agreement is, for the sole convenience of the Parties to this Agreement. The section headings, captions, and arrangement of this Agreement do not in any way affect, limit, amplify, or modify the terms and provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the Parties, but rather as if all Parties have prepared it. The Parties to this Agreement and their attorneys have read and reviewed this Agreement and agree that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement. The recitals of this Agreement are, and shall be enforceable as, a part of this Agreement.

19. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer on any person, other than the Parties and their successors and assigns, any rights or remedies by reason of this Agreement.

20. Waiver. A waiver of breach of any covenant or provision in this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of breach of any other covenant or provision in this Agreement, and no waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving Party.

21. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together constitute one and the same instrument. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Item H.5
Packet Page 145
-8-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as pf the Effective Date first written above.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND

WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
__________________________________
Name: Warren Lai
Title: Public Works Director

CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
__________________________________
Name: Roger S. Bailey
Title: General Manager

CITY OF
__________________________________
Name:_____________________________
Title:______________________________

Item H.5
Packet Page 146
-9-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3

EXHIBIT A

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Inspection Agency shall procure and maintain at its sole cost for the duration of this Agreement the following insurance:
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (“occurrence” form CG 0001). (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). (3) Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability insurance.
(4) Errors and omissions/Professional liability insurance for all design professionals such as architects, landscape architects or engineers.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Inspection Agency shall maintain policy limits of no less than:
(1) General Liability: $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, the general aggregate limit shall be double the combined single limit, with completed operations coverage.
(2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(3) Worker’s Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker’s Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. (4) Errors and Omissions/Professional Liability: $1,000,000 per claim and annual aggregate. If Inspection Agency maintains higher limits than the minimum required by this Agreement, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Inspection Agency. c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retention. Any deductibles or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or Inspection Agency shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(1) General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverage. (a) The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Inspection Agency; products and completed operations of Inspection Agency; premises owned, occupied or used by Inspection Agency; or automobiles owned, leased or borrowed by Inspection Agency. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
(b) Inspection Agency’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, Item H.5
Packet Page 147
-10-
13074-0002\2995219v6.doc
4876-1651-9399 v3
officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of Inspection Agency’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(c) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. (d) Inspection Agency’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. (2) Worker’s Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Inspection Agency for the City.
(3) Errors and Omissions/Professional Liability Coverage. Inspection Agency’s insurance shall include minimum Extended Reporting Period Coverage of three years. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best’s rating of no less than A: VII.
f. Verification of Coverage. Inspection Agency shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

Item H.5
Packet Page 148
1 of 5

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION:

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

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:

Item H.6
Packet Page 149
2 of 5

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 primarily 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 assessments. 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:

The City Council is required to establish the budgets and levy assessments annually for each zone of benefit to continue funding AD 86-1 services. The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the City to complete a multi-step process each year to levy and collect assessments.

The first step in the annual process was completed on April 7, 2026, when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-26 ordering the preparation of the Engineer’s Report. The Item H.6
Packet Page 150
3 of 5
second step was completed on May 19, 2026, when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 30-26 approving the Engineer’s Report and Resolution No. 31-26 declaring the City’s intent to levy and collect assessments and setting a public hearing date for June 9, 2026.

The final step is for the City Council to hold the public hearing, consider all public testimony, and adopt Resolution No. 45-26 (Attachment B) confirming the diagram and assessment contained in the Engineer’s Report and ordering the levy and collection of the annual assessments for AD 86-1.

The City contracts with consulting firm NBS to prepare the Engineer’s Report (Attachment A) which establishes the budgets for each zone of benefit and details the methodology for assessment apportionment and rate increases based on annual CPI changes. The Engineer’s report also includes the assessment diagram identifying the boundaries of each zone of benefit within AD 86-1. No boundary changes are proposed for the upcoming fiscal year. The original Engineer’s Report is on file with the City Clerk’s Office.

The Engineer’s Report recommends applying the 2.47% CPI adjustment to assessments within Zones L-42 and M-9 to address increased annual service costs. The proposed Zone M-11 assessments remain consistent each year as they do not include an annual CPI inflator due to majority opposition during the 1999 assessment ballot proceeding. The proposed FY 2026-27 assessments are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Proposed FY 2026-27 Assessments
Zone of Benefit Current
FY 2025-26 Levy
Proposed
FY 2026-27 Levy
Annual Change
Per Unit
L-42 $ 79.50 $ 81.47 $ 1.97
M-9 $ 83.69 $ 85.76 $ 2.07
M-11 $635.94 $635.94 $ 0
The Engineer's Report also details each zone’s actual and projected revenues and expenses for prior, current, and upcoming fiscal years. Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed FY 2026-27 revenue and expenses for all zones.

Item H.6
Packet Page 151
4 of 5
Table 2: Proposed FY 2026-27 Revenue & Expenses by Zone Zone
L-42
Zone
M-9
Zone
M-11 Totals
Beginning Balance $ 24,186 $ 0 $ 0
Assessment Revenue $ 10,387 $ 13,722 $ 38,030 $ 62,139
Interest Revenue 200 10 0 210
General Fund Contribution 240 2,878 78,138 81,256
Total Revenue $ 10,827 $ 16,610 $ 116,168 $143,605
Expenditures – Special Benefit $ 7,776 $ 16,570 $ 100,368 $124,714 Expenditures – General Benefit 240 40 15,800 16,080
Total Expenses $ 8,016 $ 16,610 $ 116,168 $ 140,794
Total Contribution to Reserve $ 2,811 $ 0 $ 0
Ending Balance $ 26,669 $ 0 $ 0
The proposed assessment revenue for Zone L-42 is projected to fully offset special benefit service costs. The General Fund contribution will fully offset the $240 in general benefit costs. Zone L-42 is projected to maintain a reserve balance within limits allowed under State law. This reserve is maintained primarily to fund future replacement of Cityowned streetlight poles.

The proposed assessment revenue for Zone M-9 will cover the majority of projected special benefit expenditures. A General Fund contribution of $2,878 is required to fund the remaining special benefit costs and fully offset the $40 in general benefit costs.

Due to the absence of an annual CPI adjustment, the proposed assessment revenue for Zone M-11 is insufficient to cover projected special benefit service costs. A General Fund contribution of $78,138 is required to fund the remaining special benefit costs and fully offset the $15,800 in general benefit costs.

The service levels for Zone M-11 are reviewed annually to ensure responsible use of General Fund resources to cover the rising costs of maintenance and beautification services within Orinda’s key commercial corridors. 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 contribution to Zone M-11 is appropriate.

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

Item H.6
Packet Page 152
5 of 5
Following consideration of all public testimony, Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 45-26 confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy and collection of the assessment. Upon adoption of Resolution No 45-26, NBS will process the assessment levy and forward all assessment information to the Contra Costa County Tax Collector for inclusion on the FY 2026-27 property tax roll for properties within AD 86-1.

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 $2,811.

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. Engineer's Report for FY 2026-27
B. Resolution No. 45-26
Prepared by: Estela Ramirez, Management Analyst
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item H.6
Packet Page 153
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Fiscal Year Engineer’s Report For
Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape
Assessment District No. 1986-1
May 2026
Item H.6
Packet Page 154
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 H.6
Packet Page 155

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 H.6
Packet Page 156
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 H.6
Packet Page 157
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 H.6
Packet Page 158
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 H.6
Packet Page 159
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 H.6
Packet Page 160
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 H.6
Packet Page 161
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 H.6
Packet Page 162
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 H.6
Packet Page 163
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 H.6
Packet Page 164
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 H.6
Packet Page 165
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 H.6
Packet Page 166
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 H.6
Packet Page 167
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 H.6
Packet Page 168
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 H.6
Packet Page 169

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 H.6
Packet Page 173
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 H.6
Packet Page 174
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 H.6
Packet Page 175
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 H.6
Packet Page 176
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 H.6
Packet Page 177
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 H.6
Packet Page 178
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 H.6
Packet Page 179
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 H.6
Packet Page 180
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 H.6
Packet Page 181
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 H.6
Packet Page 182
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 H.6
Packet Page 183
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 H.6
Packet Page 184
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 H.6
Packet Page 185
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 H.6
Packet Page 186
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 H.6
Packet Page 187
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 H.6
Packet Page 188
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 H.6
Packet Page 189
RESOLUTION NO. 45-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING THE LEVY

AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ORINDA STREET LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1986-1, ZONES L-42, M-9, AND M-11, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27

WHEREAS, the City Council previously formed the Orinda Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1986-1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et seq.), replacing former County Service Areas L-42, M-9, and M-11; and
WHEREAS, the assessment district contains three zones of benefit identified as Zones L-42, M-9, and M-11; and
WHEREAS, annual proceedings are required under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 to levy and collect assessments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 within the assessment district; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-26 ordering the Engineer to prepare and file an Engineer’s Report for FY 2026-27; and WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report includes a description of the improvements, estimated costs, assessment methodology, assessment roll, and assessment diagram for each zone; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2026, the City Council approved the Engineer’s Report, declared its intention to levy and collect assessments for FY 2026-27, and set a public hearing for June 9, 2026; and
WHEREAS, notice of the filing of the Engineer’s Report and the public hearing was provided in accordance with Section 22626 of the Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the proposed assessments and considered all oral and written testimony submitted by interested persons.

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

1. Confirms the assessment diagram and assessments as set forth in the Engineer’s Report.

2. Orders the levy and collection of annual assessments for Zones L-42, M-9, and M11 for Fiscal Year 2026-27, as described in the Engineer’s Report.

Item H.6
Packet Page 190
Resolution No. 45-26
2 of 2

3. Orders assessment consultant firm NBS to prepare and submit the assessment levy to Contra Costa County for placement on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 secured property tax roll.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on June 9, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item H.6
Packet Page 191

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Public Hearing - Approval of the City of Orinda Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Master Fee Schedule.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Fees for the Lamorinda Fee and Finance Authority (LFFA) are adjusted based on the increase in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area for the period ending September 30.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 28-26 Modifying Fees for Services Rendered by the City for Administrative, Planning, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety Services, and Development Impact Fees.

BACKGROUND:

From time to time, at least annually, as circumstances and the costs of providing services and the costs to mitigate development impacts change, the fees are adjusted accordingly.

Fees for service are adjusted annually on July 1 by the annual percentage difference in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for all urban workers for the San Francisco-OaklandSan Jose metropolitan area for February. This provision allows City fees to keep pace with increased costs for services without having to conduct a complete study each year.

The February CPI change was chosen since it would be the most recent data available for the Council meeting in June.

By State law, the City Council must conduct a noticed public hearing prior to any action to change fees for planning and development activities. The public hearing was duly noticed to be held in conjunction with the regular meeting of the Council on June 9, 2026.

DISCUSSION:

Item H.7
Packet Page 192
To comply with the City Council's cost recovery policy for certain services, and to ensure that these charges are modified as costs increase or decrease, Staff proposes fees for services and development impact fees be adjusted as indicated in the Fiscal Year 2026- 27 Proposed Fee Schedule (Attachment B).

The Schedule shows both the “Current Fee” and the “Proposed Fee.” There is also a column that indicates how the adjustment was made (e.g. CPI Change; No Change; New Fee, etc.). Most of fees for services are adjusted by 1.7%, which is the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all urban workers in the San Francisco-OaklandSan Jose metropolitan area from February 2025 to February 2026. Fees that are based on Staff’s actual hourly rates are automatically adjusted because of changes in hourly rates.

The focus of this Staff report will be on new fees, elimination of fees, as well as items that were adjusted by something other than the CPI. The key changes are discussed based on each section of the Master Fee Schedule.

Section  – Administration
The Orinda Plant Guide (Plants for a Fire Savvy Landscape Guide) – This new fee is implemented to cover the actual printing costs of the Orinda Plant Guide (Plants for a Fire Savvy Landscape Guide), which provides useful information for residents on plants for a fire-savvy landscape: a quick reference on what to plant, where to plant and how to think about landscaping with regard to wildfire in Orinda.

Section  – Planning & Engineering
As discussed below, several fees are proposed to be added, removed, or updated. In addition, some language in the fee schedule has been revised for clarity. All other fees have either been adjusted based on CPI or remain unchanged as they are set by statute.

Item H.7
Packet Page 193
Planning
A. Building Permit Final Inspections Fee – This fee was updated as a separate line item to reflect only the final inspection fee. Previously, this fee was included in the building permit application intake and plan check. Separation of the final inspection fee allows planning staff to take in the initial fee automatically with the new CloudPermit software.

B. Wireless Facilities Permit – This has been added to provide clarity and awareness of work conducted by utilities, per section a, to applicants and staff regarding these charges. Per Orinda Municipal Code Section 12.10.010, a permit is required to occupy the public right-of-way (ROW). Further small wireless regulations are outlined in Resolution No. 49-19.

C. Biological Assessment Deposit – A biological assessment deposit may be required per OMC 15.28.020, based on staff review of the applicant’s projects. Associated costs will be applied per Section a (Nonstandard Projects) which will be based on time and materials, consultant fees, markup charge, overhead.

D. Drainage Work Within a Waterway Fee: Nonstandard Projects Fee - The description has been updated to provide additional clarity to the applicant, explicitly specifying consultant costs and associated markup, which were previously included in Section A.

Section  a – Non-Standard Projects
No significant changes are proposed to this section of the Master Fee Schedule.

Section  - Appeals
No changes are proposed to this section of the Master Fee Schedule.

Section IV – Parks & Recreation
A majority of Park and Recreation Rates/Fees are not being adjusted by the change in CPI apart from the following items:

A. Field Lights Fee – Fees were updated to reflect increased utility costs. The City has recently replaced lighting at Wilder Fields to make them more energy efficient.

These changes will be analyzed during future fee update years.

B. Dry Bar and Platform/Riser Fees – Equipment is available for client rental in lieu of sourcing from external vendors, providing greater convenience and reliable access to meet project needs. The proposed fees of $100/day for dry bar and $25/day for each platform/riser are comparable to those of local rental companies and other agencies.

C. Removal of Easel Fee – Art easels intended for large poster displays have been discontinued due to a lack of rental demand over the past decade. Additionally, their non-foldable design makes storage impractical, and clients generally utilize projectors or TV monitors for presentation needs.

Item H.7
Packet Page 194
D. TV Monitor Fee – To enhance efficiency and standardize costs for visual equipment (TV monitors and LCD projectors), the rental rate has been updated to align with the portable projector.

E. On-Field Storage Area Fee – Groups currently use this space to store equipment (e.g., batting cages during the off-season). The reduction in the fee is representative of the more modest on-field storage, i.e. a lockable dugout, small container, or small shed.

F. Shipping Container Use Fee – Staff wishes to formally establish a fee for placement of shipping containers for youth sports teams at City-maintained property. The provision of space for these containers is common practice as it provides these youth sports groups with a secure storage option for equipment and supplies utilized on a regular basis. To provide a sense of scale, there are about 5-6 shipping containers (20′ L x 8′ W x 8’6″ H) in place with very limited opportunity for more. The proposed rate of $200 per six months will cover administrative, site management, and staff coordination costs.

G. Facility Preservation Fees - Per Player Fee for Sports League (Maintenance and Capital Replacement Fund) – This fee was initially adopted for the Fiscal Year 2016-17 via the Resolution Number 30-16 to offset the additional expenses related to maintaining sports facilities and the future capital costs related to replacement of the Wilder artificial turf fields and Wagner Gymnasium floor. Since then, the per player fee at $12 has remained unchanged while facility and maintenance costs have increased for both natural fields and turf. The increase in this fee is based on the cumulative CPI change from February 2016 to February 2026 and results in a fee of $17.

Section V – Public Safety
No significant changes are proposed to this section of the Master Fee Schedule.

Section VI – Development Impact Fees
Most fees were either adjusted by the CPI, except for the following items.

A. Park Dedication Fees – The City Municipal Code contains a provision for the adjustment of these fees. Specifically, Orinda Municipal Code Section 3.28.080 (B) (2) states that the fee shall be “… adjusted annually by reference to the average increase or decrease in the price of residential real property…”.

In the past the City used to obtain data related to average sale price of detached and attached home as well as number of transactions from Contra Costa Association of Realtors (CCAR). However, this data is difficult to obtain with the change in software used by CCAR. Therefore, Staff used the change in the Median Sale Price data provided by CCAR to update the Park Dedication Fee.

B. Regional Transportation Impact Fee – This fee is updated by the Lamorinda Fee and Finance Authority Joint Powers Authority (JPA), established in 1998.

Item H.7
Packet Page 195
The JPA adjusts the Regional Transportation Impact Fee each January 1 by the amount of the increase in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, for the period ending September 30 of the preceding year. When the JPA updates the fee in January 2027 based on the September 2026 Index, Staff will revise it in the Master Fee Schedule accordingly.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon adoption of the Resolution 28-26 (Attachment A) Staff will attach a clean version of Attachment B without the comparison to the previous year and notes related to adjustments to it.

Following adoption of the Resolution 28-26, the general fees are intended to take effect on July 1, 2026, with the exception of the Business Registration Fee, which will apply to all registrations due after December 31, 2026. According to state law, the modification to the Development Impact Fees (Parks Dedication and Drainage Impact Fees) will take effect in 60 days after adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The anticipated increase in revenue due to the above changes in fees will be offset by the additional cost of providing the services. The exact impact will also depend on the level of activity for any specific fee.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 28-26 Fiscal Year 2026-27 Master Fee Schedule B. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Master Fee Schedule
Prepared By Bhavna Chaudhary, Senior Accountant
Respectfully Submitted by,
Douglas Alessio, Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item H.7
Packet Page 196
RESOLUTION NO. 28-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

MODIFYING FEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE CITY FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE, PLANNING, PUBLIC WORKS, PARKS AND RECREATION

PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, a municipality is authorized to establish reasonable fees for services rendered, provided that those fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged (Government Code Sections 66000- 66018.5); and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2025, the City Council of the City of Orinda adopted Resolution No. 22-25 modifying fees for services rendered by the City for administration, planning, public works, parks and recreation, public safety services and development impact fees; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2026, Lamorinda Fee and Financing Authority (LFFA) accepted the annual adjustment to the Transportation Impact Fees effective January 1, 2026; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to have subsequent fees adopted contained in a consolidated Master Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to modify the previously adopted fee schedule in order to ensure that fees charged are reasonably related to the estimated cost of providing the service; and
WHEREAS, based on the costs the updated Master Fee Schedule also contains new fees and charges for services as presented at the public hearing conducted on June 9, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Orinda finds and declares that:

1. Fee Schedule. The fees for administration, planning, public works, parks and recreation, public safety services, and development impact are those set forth in the City of Orinda schedule attached as Attachment 1 herein.

2. Upon Effective Date Prior Fee Schedules Superseded. The fees established by this resolution supersede previously existing City fees authorized by Resolution No. 22-25 and other fee schedule authorizations adopted by the City Council.

3. Authority of City Manager to Prescribe Additional Regulations. The City Manager may adopt such regulations and prescribe such forms as are necessary to implement and collect the fees provided for by this resolution.

4. Authority of City Manager to Add and/or Reduce Recreation Fees. The City Manager, through his/her designee, may add and/or reduce recreation fees, throughout the course of the Fiscal Year without modification to the fee schedule.

This authority does not allow the City Manager to increase recreation fees.

Item H.7
Packet Page 197

5. Effective Date(s). The fees for services are effective July 1, 2026, with the exception of Business Registration and Business Registration Renewal Fees, which are effective for registrations and renewals due after December 31, 2026.

The development impact fees take effect on August 9, 2026.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda on June 9, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

________________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item H.7
Packet Page 198

CITY OF ORINDA, CALIFORNIA

PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Fiscal Year 2026-27
Page | 1
Item H.7
Packet Page 199
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
Ι. ADMINISTRATION
Note(s)/ Adjustment
Document Copies/ Photocopies
Affidavit for Permission to Copy Building Plans $48.00 $48.00 No change Black & White 8.5" x 11" - First Page Free Free No change Black & White 8.5" x 11" - Each additional page $0.17 Per page $0.17 Per page No change Color, 8.5" x 11" $0.39 Per Page $0.39 Per Page No change Radius Map and Mailing Label Preparation $213.00 Per request $216.00 Per request Annual CPI Change Returned Check
$25.00 Per returned item $25.00 Per returned item No change $35.00 Per returned item $35.00 Per returned item No change $200.00 Per filing notice $200.00 Per filing notice No change $15.00 Per signature $15.00 Per signature No change
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (OMC 3.12) 8.5% of rent 8.5% of Rent No change; change would require Voter approval
The Orinda Plant Guide (Plants for a Fire Savvy Landscape Guide) $15.00 Per book New Current Fee FY 2026-27 Proposed Fee
Second and each additional returned check (CA Civil Code sec.1720) Intent to circulate Initiative (Filing Fee)
(Elections Code 9202 )
Notary Services / Proof of Signature (CA Govt Code 8211) First returned check for non-sufficient funds (CA Civil Code sec.1719) Page | 2
Item H.7
Packet Page 200
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
ΙΙ. PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Note(s)/ Adjustment
For City Staff Time only see Section ΙΙ a for additional fees that may apply.

General Plan Update Fee +
Surcharge applied to all Fixed Fee Planning Permits marked by + 10% surcharge No change For Planning Permits established as billed costs - Fixed General Plan Update Fee @ Initial Application
$177.00 $180.00 Annual CPI Change
Permit Technology Fee +
Technology Fee applied to permits marked by + 3% surcharge No change For Permits established as billed costs - Fixed Permit Technology Fee @ Initial Application
$51.00 $51.00 No change
Building Inspection Surcharge 50% of fee charged by Contra Costa County No change State of California Green Building - Building Permit Surcharge As required by California Health & Safety Code section 18931.6(a) $4 / $100,000 in valuation - Minimum $1.00 No change Plan Check and Inspection Fees +
Project intake and plan check (projects resulting in a building permit), per building permit
$388.00 Per Building Permit $394.00 Annual CPI Change
Building permit application intake and plan check as well as inspection fees (With "hold" on final inspections that involve site visit by City Staff and/or approval of waste management receipts prior to building final). $442.00 Per Building Permit Deleted
Building permit final inspections that involve site visit by City Staff and/or review of waste management receipts prior to building final, per initial inspection
$55.00 Updated for final inspection fee as
separate line item
Re-inspection (additional site visit by City Staff for final inspections or conditions of approval), per re-inspection
$148.00 Per Re-inspection $150.00 Annual CPI Change
Major Modification to prior Plan Check, per re-submittal $331.00 Per Re-submittal $336.00 Annual CPI Change Minor Modification to prior Plan Check, per re-submittal $60.00 Per Re-submittal $61.00 Annual CPI Change Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Pre-approval Plan Check $730.00 $742.00 Annual CPI Change Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ministerial permit, non-state exempt $342.00 $347.00 Annual CPI Change Renovation Plan Check determination for complete demolition projects (whether work qualifies as a renovation)
$360.00 For complete demolition projects $366.00 Annual CPI Change Plan check only additional fee (prior to project receiving discretionary entitlements)
$182.00 $185.00 Annual CPI Change
Public Works Plan Check Updated
Certificate of Compliance No change
Conceptual Development Review (CDR) +
Residential Additions, per application $168.00 Per Application $170.00 Annual CPI Change New Single Family (not located in Wilder), per application $512.00 Per Application $520.00 Annual CPI Change New Single Family (located in Wilder), per application $1,028.00 Per Application $1,045.00 Annual CPI Change Commercial, per application $1,371.00 Per Application $1,394.00 Annual CPI Change Planning Commission Study Session Add-On (cost of noticing not included), per study session
$572.00 Per Study Session $581.00 Annual CPI Change
Design Review +
Commercial / Non-Residential:

Review by Zoning Administrator (exterior work only) $753.00 Plus $765.00 Plus Annual CPI Change $1.90 Square Foot Exterior Surface $1.95 Per Square Foot Exterior Surface Annual CPI Change Review by Planning Commission (exterior work only) $1,508.00 Plus $1,533.00 Plus Annual CPI Change $1.90 Square Foot Exterior Surface $1.95 Per Square Foot Exterior Surface Annual CPI Change Subject to maximum fee of, per application $12,098.00 Maximum fee $12,303.00 Annual CPI Change Commercial/Office (construction or addition less than 1,000 sq. ft.), per application
$5,291.00 Per Application $5,380.00 Annual CPI Change
Commercial/Office (construction or addition of 1,000 or more sq. ft.) $5,291.00 $5,380.00 Plus Annual CPI Change $53.90 Per 100 Square Feet in Excess of
1,000 Square Feet
$54.80 Per 100 Square Feet in Excess of 1,000
Square Feet
Annual CPI Change.

Public Works Review, per application $2,204.00 Per Application $2,241.00 Annual CPI Change Design Review +
Residential
Zoning Administrator Review $753.00 Plus $765.00 Plus Annual CPI Change $1.90 *Square Foot per OMC Chapter

17.6 $1.95 Per Square Foot * Annual CPI Change
Zoning Administrator Review (Wilder new single-family home) $6,527.00 $6,637.00 Annual CPI Change Planning Commission Review $1,508.00 Plus $1,533.00 Plus Annual CPI Change $1.90 *Square Foot per OMC Chapter

17.6 $1.95 Per Square Foot * Annual CPI Change
$4 / $100,000 in valuation - Minimum $1.00
Current Fee FY 2026-27 Proposed Fee
10% surcharge
3% surcharge
50% of fee charged by Contra Costa County
Engineering consultant costs see section IIa. A
deposit is required before work commences, the
amount shall be $5,000.

Engineering consultant costs plus markup per section ΙΙa. A deposit is required before work commences, the amount shall be $5,000.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit of $1,500
is required before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit of $1,500 is required before work commences.

Page | 3
Item H.7
Packet Page 201
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
ΙΙ. PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Current Fee FY 2026-27 Proposed Fee Note(s)/ Adjustment New single-family homes subject to a maximum of $9,622.00 $9,785.00 Annual CPI Change Public Works Review, per application $2,204.00 Per Application $2,241.00 Annual CPI Change Multi-family No change
* Residential square footage as calculated in OMC Chapter 17.6 Dwelling unit Part of PUD or subdivision submitted for concurrent design review.

No change
Special Design Review, per application $548.00 Per Application $557.00 Annual CPI Change (Additions and new residences require special design review standards for:
very large homes, severely sloped development footprints, and lots within the R overlay zone and small narrow lots)
Development Pre-application Meeting
Hourly Rate Meeting prior to application submittal (No charge for first meeting) $220.00 Per Hour $223.00 Annual CPI Change Elevated Deck Permit +
Elevated Deck Permit (only) $683.00 $694.00 Annual CPI Change Elevated Deck Permit (combined with another discretionary application) $471.00 $479.00 Annual CPI Change Environmental Review +
Environmental Impact Report No change
Initial Study / Standard or Mitigated Negative Declaration No change Department of Fish & Wildlife Per Code Section 711.4 No change Exception/Variance +
Exceptions / Variances (only) - If excepton relates to creek setback, see Fees under Watercourse/ Creek Alteration Permit
No change
Exceptions/Variances (combined with another discretionary application) $959.00 $975.00 Annual CPI Change General Plan
Text Amendment; Map Amendment; and/or Code Amendment No change Geologic Review
Geotechnical peer review No change
Ministerial Project $79.00 $80.00 Annual CPI Change
Discretionary Project $132.00 $134.00 Annual CPI Change Lot Line Adjustment +
Administrative Approval Updated
Major Subdivision +
5+ parcels: Tentative Map / Vesting Tentative Map/ Final Map No change Minor Subdivision +
2 1 to 4 parcels: Tentative Map / Vesting Tentative Map/ Parcel Map No change Ministerial Unit Application (including SB 9 UHD, SB 1123) + 1 unit $5,542.00 $5,636.00 Annual CPI Change
2 - 10 units, per unit beyond first unit $1,662.00 Per unit beyond first unit $1,690.00 Annual CPI Change Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit will be
required before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit will be required before work commences.

City contracted. A cash deposit of $3,600 is
required before work commences.

City contracted. A cash deposit of $3,600 is required before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit will be
required before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit will be required before work commences.

City contracted cost plus 30% City contracted cost plus 30% City contracted cost plus 30% and/or Staff hourly
rate charges. A cash deposit will be required before
work commences.

City contracted cost plus 30% and/or Staff hourly rate
charges. A cash deposit will be required before work
commences.

As required by law. As required by law.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit of $1,500
is required before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit of $1,500 is required before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is
required before work commences. See Section II a.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required before work commences. See Section ΙΙa.

Landscape Plan/ MWELO (Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance) Compliance Review +
Actual cost - invoiced amount from
survey/engineering consultant. A cash deposit of
$5,000 is required before work commences.

Invoiced amount from survey/engineering consultant plus markup per section ΙΙa. A cash deposit of $5,000 is required before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required
before work commences. (See §II a for details)
Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required before work commences. (See §II a for details)
Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required
before work commences. (See §II a for details)
Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required before work commences. (See §II a for details)
Page | 4
Item H.7
Packet Page 202
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
ΙΙ. PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Current Fee FY 2026-27 Proposed Fee Note(s)/ Adjustment Planned Development + (Unit All Categories Below): No change PRELIMINARY PLAN:

Residential - Preliminary Development Plan / Final Development Plan (FDP) No change Non-Residential - Commercial and Office No change
FINAL PLAN:

Residential - Final Development Plan (When separate from Preliminary Plan) No change Non-Residential - Commercial and Office No change
Rezoning to Commercial / Office +
Zoning Ordinance Text Revision No change
Zoning Ordinance Map Revision : Residential; Commercial; Office No change Sign Permit +
Type I - First sign $148.00 $150.00 Annual CPI Change
Type I - Each Additional Sign $43.00 $43.00 No change
Type II- First sign or Master Sign Program $1,783.00 $1,813.00 Annual CPI Change Type II- Single tenant building, each additional sign $93.00 $94.00 Annual CPI Change BART Banner $80.00 $81.00 Annual CPI Change
Temporary Event Permit +
One-Time Event or Initial Approval $548.00 $557.00 Annual CPI Change Annual Events after the first year $299.00 $304.00 Annual CPI Change Tree Removal Permit +
First Tree (including Heritage Tree) $194.00 $197.00 Annual CPI Change Each Additional Tree (Including Heritage Tree) $62.00 $63.00 Annual CPI Change Replacement with tree removal permit, as per OMC 17.21.5.F.2, per tree $125.00 Per Tree $125.00 No change. Flat fee per OMC17.21.5.F.2
Restitution for trees removed in violation of OMC 17.21, per tree $1,160.00 Per Tree $1,179.00 Annual CPI Change Use Permit +
Large (greater than 6) Residential Care, Child Care Facilities & Pre-Schools, per application
$2,883.00 Per Application $2,932.00 Annual CPI Change
Commercial Use Permit: Establishment of Commercial, Retail or Office Use in Downtown Zoning District when the new business requires use permit approval (such as service stations and “Class “B” retail businesses in “Type “1” spaces)
$753.00 Plus $765.00 Plus Annual CPI Change
$1.40 Per Square Foot in excess of the
first 750 square feet
$1.40 Per Square Foot in excess of the first 750
square feet
No change
Subject to maximum fee of, per application $10,722.00 Per Application $10,904.00 Annual CPI Change Modification or expansion of existing business, when the requested change requires use permit approval (such as addition of outdoor seating), per permit $959.00 Per Permit $975.00 Annual CPI Change
Temporary Use, per permit $856.00 Per Permit $870.00 Annual CPI Change Other Use Permits, per permit $1,980.00 Per Permit $2,013.00 Annual CPI Change Wireless Communication Facility Permit, per permit $7,008.00 Per Permit Plus $7,127.00 Plus Annual CPI Change Plus cost of contracted peer review Actual Cost Peer Review Actual Cost of Contracted Peer Review Annual RF Report Review, per review $423.00 Per Review $430.00 Annual CPI Change (waived in years Compliance Review is required per OMC Section 17.34.9.A (1) or (2)
Permit Compliance, per report $2,128.00 Per Report $2,164.00 Annual CPI Change (Review per OMC Section 17.34.9.A (1) or (2))
Small Cell Wireless Facilities
Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit No change
Zoning Administrator
Request for public hearing, includes costs of noticing, per hearing $253.00 Per Hearing $257.00 Annual CPI Change Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required
before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required before work commences.
" "
" "
" "
" "
Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required
before work commences. See Section II a for
details.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required before work commences. See Section II a for details.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required
before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required before work commences.

Wireless Communication Facility Permit (on private property. For facility on public right of way, see Encroachment Permits below) +
Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required
before work commences.

Staff hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required before work commences.

Page | 5
Item H.7
Packet Page 203
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
ΙΙ. PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Current Fee FY 2026-27 Proposed Fee Note(s)/ Adjustment Other Permits & Services +
Heritage Tree Nomination $1,028.00 $1,045.00 Annual CPI Change Hillside grading (Review under OMC section 17.7.7) $959.00 $975.00 Annual CPI Change 1st Time Extension (Planning Director), per extension $331.00 Per Extension $336.00 Annual CPI Change Subsequent Extension (Planning Commission) $830.00 $844.00 Annual CPI Change Outdoor Dining or Take-Out Restaurant Permit $658.00 $669.00 Annual CPI Change Relocation Permit (relocation of non-conforming office uses in DC zone $2,128.00 $2,164.00 Annual CPI Change Preliminary Housing Development Application (SB 330), per application $599.00 Per Application $609.00 Annual CPI Change Additional Hourly Rate after 39 hours of staff time (any discretionary application)
$132.00 $134.00 Annual CPI Change
Heavy Equipment Use for Residential Construction on Saturday/Sunday $211.00 $214.00 Annual CPI Change Reasonable Accommodation Request (OMC Section 17.46) Free Free No change Subdivision Agreement +
Original No change
Each Extension - IF Granted $1,475.00 $1,500.00 Annual CPI Change Subdivision Fees +
Parcel Map and Parcel Map Checking Fee No change
Final Map Checking Fee No change
Final Map Recordation of Map No change
Final Map Base Mapping Maintenance No change
Improvement Plan Checking Updated
The cash deposit will be based on 2.5% of the City Engineer’s estimate of the value of street, drainage & other public or private improvements proposed to be installed.

Inspection of Improvements No change
The cash deposit will be based on 8% of the first $30,000 of City Engineer’s estimate of the value, or any fraction thereof, +5% of that value which exceeds $30,000.

Encroachment Permits
Standard routine Projects (Driveways, utility hook-ups, sidewalk repairs, main break / repair, raise man hole to grade, etc.), per application $500.00 Per Application $508.00 Annual CPI Change
Non-Routine Projects - Processing Fee (2 hrs minimum inspection time per visit; construction or replacement of utility line/conduits; series of pole replacement, installation of frontage improvements, etc.) $253.00 Plus costs per section IIa (NonStandard Projects) if scope exceeds base permit
$257.00 Plus costs per section IIa (Non-Standard
Projects) if scope exceeds base permit
Annual CPI Change
Debris Box - Initial week up to 7 days $99.00 Initial Week (7 days) $100.00 Annual CPI Change Debris Box - after 7 days, per day fee up to a maximum of 30 days $328.00 Per Day $333.00 Annual CPI Change Road Closure / Block Party, per day $328.00 $333.00 Annual CPI Change Cash Bond No change
Transportation of Oversized and/or Overweight Loads No change House Moving Permit No change
Revocable Encroachment Agreement when not associated with a project subject to Design Review
$1,980.00 $2,013.00 Annual CPI Change
Revocable Encroachment Agreement when associated with a project subject to Design Review
$1,585.00 $1,611.00 Annual CPI Change
Wireless Facilities - ROW use permit required for small wireless facility in public right of way. Reference muni code Section 12.10.010 and Policy 16-19A and Reso #49-19
Clarification
Deposit required Deposit required
Deposit required (See §IIa for details) Deposit required (See §IIa for details) See section IIa (Non-Standard Projects) See section ΙΙa (Non-Standard Projects) Actual cost fee Contra Costa County Actual cost fee Contra Costa County Actual cost fee Contra Costa County Actual cost fee Contra Costa County Staff or consultant hourly rate charges. A cash
deposit is required before work commences.

Staff or consultant hourly rate charges. Markup will apply per section ΙΙa. A cash deposit is required before work
commences.

Staff or consultant hourly rate charges. A cash
deposit is required before work commences.

Staff or consultant hourly rate charges. A cash deposit is required before work commences.
per OMC 12.08.140 Per OMC 12.08.140
per State Fee Per State Fee
OMC 15.28.020 and costs per section IIa
(Nonstandard projects)
OMC 15.28.020 and costs per section IIa (Nonstandard
projects)
Refer to Section ΙΙa. Deposit required.

Page | 6
Item H.7
Packet Page 204
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
ΙΙ. PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Current Fee FY 2026-27 Proposed Fee Note(s)/ Adjustment Watercourse/ Creek Alteration Permit
A1. Watercourse Setback Determination Fee $582.00 $591.00 Annual CPI Change A2. Biological Assessment (if required by staff) Clarification B. Drainage Work Within A Waterway:

B1. Standard routine projects (drainage around residence on private property; repair of existing drainage) Covers processing fee and up to 3 inspections $460.00 $467.00 Annual CPI Change
B2. Additional Inspections - Drainage work within Waterway $555.00 $564.00 Annual CPI Change C. Drainage Work Within A Waterway: Nonstandard projects including improvements discharging to a public facility for review and inspection Updated
D. Cash Bond, if required for repairs/improvements As determined by the City Engineer No change Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control Facility Certification Annual Certification Fee Developments with 4 or less stormwater facilities $378.00 Annual $384.00 Annual CPI Change Annual Certification Fee Developments with 5 or more stormwater facilities $457.00 Annual $464.00 Annual CPI Change Business Permits
Business Registration**
Initial Annual Business Registration - Effective Renewal Dates beginning 2024 $60.00 Initial License $61.00 Annual CPI Change Annual Renewal Business Registration, per renewal $41.00 Per Renewal $41.00 No change Initial Late Penalty (1st of month following due date) $28.00 1st of month following due date $28.00 No change Late Penalty (two months delinquent) $59.00 Two months delinquent $60.00 Annual CPI Change Compliance Inspection Fee, per inspection $123.00 Per Inspection $125.00 Annual CPI Change State Surcharge - Disability Access Fee, per application or renewal $4.00 Per Application or Renewal $4.00 No Change. Set By State Law Short-Term Rental Registration
Initial Registration $298.00 $303.00 Annual CPI Change
Annual Renewal Short-Term Rental Registration $177.00 $180.00 Annual CPI Change Annual Permit $99.00 $100.00 Annual CPI Change
Employee Parking Permits
Semi Annual Permit July 1st - December 31st $99.00 $100.00 Annual CPI Change Semi Annual Permit January 1st - June 30th $99.00 $100.00 Annual CPI Change Commuter Parking Permits
Semi Annual Permit: January 1st – June 30th $358.00 $364.00 Annual CPI Change Semi Annual Permit: July 1st – December 31st $358.00 $364.00 Annual CPI Change Civil Penalities
Civil penalties are listed below, except where higher amounts are authorized by state law. See Gov Code 36900; Civil Code 2929.3 (properties acquired in foreclosure).

Fees for Infractions
First Violation $100.00 $100.00 No Change. Set By State Law Second Violation $200.00 $200.00 No Change. Set By State Law Each Additional Violation $500.00 $500.00 No Change. Set By State Law Fees for Infractions - Violation of Local Building and Safety Codes First violation $130.00 $130.00 No Change. Set By State Law Second Violation - same ordinance within one year $700.00 $700.00 No Change. Set By State Law Each Additional Violation - same ordinance within one year $1,300.00 $1,300.00 No Change. Set By State Law Each Additional Violation – within two years of the first violation $2,500.00 $2,500.00 No Change. Set By State Law Fees for Infractions - Violation of Short-Term Rental Ordinance First violation $1,500.00 $1,500.00 No Change. Set By State Law Second Violation - same ordinance within one year $3,000.00 $3,000.00 No Change. Set By State Law Each Additional Violation - same ordinance within one year $5,000.00 $5,000.00 No Change. Set By State Law A cash deposit of $5,000 is required for consultant
or staff hourly rate charges.

A cash deposit of $5,000 is required for consultant or staff hourly rate charges. Markup will apply per Section ΙΙa.

As determined by the City Engineer
A cash deposit of $3,250 is required for consultant or staff hourly rate charges. Markup will apply per Section ΙΙa.

Page | 7
Item H.7
Packet Page 205
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
ΙΙ a. NON-STANDARD PROJECTS

SPECIAL/COMPLEX PROJECTS

CONSULTANT FEES

CITY ATTORNEY FEES

CONTRACT SERVICES
Contractor’s costs paid by the City plus a surcharge of 17.5% as an overhead fee.

Fees collected from the Applicant shall include:

The City’s contract City Attorney costs Plus a 17.5% overhead fee.

Services may include, but are not limited to photocopying, delivery, etc.

For Contract Services entered by the City of Orinda, the fees (which may be deducted from the deposit account, or paid directly) shall include:

For Consultant Services contracted by the City of Orinda, such as soils peer review, environmental consultant, etc.; the fees (which may be deducted from the deposit account, or paid directly) shall include:

Consultant's cost paid by the City Plus 30% of the first $10,000 of the contract; and 10% of the contract amounts in excess of $10,000.

If the assistance of the City Attorney is required in connection with any non-standard project services, Fees listed in the preceding sections of this Schedule are intended to cover City staff time for standard processing. For any work not included in the schedule, including but not limited to: street closures, abandonments; FEMA Floodway, review of Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Application, Quit Claims; legal costs including defense of an application undertaken in accordance with an indemnification agreement between the City and the Applicant, the fee(s) will be charged equivalent to the hourly cost of the employee(s) involved, plus the City cost of materials, equipment, contracted professional services including legal services and City overhead as described below.

Additional fees and deposits may be required for the following:

For special projects requiring extensive staff work due to duration, complexity, required preparation of non-standard forms and agreements, etc., the City reserves the right to charge for materials and labor, plus overhead in addition to, or in lieu of the fees cited in this schedule.

The City Manager is authorized to establish guidelines for when a deposit may be required for such projects. This may include executing reimbursement and indemnification agreements. The City Manager may delegate to the Director of Public Works and Director of Planning the authority to determine the amount of cash deposit needed for Engineering and Planning discretionary applications.

When the balance in the deposit account submitted by an applicant is 50% or less of the original deposit, an additional deposit may be required to continue processing. Upon completion of the project, and payment by the City for all services provided under this provision, any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant.

Page | 8
Item H.7
Packet Page 206
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
ΙΙΙ. APPEALS
Current Fee Note(s)/ Adjustment
All appeals or reconsiderations -
Appeal reconsideration costs are based on 25% of the original application fee subject to the Minimum / Maximum, plus the estimated cost of preparing detailed meeting minutes for decision(s) being appealed.

Minimum $732.00 $744.00 Annual CPI Change
Maximum $2,059.00 $2,094.00 Annual CPI Change
FY 2026-27
Proposed Fee
Page | 9
Item H.7
Packet Page 207
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
IV. Parks & Recreation * Current Fee
FY 2026-27
Proposed Fee Current Fee
FY 2026-27
Proposed Fee Current Fee
FY 2026-27
Proposed Fee Current Fee
FY 2026-27
Proposed Fee
INDOOR
Orinda Community Center
Meeting Room $50.00 $50.00 $55.00 $55.00 $61.00 $61.00 $76.00 $76.00 no change Large Meeting Room $55.00 $55.00 $60.00 $60.00 $66.00 $66.00 $81.00 $81.00 no change Founders Auditorium $90.00 $90.00 $98.00 $98.00 $125.00 $125.00 $136.00 $136.00 no change Kitchen $43.00 $43.00 $52.00 $52.00 $60.00 $60.00 $76.00 $76.00 no change Library
Auditorium $104.00 $104.00 $112.00 $112.00 $125.00 $125.00 $152.00 $152.00 no change Garden Room $65.00 $65.00 $69.00 $69.00 $75.00 $75.00 $93.00 $93.00 no change May or Gallery Rooms $37.00 $37.00 $38.00 $38.00 $41.00 $41.00 $50.00 $50.00 no change Wilder Park
Ranch House $68.00 $68.00 $75.00 $75.00 $80.00 $80.00 $96.00 $96.00 no change Art & Garden Studio $68.00 $68.00 $75.00 $75.00 $80.00 $80.00 $96.00 $96.00 no change Art & Garden Center 1-3 $190.00 $190.00 $198.00 $198.00 $219.00 $219.00 $262.00 $262.00 no change City Hall
Sarge Room $50.00 $50.00 $55.00 $55.00 $61.00 $61.00 $76.00 $76.00 no change

OUTDOOR

FACILITIES
Library
Library Plaza $57.00 $57.00 $63.00 $63.00 $65.00 $65.00 $83.00 $83.00 no change Orinda Community Park
Amphitheater $41.00 $41.00 $42.00 $42.00 $47.00 $47.00 $56.00 $56.00 no change Gazebo (up to 3 hrs) $58.00 $58.00 $65.00 $65.00 $71.00 $71.00 $87.00 $87.00 no change Meadow $26.00 $26.00 $29.00 $29.00 $53.00 $53.00 $96.00 $96.00 no change Tennis/Picketball Courts $9.00 $9.00 $11.00 $11.00 $13.00 $13.00 $17.00 $17.00 no change Community Center Plaza (upper or lower) $57.00 $57.00 $63.00 $63.00 $65.00 $65.00 $83.00 $83.00 no change Orinda Oaks Park (up to 3 hours) - Price per Use
Picnic Area $58.00 $58.00 $65.00 $65.00 $70.00 $70.00 $87.00 $87.00 no change Wilder Park (up to 3 hours) - Price per Use
Picnic Area up to 20 $37.00 $37.00 $38.00 $38.00 $41.00 $41.00 $51.00 $51.00 no change Picnic Area up to 50 $58.00 $58.00 $63.00 $63.00 $70.00 $70.00 $87.00 $87.00 no change Picnic Area 51–100 $93.00 $93.00 $97.00 $97.00 $111.00 $111.00 $136.00 $136.00 no change Art & Garden Center Plaza (per hour) $57.00 $57.00 $63.00 $63.00 $65.00 $65.00 $83.00 $83.00 no change SPORTS

FACILITIES
Orinda Sports Field
Natural Turf Field $28.00 $ 28.00 $34.00 $ 34.00 $38.00 $ 38.00 $67.00 $ 67.00 no change Infield Use (OSF) $14.00 $ 14.00 $18.00 $ 18.00 $21.00 $ 21.00 $34.00 $ 34.00 no change Wilder Park
Natural Turf - Field 3 $33.00 $ 33.00 $39.00 $ 39.00 $43.00 $ 43.00 $74.00 $ 74.00 no change Natural Turf - Field 5 $28.00 $ 28.00 $34.00 $ 34.00 $38.00 $ 38.00 $67.00 $ 67.00 no change Artificial Turf Field $55.00 $ 55.00 $67.00 $ 67.00 $77.00 $ 77.00 $133.00 $ 133.00 no change Field Lights $25.00 $ 29.00 $29.00 $ 33.00 $32.00 $ 36.00 $37.00 $ 41.00 utility increases Wagner Ranch Gymnasium
Gymnasium $70.00 $ 70.00 $82.00 $ 82.00 $92.00 $ 92.00 $162.00 $162.00 no change Pine Grove Field
Soccer Field $28.00 $ 28.00 $34.00 $ 34.00 $38.00 $ 38.00 $67.00 $ 67.00 no change Baseball Field $14.00 $ 14.00 $18.00 $ 18.00 $21.00 $ 21.00 $34.00 $ 34.00 no change Orinda Union School District
Del Rey Mustang $21.00 $ 21.00 $22.00 $ 22.00 $26.00 $ 26.00 $36.00 $ 36.00 no change Del Rey Pinto $21.00 $ 21.00 $22.00 $ 22.00 $26.00 $ 26.00 $36.00 $ 36.00 no change Del Rey Keith Burnham $24.00 $ 24.00 $25.00 $ 25.00 $29.00 $ 29.00 $41.00 $ 41.00 no change Glorietta Field $21.00 $ 21.00 $22.00 $ 22.00 $26.00 $ 26.00 $36.00 $ 36.00 no change Orinda Inter. Lower $28.00 $ 28.00 $31.00 $ 31.00 $36.00 $ 36.00 $52.00 $ 52.00 no change Orinda Inter. Upper $21.00 $ 21.00 $22.00 $ 22.00 $26.00 $ 26.00 $36.00 $ 36.00 no change Sleepy Hollow Field $21.00 $ 21.00 $22.00 $ 22.00 $26.00 $ 26.00 $36.00 $ 36.00 no change Wagner Bronco $21.00 $ 21.00 $22.00 $ 22.00 $26.00 $ 26.00 $36.00 $ 36.00 no change Wagner Curtis $21.00 $ 21.00 $22.00 $ 22.00 $26.00 $ 26.00 $36.00 $ 36.00 no change Hourly Rates Facility Use Fees
Group IV
Commercial
Group I
Resident 50% or >
Group II
<50% Resident
Group III
Private
Group I

OUSD/MHS
Group IV
Commercial

RESIDENT & NON RESIDENT
Group II
Nonprofit
Group II
Nonprofit
Group III
Private

FACILITIES
Group I Group III
Private
Group IV
Public Agencies Commercial
(eg. OUSD/MHS)
Page | 10
Item H.7
Packet Page 208
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
IV. Parks & Recreation * (Continued)
FY 2025-26 Adopted Fee Notes
A) Security Deposits (Refundable)
Meeting Rooms, Art & Garden Center Studio (one studio) $150 per rental $150 $150 per rental No change Founders, Library Auditorium, Sports Field, Art & Garden Center- all studios $500 per rental $500 $500 per rental No change Gymnasium $200 per rental $200 $200 per rental No change Picnic 50+ $100 per rental $100 $100 per rental Annual CPI Change Special Event $1,000 per rental $1,000 $1,000 per rental No change B) Facility Equipment Rental & Program-related Fees
Art & Garden Center Supplemental Power Source $100 per day $100 $100 per day Annual CPI Change Cocktail Tables (AGC) $10 per table per day $10 $10 per table per day No change Dry bar $100 per day New fee
4'X4' Platform/Riser $25 each, per day New fee
Late Registration Fee (sports programs) $25 $25 $25 No change Withdrawal Fee (sports leagues) 25%-50% of registration 25%-50% of registration 25%-50% of registratoin No change Late Notice Court Rental Adjustment Fee 25% of court fee 25% 25% of court fee No change Parking Space Rental Fee (Wilder Park) $10 per space per day $10 $10 per space per day No change $200 per hour $200 $200 per hour No change
$2,000 per day $2,000 $2,034 per day No change
Easel $10 per day $10 $10 per day Removed
Facility Attendant $51 per hour $51 $51 per hour No change Lapel Microphone $60 per day $60 $60 per day No change
LCD Projector (Portable; for classrooms) $60 per day $60 $60 per day No change LED Projector (Built-in; Founders, Library Auditorium, and AGC) $85 per day $85 $85 per day No change Microphone (Wired) $35 per day $35 $35 per day No change Microphone (Wireless) $70 per day $70 $70 per day No change Bluetooth Speaker $60 per day $60 $60 per day No change TV Monitor (DVD player included if needed) $50 per day $50 $60 per day Increased to be consistent with LCD Projector
(Portable) Fee
Portable Sound System (includes microphone) $100 per day $100 $100 per day No change Sound System/Sound Booth (Founders, Library Auditorium, and AGC) $125 per day $125 $125 per day No change Tennis Court Light Cards - 3 months $60 for 3 months $60 $60 for 3 months No change Tennis Court Light Cards - 6 months $120 for 6 months $120 $120 for 6 months No change Tennis Court Light Fee $2-$3 per hour $2-$3 $2-$3 per hour No change Rental Change Fee/Re-Booking Fee $25 per change $25 $25 per change No change Rental Permit Violation Fee $100-$500 per incident, plus verified public safety response cost, if
necessary
$100-$500 $100-$500 per incident, plus verified
public safety response cost, if
necessary
No change
C) Sports Field Rental Fees
Special Event/Tournament Fee (in addition to field use fee) $181 per day $181 $184 per day Annual CPI Change Wilder Scoreboard Use Fee $53 per day $53 $53 per day No change Wilder Storage Container Use Fee (Container not provided) On-field storage area $53 per season $53 $50 per area per 6 months Decrease Shipping Container Use Fee (Container not provided) $200 per container per 6 months New D) Miscellaneous Parks & Recreation Fees
Class Refund Fee - to credit card $5 per transaction $5 $5 per transaction No change Class Refund Fee - by check $20 per transaction $20 $20 per transaction No change Camp Refund Fee 3%-7% per transaction 3%-7% 3%-7% per transaction No change Class/Camp Transfer Processing Fee $20 per transfer $20 $20 per transfer No change Outdoor Fitness/Sport Activity Permit $222 for 6 months $222 $225 for 6 months Annual CPI Change Non-Resident Fee 15% additional fee addeded on all
Resident Fees
15% 15% additional fee addeded on all
Resident Fees
No change
E) Facility Preservation Fees
Per Player Fee for Sports League (Maintenance and Capital Replacement Fund)
$12 per scheduling session (6
months)
$12 $17 per scheduling session (6
months)
Updated for CPI Change
since 2016
Facility Preservation (Maintenance and Capital Replacement of non-sports facilities)
3% charge added to each nonsports league transaction 3% 3% charge added to each nonsports league transaction No change * The Director of Parks and Recreation or his/her designee will set specific fees. The City's goal is to charge user fees that are comparable with neighboring agencies, fair and reasonable for the facility or service provided, and that offset operating costs as much as possible. The Director is authorized to establish discounted fees or promotional packages as incentives where applicable.

Current Fee FY 2026-27 Proposed Fee
Media Production in Park Facilities and Open Space

OTHER FEES
Page | 11
Item H.7
Packet Page 209
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
V. PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Note(s)/ Adjustment

FINGERPRINTING
Ink Card - Taking of Prints Only Fee is per card $46.00 $46.00 No change Live Scan - City service fee $49.00 $49.00 No change
* In addition to the Orinda Service Fee, the City collects external fees "Live Scan" fees established by reporting agencies and are subject to change Department of Justice Reporting $32.00 * $32.00 * No change Child Abuse Central Index Reporting $15.00 * $15.00 * No change Federal Bureau of Investigation Reporting $17.00 * $17.00 * No change CITATION PROOF OF CORRECTION - SIGN-OFF No Charge No Charge No change (California Vehicle Code Section 40610)
COPY OF TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT $0.10 per page ** $0.10 per page ** No change POLICE CLEARANCE LETTER (Background Check) $0.00 ** $0.00 ** No change ** As established by Contra Costa County Office of Sheriff - Records Division VEHICLE RELEASE (Stored / Impounded Vehicle) $182.00 $185.00 Annual CPI Change FALSE ALARM RESPONSE FEE (8.12.070 OMC)
For each false alarm in excess of two during any 90 day period. $369.00 $375.00 Annual CPI Change

REDEMPTION OF SIGNS RECOVERED FROM RIGHT OF WAY
Storage and redemption fee for advertising signs removed from the public right-of-way by the City
$61.00 $62.00 Annual CPI Change

VEHICLE ABATEMENT
For every incident where the City abates vehicles or vehicle parts determined to be a public nuisance.
$268.00 $272.00 Annual CPI Change

MASSAGE BUSINESS APPLICATION FEES
Application Fees
New Application for operating a massage parlor $298.00 $303.00 Annual CPI Change Renewal - Application for operating a massage parlor $148.00 $150.00 Annual CPI Change New Application for acting as a masseur $168.00 $170.00 Annual CPI Change Renewal of application for acting as a masseur $91.00 $92.00 Annual CPI Change Permit Fees
Annual permit for operating a massage parlor $61.00 $62.00 Annual CPI Change Annual permit for acting as a masseur $61.00 $62.00 Annual CPI Change TOBACCO RETAILERS LICENSE (OMC 9.28.080) $377.00 $383.00 Annual CPI Change SOLICITOR REGISTRATION $152.00 $154.00 Annual CPI Change Current Fee
FY 2026-27 Proposed
Fee with CPI Adjustment
Page | 12
Item H.7
Packet Page 210
Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY 2026-27
Effective: 7/1/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
Effective: 8/8/2026 (Unless Noted Otherwise)
VI. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Note(s)/ Adjustment

PARK DEDICATION FEE
Adjustment formula per OMC 3.28.070 and 3.28.080
Single-family detached $21,220 $22,558 Change in Median sold price Single-family attached or townhouse $14,418 $15,327 Change in Median sold price Multiple-family duplex, condominium $14,808 Per Unit $15,742 Per Unit Change in Median sold price Single Family
Regional Fee $4,999.94 $4,999.94 No change
Local Fee $4,999.94 $4,999.94 No change
Multi-family or second unit
Regional Fee $3,499.75 $3,499.75 No change
Local Fee $3,499.75 $3,499.75 No change
Multiple Family - Transit-Oriented Development
Regional Fee $1,855.11 $1,855.11 No change
Local Fee $1,855.11 $1,855.11 No change
Non-Residential
Regional Fee $5.34 Per Square Foot $5.34 Per Square Foot No change Local Fee $5.34 Per Square Foot $5.34 Per Square Foot No change Other Uses
Regional Fee $550.28 Per Daily Trip $550.28 Per Daily Trip No change Local Fee $550.28 Per Daily Trip $550.28 Per Daily Trip No change

DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE
Impervious surface added by new development $1.69 Per Square Foot ** $1.71 Per Square Foot ** Annual CPI Change ** Fee applied to square feet in excess of 100sf
VII. ZONING IN-LIEU FEE

PARKING IN-LIEU VARIANCE FEE
Existing Building - 1st Space $1,459 *** $1,483 Annual CPI Change Existing Building - 2nd Space $2,919 *** $2,968 Annual CPI Change Existing Building - 3rd Space $4,381 *** $4,455 Annual CPI Change Existing Building - Each Additional Space after 3 $5,841 *** $5,940 Annual CPI Change New Building - 1st Space $2,335 *** $2,374 Annual CPI Change New Building - 2nd Space $5,257 *** $5,346 Annual CPI Change New Building - 3rd Space $8,179 *** $8,318 Annual CPI Change New Building - Each Additional Space after 3 $11,101 *** $11,289 Annual CPI Change ***The Parking Variance In-Lieu Fee Holiday commencing April 17, 2024 through January 31, 2026 for qualifying projects that are within one half-mile of the BART station and that meet other AB 2097 criteria. Resolution 20-24 adopted on 5/21/2024.

Current Fee FY 2026-27 Proposed Fee
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE *
(Effective 1/1/2026 to incorporate the change in the September 2025 Construction Cost Index)
*Adjustments and timing for Regional fee is based on direction from Lamorinda Fee and Finance Authority. Per JPA uses September Cha nge in construction cost index and identifies desired adjustment effective January 1st.

Page | 13
Item H.7
Packet Page 211

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Accept Work and Contract with Marina Landscape, Inc. as Complete for the Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements (City Project No. 5019) and Accept the Donation from the Orinda Garden Club
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND:

The Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements Project (Project No. 5019) was originally planned to upgrade and renovate the aged landscaping in the median between Santa Maria Way and Brookwood Dr. During the development of the project, it was necessary to consider potential median openings to accommodate potential evacuation and emergency use, in response to the General Plan Safety Element Update. The Update included a report to improve public safety and evacuation efficiency during emergencies such as wildfires and identified Camino Pablo as a critical evacuation corridor providing access to State Route 24.

In response, the City incorporated into the Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements Project the construction of two new median openings to improve emergency vehicle access and evacuation operations. The improvements include landscaping and irrigation upgrades, paving improvements, and installation of a “Qwick Kurb” Delineation System at the median openings.

Item H.8
Packet Page 212
The Project landscaping plan was developed in coordination with the Orinda Garden Club, a financial contributor to the project. The project plans were approved by Caltrans, as the work is located within Caltrans right-of-way.

The Project was advertised for bids on September 25, 2025, and bids were opened on October 28, 2025. One responsive bid was received from Marina Landscape, Inc. in the amount of $202,085. On November 18, 2025, the City Council awarded the construction contract to Marina Landscape, Inc. and authorized a 15% construction contingency ($30,315), for a total authorized construction amount of $232,400. The construction contract was fully executed on December 17, 2025.

DISCUSSION:

A Notice to Proceed was issued to Marina Landscape, Inc. on January 20, 2026, and the Project reached substantial completion on March 31, 2026, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The Contractor completed the work within the allotted 45 working days, and no liquidated damages were assessed.

During construction, two (2) Contract Change Orders (CCOs) were issued. Combined with final quantity adjustments to bid items, these changes increased the final construction contract amount to $225,725, which remained within the total authorized contract amount.

Staff has inspected the completed work and determined that the Project was constructed in substantial conformance with the approved plans, specifications, and contract documents. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council formally accept the Project improvements.

Additionally, on May 28, 2026, the City Manager attended the monthly Orinda Garden Club meeting to receive their contribution towards the project costs. The Orinda Garden Club provided a generous $80,000 donation to the City of Orinda. Staff recommends that the City Council formally accept the donation as part of this agenda item.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Project #5019 is included in the approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and sufficient funding is available to cover all project expenditures. Total project cost, including design and construction management, is approximately $285,000. Funding sources are Capital Improvement (Fund #700) and an $80,000 donation from the Orinda Garden Club.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon City Council approval, the City Engineer or Public Works Director will sign the Notice of Completion (Attachment B), and the City Clerk will record it with Contra Costa County Item H.8
Packet Page 213
Clerk-Recorder’s office. Retention (5% of the contract value) will be released in accordance with the contract documents and the Public Contract Code.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

2. Infrastructure Strategy and Improvement
d) Focus on capital projects that enhance circulation, mobility, and transportation and improve road safety overall.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 42-26 Accept Contract Marina Landscape Inc.

B. NOC-Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements Project No.5019 Prepared by: Ha Nguyen, Senior Civil Engineer
Respectfully Submitted by,
Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item H.8
Packet Page 214

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:

City Clerk/Public Works Dept.

City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563

NO FEE DOCUMENT
(Government Code section 27383)
TITLE:

Notice of Completion for
Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements Project (City Project No. 5019) (Contractor: Marina Landscape, Inc.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the undersigned, those certain improvements, to wit:

Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements Project (City Project No. 5019), located along Camino Pablo between Santa Maria Way and Brookwood Road in Orinda.

Project location is in the City of Orinda, Contra Costa County, California:

Property Owner: Interest in Property or Right of Way is owned by State of California, acting by and through the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), as right-of-way.

The contract which has heretofore been let to Marina Landscape, Inc. and which contract was filed for record in the City Clerk’s office in the City of Orinda, Contra Costa County, California, was completed in accordance with the plans and specifications, and the work was completed and accepted by the City of Orinda, on 6/9/2026
Information pertaining to the estimate of cost, names of bidders with prices bid, changes in adopted and approved plans and specifications, and the total cost of work is on file at the City Clerks’ office of the City of Orinda.

CITY OF ORINDA,
a municipal corporation
Date: ________________ By: ____________________________________ Scott Christie, PW Director
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the above Notice of Completion was duly accepted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting thereof held on 6/9/2026. ______________________________
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Item H.8
Packet Page 215
RESOLUTION NO. 42-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
ACCEPTING THE WORK AND CONTRACT WITH MARINA LANDSCAPE, INC.

AS COMPLETE FOR THE CAMINO PABLO MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 5019
WHEREAS, the City long planned for median improvements along Camino Pablo as part of its Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the City incorporated into its approach the findings of an evacuation analysis prepared as part of the General Plan Safety Element update, which identified Camino Pablo as a critical evacuation corridor providing access to State Route 24; and
WHEREAS, the City developed the Camino Pablo Median Landscape Improvements Project, City Project No. 5019 (“Project”), to improve emergency vehicle access and evacuation operations through the construction of two new median openings, together with landscaping, irrigation, paving, and traffic delineation improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the Project was developed in coordination with the Orinda Garden Club and approved by Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Marina Landscape, Inc. in the amount of $202,085 and authorized a 15% construction contingency; and
WHEREAS, Marina Landscape, Inc. has completed the work in accordance with the contract documents, and the Director of Public Works recommends acceptance of the Project as complete.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda hereby accepts the work and contract with Marina Landscape Inc., under the terms and conditions of the above-referenced construction contract documents.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on June 9, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Item H.8
Packet Page 216
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Item H.8
Packet Page 217

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Discussion and Update on Ladris Software for Evacuation and Wildfire Modeling EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff is proposing to enter into two-year extension with an annual fixed cost of $252,700, ensuring continuity of service as the City continues to refine its evacuation modeling and public education efforts.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the presentation and discuss the Staff recommendation to continue working with Ladris for two additional years at a fixed annual cost of $252,700.

BACKGROUND:

On July 15, 2025, the City Council approved a one-year agreement with Ladris to provide evacuation and wildfire modeling services and software. These tools support the City’s emergency preparedness efforts by enabling simulation of wildfire spread, traffic congestion, and evacuation timing under a variety of scenarios.

The 2025 agreement was a key component of complying with a City settlement agreement related to litigation concerning Plan Orinda, which included a commitment to invest in enhanced evacuation modeling and public transparency tools for a period of one year. The initial one-year term expires August 29, 2026.

Since implementation, Ladris has been used to support emergency planning efforts, including evaluation of evacuation scenarios, coordination with regional partners, and public education regarding evacuation constraints and timing.

DISCUSSION:

Presentation from Leo Zlimen
Item J.1
Packet Page 218
At tonight’s meeting, Ladris CEO Leo Zlimen will provide an overview of the Ladris services and software, noting the various levels of service provided to Orinda compared to other agencies utilizing Ladris.

Mr. Zlimen will also respond to questions regarding the firm’s pricing structure and add on services.

The following table includes a cost comparison between the current contract year and the following two years.

Ladris Annual Cost Comparison
Billing Items: Services and Software 2025-2026
Annual Cost
2026-2028
Annual Cost
Cost
Difference
Enterprise Version - Ladris SAAS for Evacuations $157,231 $172,731 $15,500 Ladris SAAS for Core $60,600 $66,574 $5,974
Public Version - Ladris SAAS for Evacuations $24,300 $26,695 $2,395 Implementation Services $20,000 $0 -$20,000
Discounts Applied (2-Year Contract Discount) $0 -$13,300 -$13,300 Total $262,131 $252,700 -$9,431
Use of Ladris’ Services and Software
As part of the settlement with Orindians for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE), the City entered into an agreement with Ladris, a leader in AI technology focused on assisting public agencies with modeling for evacuation, wildfire spread and other natural disasters.

A key component of their offering for the City was the ability to create a public portal that can provide community education on the ability to evacuate safely from the City.

After months of training and working collaboratively with the Ladris team, the City launched the public portal in early 2026. The launch of the public portal was the key feature of the new Orinda Ready website, which launched concurrently with the availability of this new tool for the residents of Orinda. At launch, the public portal included around 130 evacuation scenarios, most of them tied to specific fire starts and variables around evacuation, including area occupancy as well as number of vehicles used in evacuation. Behind the scenes, multiple City staff continued its ongoing training with Ladris staff.

The Ladris services, as part of the City’s agreement, includes the integration of new technologies as they are released. In February 2026, the City was informed that Ladris was planning to release new ember casting models and the Ladris team worked closely with Orinda on refinements to the software. These models were then vetted with MoragaItem J.1 Packet Page 219
Orinda Fire District’s Chief, Jeff Isaacs. Lastly, these models were released to the public, via the public portal, at the end of May 2026.

Staff realizes that the expense of these services are difficult for small agencies such as Orinda. To that end, the City Manager continues to advocate for a regional approach to cost sharing for these services. Over the next several weeks, the City Manager will be reaching out to Contra Costa County, as well as its neighboring communities to see what the level of interest may be in a partnership approach. Further, the City is pursuing any and all possible grant opportunities to fund this effort. In a recent example, the City is looking to fund other Measure R related expenditures via competitive grants in order to free up additional Measure R funds for this effort.

Staff recommends that the work continue with Ladris for a minimum of two additional years. The additional two years will ensure the City is well positioned to continue to refine our evacuation planning efforts, including the needed updates to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, review of our contraflow efforts, as well as coordinated efforts with our regional partners on wildfire preparedness. Further, this work also provides the Staff a tool to conduct requested assessments of future housing development projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost of the two-year amendment is $505,400, with annual payments of $252,700. Funding is anticipated to come from Measure R and the amount for 2026-27 is reflected in the proposed Mid-Cycle Budget Update which is also on tonight’s agenda.

Any contract amount attributable to service beyond the 2026-27 fiscal year will be incorporated into the City’s future budget cycles.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

1. Wildfire Resilience and Emergency Preparedness
e. Use emerging technologies to guide strategic investments in fuel mitigation and evacuation efforts.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.

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

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item J.1
Packet Page 220

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Pilot Facade Improvement Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider adoption of a pilot Facade Improvement Program, following a presentation to and recommendation from the Downtown Planning and Revitalization Subcommittee, composed of Mayor Iverson and Councilmember Hoxie.

The proposed program includes a two-tier grant structure, a $75,000 budget, and an administrative review process intended to reduce project timelines and uncertainty.

Eligible improvements would focus on permanent exterior upgrades, including signage, lighting, storefront improvements, landscaping, outdoor dining enhancements, and ADA accessibility improvements.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 35-26 Approving the Facade Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND:

The Orinda City Council adopted its Fiscal Years 2025–2026 and 2026–2027 Strategic Plan on July 15, 2025. Strategic Plan Item 3.e calls for the City to “enhance beautification efforts, including outdoor dining, lighting, landscaping, and signage, and to consider establishing a façade improvement program.”
A proposed Façade Improvement Program was reviewed by the Downtown Planning and Revitalization Council Subcommittee on May 11, 2026. Following its review, the Subcommittee recommended that the proposal be forwarded to the full City Council for consideration, with several revisions.

Based on the Subcommittee’s feedback, Staff revised the proposed program to:
 Allow architectural and design assistance as reimbursable expenses.  Allow outdoor-dining associated permanent improvements  Clarify that applications will be evaluated based on adopted program criteria.  Establish a six-month project completion timeline, with discretionary three-month extensions available.
 Provide for administrative review by staff in place of discretionary review (e.g., by the Planning Commission).

Item J.2
Packet Page 221
 Streamline project implementation by exempting approved projects from sign permit, tree removal permit, and outdoor dining permit requirements.  Reduce project costs by waiving City building permit review fees and encroachment permit fees for approved projects.

DISCUSSION:

Façade improvement programs are a widely used tool among municipalities to enhance the appearance and functionality of commercial areas by incentivizing private investment through grants or matching funds. These programs provide a clear public benefit by improving visual quality, accessibility, and safety through upgrades such as lighting, storefront enhancements, and ADA improvements. In turn, these investments create a more attractive and cohesive environment, increase foot traffic, support local businesses, and strengthen economic vitality which ultimately contributes to increased sales tax revenue for the City. Over time, these improvements can reinforce community identity, encourage additional reinvestment, and support the long-term sustainability of Orinda’s commercial districts.

To implement these programs, local agencies typically conduct outreach and invite applications from property owners and tenants. Applicants submit materials such as a scope of work, cost estimates, and design concepts for review by staff or a designated body. Once approved, projects proceed through applicable permitting (building and/or encroachment) and construction, with reimbursement provided upon completion and verification of eligible expenses. Many programs also include maintenance requirements to ensure the long-term quality of improvements.

Overall, façade improvement programs have proven to be an effective and efficient tool for leveraging private investment to advance public goals, enhance commercial corridors, and support broader downtown beautification efforts.

Comparative Research
Staff reviewed active façade improvement programs in Alameda, Dublin, Fairfield, Milpitas, Oakland, and Pittsburg. Program structures vary, though all provide matching grants or reimbursements for exterior commercial improvements.

City Population Program Details
Alameda 78,280 50% matching grant up to $20,000 per project Dublin 72,589 Up to $5,000 with no match; City covers 66% of eligible costs up to $70,000. Community development fees are
waived for approved projects
Fairfield 119,881 Minor projects: 75% of costs up to $10,000.

Major projects: 50% of costs for projects between
$10,000–$50,000, up to $25,000
Milpitas 90,273 Covers 75% of project costs, up to $25,000 (whichever is less)
Oakland 440,646 $25,000 with no match; additional funds require 50% match up to $30,000 total. Reimbursement cap is
Item J.2
Packet Page 222
based on façade length ($10,000 for <25ft; + $2,500
per additional 10ft.)
Pittsburg 76,416 Up to $10,000 with no matching requirement Proposed Program
Staff proposes one-year, pilot Façade Improvement Program. These programs are implemented across the Bay Area with general consistenty.

Within the Program Scope
Permanent improvements to the façade and exterior of commercial buildings within the City’s commercial areas, including but not limited to:
 Signage
 Awnings/canopies
 Permanent outdoor seating
 Exterior paint or surface treatments
 Door and storefront replacement
 Exterior lighting
 Landscaping, planters, or decorative fencing
 ADA accessibility improvements associated with façade improvements or outdoor dining enhancements, including widened entrances, automatic door openers, accessible pathways, and similar accessibility upgrades.  Physical, permanent, upgrades associated with outdoor dining (benches, planters, etc.)
 Restoration or refurbishment of architectural elements such as windows, cornices, trim, and other façade details
 Permit fees not waived by the City, including Contra Costa County building permit fees.

Out of Program Scope
 Temporary improvements
 Removable outdoor seating
 Interior improvements
 Routine maintenance
 ADA improvement not associated with an improved facade  Improvements not visible from the public right-of-way  Equipment or fixtures not permanently affixed to the building (e.g., heaters, umbrellas, tables, chairs)
Awards
Staff proposes the following two-tier grant structure:
 Projects under $10,000: No matching funds required.
 Projects over $10,000: No match required for the first $10,000; a 50% match is required for any additional project costs, with City funding capped at $30,000.

Selecting Applicants
Item J.2
Packet Page 223
Rather than using a “first come, first served” approach, applicants will be evaluated by Staff based on their ability to meet defined criteria. Applicants must satisfy a minimum threshold requirement and will be considered relative to other pending and submitted applications. Model criteria are presented as follows:
 Complete Application: Pass/Fail
 Visual and Architectural Enhancement: The extent to which the project improves the appearance of the building and surrounding streetscape including items such as, but not limited to, the quality of proposed design, materials, colors, lighting, signage, and architectural features.
 Consistency with Downtown and Community Character: Compatibility with the character of the surrounding area and alignment with the goals of creating an attractive, pedestrian-oriented environment as described in the City’s adopted documents such as Connect Orinda and the Downtown Precise Plan.  Project Readiness and Feasibility: Likelihood that the project can obtain all required permits and approvals, remain within budget, and be completed within 180 days of approval.
 Visibility and Public Benefit: Visibility of improvements from the public right-of-way and potential to enhance neighborhood vitality, economic activity, and customer experience.
 Private Investment: Amount of private investment leveraged by the grant.  Durability: Feasibility of achieving long-term visual quality through the use of durable, high-quality materials and design elements that remain attractive over time.

Budget
Staff proposes an initial program budget of $75,000. This limited funding level allows the City to evaluate program demand and performance during the pilot period. If successful, the program budget may be expanded in the future.

Timeline
July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027.

Application Requirements
 Completed application form and contact information
 Letter of support from the property owner (if applicant is a tenant)  Photographs of existing site conditions
 Renderings or visual representations of proposed improvements  Detailed scope of work
 Project budget and cost breakdown
 At least two prevailing wage compliant contractor quotes (if applicable) Additional Program Elements
 Projects are expected to be completed within 180 days of an executed façade improvement program agreement (Exhibit C) with the City, which may, at the City’s discretion, elect to extend their agreement for subsequent 90-day periods.

Item J.2
Packet Page 224
 Reimbursable expenses include labor, materials, and architectural and design assistance.
 Applicants must agree to a minimum five-year maintenance requirement for completed improvements
 All expenses must be incurred by the applicant and are eligible for reimbursement only after completion and documentation
 Staff proposes waiving applicable planning fees associated with approved projects, such as those for encroachment permits and the City’s portion of fees associated with building permits.
 Applicants will be required to procure contractors using prevailing wage.

Streamlining
Downtown Precise Plan Goal 4.1.3 recommends that the City “explore streamlined regulations for entrance and façade remodeling on downtown buildings that will contribute to the pedestrian environment and historic character of downtown.” The proposed pilot Façade Improvement Program provides an opportunity to implement and evaluate this recommendation on a limited basis for approved projects.

Under this approach, eligible projects participating in the Façade Improvement Program would be reviewed administratively by staff rather than through the discretionary Planning Commission review otherwise required under Section 17.30 of the Orinda Municipal Code. In addition, approved projects would be exempt from sign permit, tree removal permit, and outdoor dining permit requirements, while continuing to be subject to any required building permits and encroachment permits.

Staff recommends this approach because it would reduce permitting timelines, lower project costs, and provide greater certainty for applicants while maintaining design oversight through the program application and approval process. If the City Council provides positive direction, Staff would initiate the necessary ordinance amendments through the Planning Commission and subsequently return to the City Council with proposed amendments to Section 17.30 and other relevant provisions of the Municipal Code. Façade improvement projects undertaken outside of the program would remain subject to the City's existing design review and permitting requirements.

At the conclusion of the pilot program, Staff would report back to the Downtown Planning and Revitalization Subcommittee and then to the City Council on the effectiveness of these streamlined review procedures and provide recommendations regarding their potential long-term use.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A $75,000 budget is required for this program and is included as part of the Mid-Cycle Budget Update on tonight’s agenda. Permit fees that would otherwise apply to eligible projects would be waived as part of the program. Because those fees vary by project, the precise fiscal impact is difficult to estimate. However, Staff believes many of these projects would likely not be undertaken absent the program and did not include anticipated revenue from such permits in the budget. Given the limited number of projects Item J.2
Packet Page 225
anticipated under this pilot program, the impact on City revenues and the overall health of the budget is expected to be insignificant.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

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

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. 35-26
B. Facade Improvement Program Presentation
C. Façade Improvement Program Agreement
Respectfully Submitted by,
Cole Haselip, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item J.2
Packet Page 226
RESOLUTION NO. 35-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
APPROVING THE FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 Strategic Plan on July 15, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Strategic Plan Initiative 3.e calls for the City “to enhance beatification efforts, including outdoor dining, lighting, landscaping, and signage, and to consider establishing a façade improvement program”; and WHEREAS, Staff reviewed comparable facade improvement programs implemented by other Bay Area jurisdictions, including Alameda, Dublin, Fairfield, Milpitas, Oakland, and Pittsburg; and
WHEREAS, Staff has proposed a one-year pilot Façade Improvement Program to provide financial assistance for eligible exterior commercial property improvements within the Downtown Core and Community Business land use designations (Exhibit A), including signage, storefront enhancements, lighting, landscaping, ADA accessibility improvements, permanent outdoor dining improvements, and other qualifying façade improvements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed program includes a two-tier grant structure, administrative application review procedures, eligibility requirements, evaluation criteria, and a proposed budget allocation of $75,000; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that implementation of the proposed Façade Improvement Program is consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan goals related to downtown development, beautification, and economic vitality; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to evaluate whether certain review and permitting requirements for approved Façade Improvement Program projects can be streamlined through future amendments to the Orinda Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Façade Improvement Program will primarily serve a public purpose by enhancing downtown beautification, economic vitality, pedestrian activity, and the overall character of the community, and that any private benefit to participating property or business owners is incidental to, and significantly outweighed by, these broader public benefits; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report and all testimony presented in connection with this item.

Item J.2
Packet Page 227
Resolution 35-26
2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby:

SECTION 1. Approve the establishment of a one-year pilot Façade Improvement Program substantially consistent with the program framework described in the staff report dated June 9, 2026.

SECTION 2. Authorize a program budget of $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

SECTION 3. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to administer the Façade Improvement Program, including development of application materials, program guidelines, evaluation procedures, grant agreements, and all other items reasonably necessary for a successfully implemented program consistent with this Resolution.

SECTION 4. Approve waivers for applicable City building permit review fees and City encroachment permit fees, as determined by the City Manager or designee for approved Façade Improvement Program projects.

SECTION 5. Direct the City Manager, or designee, to prepare and return with any ordinance amendments necessary to implement streamlined review procedures for approved Façade Improvement Program projects, including exemptions from discretionary Planning Commission review, sign permit requirements, tree removal permit requirements, outdoor dining permit requirements, and other discretionary review or permitting requirements that may unnecessarily increase project costs or delay project implementation.

SECTION 6. Require that the City Manager, or designee, report back to the City Council regarding program participation, effectiveness, and recommendations concerning the potential continuation or modification of the program and its associated streamlined review procedures.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on June 9, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

________________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Item J.2
Packet Page 228
Resolution 35-26
3 __________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Exhibit A: General Plan Map

Item J.2
Packet Page 229
Resolution 35-26
4 2068630.1
Item J.2
Packet Page 230
Pilot Façade
Improvement Program
June 9, 2026
Item J.2
Packet Page 231
•What is a Façade Improvement Program (FIP)?
•How Did We Get Here?
•Comparative Programs
•Example Images
•Proposed FIP
•Streamlining
•Recommendation
Presentation Agenda Item J.2
Packet Page 232
•Grant program to
help businesses
improve building
exteriors and the
overall downtown
appearance.

What is a Façade Improvement Program?
City of Milpitas
Before After
Item J.2
Packet Page 233
•Beautify Orinda
•Increase foot traffic
• Encourage private investment
•Increase sales tax revenue
•A proven solution for many municipalities
Façade Improvement Program Benefits Item J.2
Packet Page 234
•Alignment with the Downtown Precise Plan &
Connect Orinda
•Council Strategic Priority 3e. “…Consider establishing a façade improvement program.”
•May 11, 2025 – Downtown Planning & Revitalization
Subcommittee Meeting
How Did We Get Here? Item J.2
Packet Page 235
Example Façade Improvement Programs
City Population Program Details
Alameda 78,280 50% matching grant up to $20,000 per project Dublin 72,589 Up to $5,000 with no match; City covers 66% of eligible costs up to $70,000. Community development fees are waived for approved projects
Fairfield 119,881 Minor projects: 75% of costs up to $10,000.

Reimbursement cap is based on façade length ($10,000 for <25ft; + $2,500 per additional 10ft.)
Pittsburg 76,416 Up to $10,000 with no matching requirement Item J.2
Packet Page 236
City of Dublin Before Item J.2
Packet Page 237
City of Dublin After Item J.2
Packet Page 238
City of Monterey Before Item J.2
Packet Page 239
City of Monterey After Item J.2
Packet Page 240
Orinda Now Item J.2
Packet Page 241
Orinda’s Future? Item J.2
Packet Page 242
Orinda Now Item J.2
Packet Page 243
Orinda’s Future? Item J.2
Packet Page 244
Orinda Now Item J.2
Packet Page 245
Orinda’s Future? Item J.2
Packet Page 246
Orinda Now Item J.2
Packet Page 247
Orinda’s Future? Item J.2
Packet Page 248
•1yr. Pilot Façade Improvement Program
•July 2026 – June 2027
•Proposed $75,000 program budget:
•Up to $10K: No match required
•Over $10K: 50% match above $10K, up to $30K from
the City
Proposed Program Overview Item J.2
Packet Page 249
•Eligible Improvements: Permanent improvements
to the façade and exterior of buildings in the City’s
commercial area
•Non-Eligible: Temporary improvements, interior
improvements, non-visible improvements or
routine maintenance
Proposed Program Overview Item J.2
Packet Page 250
• Standard Application:
• Application form
• Property owner consent
• Visual representation of existing and proposed
improvements
• Detailed scope of work
• Project budget with prevailing wage compliant contractor quotes
•Approval Process: Administrative (staff-level) approval to ensure timely review and implementation
Proposed Program Overview Item J.2
Packet Page 251
•DPP 4.1.3 “Explore streamlined regulations for
entrance and façade remodeling on downtown
building that will contribute to the pedestrian
environment and the historical character of
downtown”
Streamlining Item J.2
Packet Page 252
•Currently, FIP projects would require discretionary
review by the Planning Commission
•Sign permits, tree removal permit, and outdoor
dining permit requirements
•Building & encroachment permit fees
Streamlining Item J.2
Packet Page 253
•Streamline the review & permit process
•Exempt approved projects from the City’s portion
of building and encroachment permit fees
•Reduce timelines, lower costs, & provide certainty
for applicants while maintaining administrative
design oversight
Streamlining Item J.2
Packet Page 254
•Return with an ordinance to implement FIP
streamlining measures
•Evaluate streamlining as part of the pilot FIP
program and report to the City Council
Streamlining Item J.2
Packet Page 255
Adopt Resolution No. 35-26
Recommendation Item J.2
Packet Page 256
Thank You!
Item J.2
Packet Page 257
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 1 of 12
City Grant Amount:

Matching Funds:

Estimated Project Total:

COMMERCIAL FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORINDA AND
THIS COMMERCIAL FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated , the date of execution by the City (the “Effective Date”) is entered into by and between the City of Orinda, a public body corporate and politic ("City") and , a California (“Owner” and/or “Applicant”).

R E C I T A L S
A. The City has adopted a Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program (“Program”) in order to provide grants to certain owners or tenants of eligible buildings who design and construct improvements to the facades of their buildings.

B. Applicant owns or leases certain real property located at (A.P.N. ), in Orinda, California (the “Site”), and within the boundaries outlined by the Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Guidelines (“Program Guidelines”).

C. Applicant has submitted an application to the City pursuant to the Program Guidelines for a grant for certain improvements to the Site, and City has determined that Applicant and the Site meet the eligibility criteria for the Program.

D. City desires to enter into this Agreement because improvement of the Site will enhance the physical appearance and economic vitality of commercial businesses, encourage full occupancy of storefronts, generate additional tax revenue and assist in providing an environment for the social, psychological and economic growth and well-being in the boundaries outlined by the Program Guidelines and the citizens of the City.

E. Applicant desires to enter into this Agreement with City to receive assistance in making certain improvements to the Site, and City is willing to do so on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

A G R E E M E N T
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Applicant hereby agree as follows:

Section 1. GENERAL.

1.1 Term. This Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and expire three (3) years following the Applicant’s approval of contractor’s notice of completion (“Term”).

Section 2. IMPROVEMENT OF THE SITE.
$
$
$
Item J.2
Packet Page 258
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 2 of 12

2.1 Scope of Work. Applicant shall complete the proposed project in accordance with the Scope of Work attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Project”).

2.2 Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Funds. The City agrees to reimburse to the Applicant a sum not to exceed dollars ($ ) (the “Grant Amount”), for certain eligible improvements (the “Eligible Improvements”) as set forth below:
a. The Grant Amount may be used only to fund those Eligible Improvements identified in Exhibit B attached hereto.
b. All services to be performed by a third-party contractor shall be the subject of agreement between Applicant and the third-party contractors. The City shall not assume any liability for such agreements. The Applicant shall submit to the City all invoices from the contractor or contractors for work performed on the Eligible Improvements in order to receive reimbursement.
c. A representative of the City shall inspect the completed Project after a notice of completion has been submitted to the City.
d. The City will only issue the Grant Amount after the Project has been completed. Upon determination by the City's representative that Project has been completed in conformance with the Scope of Work (Exhibit A) and the City approvals, the City shall issue a check made payable to the Applicant in an amount equal to the lesser of the Grant Amount or the actual amount of the invoices submitted to the City by the Applicant. The City Manager in his or her sole discretion may issue the Grant Amount at an earlier time than set forth in this Section 2.2(d), if the Applicant can demonstrate good cause. e. Any and all costs of the Project including, but not limited to the Eligible Improvements, which are in excess of the Grant Amount, shall be the sole responsibility of, and be borne by, the Applicant.

2.3 Permits and Approvals. Before commencement of the Project, Applicant shall secure or cause to be secured any and all permits which may be required by the City and any other governmental agency affected by such construction or work.

2.4 Commencement of the Project. Within 60 days after the Effective Date, Applicant shall have selected and authorized one or more contractors to complete the Project, and shall have provided notice to the City of such selection and authorization. In the event the Applicant fails to select and authorize a contractor or contractors to complete the Project within such 60-day period, the City may, at its option, terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the Applicant. In such event, neither party shall have any further rights against or liability to the other in connection to this Agreement. All contractors performing work on the Project must be licensed in the State of California.

2.5 Building Permit. A Building Permit must be obtained within six months of the Effective Date. In the event the Applicant fails to obtain a Building Permit within such six-month period, the City may, at its option, terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the Applicant. In such event, neither party shall have any further rights against or liability to the other in connection to this Agreement. An additional Item J.2
Packet Page 259
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 3 of 12
six-month extension may be approved with the City’s prior written consent. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no work shall be performed prior to both 1) issuance of the Building Permit and 2) approval of this Agreement by the City of Orinda. Any work performed prior to both building permit issuance and the City of Orinda’s approval will not be eligible for reimbursement.

2.6 Completion of the Project. Applicant shall complete the Project and satisfy all other obligations and conditions of this Agreement within 120 days of building permit issuance. This completion date is subject to revision from time to time as mutually agreed upon in writing between Applicant and the City Manager, or their designee. Upon completion, Applicant shall require contractors’ completion notice signed by the contractor. When the Project is completed as set forth in this Agreement, a notice of completion shall be delivered to and approved by the Applicant. Notice of completion shall then be delivered to the City as set forth in this Section 2.6.

Section 3. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

Before fully executing this Agreement, Applicant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Applicant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Applicant shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects, and that such insurance is in effect prior to beginning work. Applicant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. Applicant shall not allow any contractor to commence work on any subcontract until Contractor has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence to City that such insurance is in effect. VERIFICATION OF THE REQUIRED

INSURANCE SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND MADE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT PRIOR TO EXECUTION. Applicant shall maintain all required insurance listed herein for the duration of this Agreement.

3.1 Workers’ Compensation.

3.1.1 General Requirements. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Applicant and its contractor(s) shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by contractor. The Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. In the alternative, contractor may rely on a self-insurance program to meet these requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a selfinsurance program meets the standards of the California Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator.

The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.

Item J.2
Packet Page 260
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 4 of 12

3.1.2 Submittal Requirements. To comply with Subsection 3.1, Applicant shall submit the following:
a. Certificate of Workers’ Compensation Insurance in the amounts specified in the section for all contractor(s) performing work related to the Project; and b. Waiver of Subrogation Endorsement as required by the section for all contractor(s) performing work related to the Project.

3.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance Requirements. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Applicant and its contractor(s) shall procure "occurrence coverage" insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Applicant or its contractor and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Applicant shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects to the City. Applicant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. Applicant shall not allow any contractor or subcontractor to commence work on until Applicant has obtained all insurance required herein for the contractor or subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution.

It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be available to City as an additional insured. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. The additional insured coverage under the Applicant’s policy shall be “primary and non-contributory” and will not seek contribution from City’s insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 10. In the event Applicant fails to maintain coverage as required by this Agreement, City at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and the cost will be paid by Applicant. Failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of right to exercise later.

3.2.1 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.

3.2.1.1 General requirements. Applicant and all contractors and subcontractors, at their own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles.

Item J.2
Packet Page 261
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 5 of 12

3.2.1.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 Code 1 (“any auto”). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.

3.2.1.3 Acceptability of Insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.

3.2.1.4 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as an endorsement to the policy:
a. The Insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis.
b. City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Contractor.
c. Contractor hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer or contractor may require from vendor by virtue of the payment of any loss.

Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsements that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation.
d. For any claims related to this Agreement or the work hereunder, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Any failure of Applicant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

3.2.1.4.1 An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Applicant shall notify City within 14 days of notification from Applicant’s insurer if such coverage is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage or in limits.

3.2.1.4.2 For Applicant’s contractors and subcontractors, an endorsement for completed operations for the construction project, such as the CG 20 37 “Additional Insured— Owners, Lessees or Contractors—Completed Operations” endorsement form, Item J.2
Packet Page 262
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 6 of 12
shall be submitted by Applicant to the City no later than 30 days after completion of the Project.

3.2.1.5 Submittal Requirements and Verification of coverage. Applicant shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required herein. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.

The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies and endorsements. Failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of right to exercise later.
a. Prior to execution of this Agreement, Applicant shall submit:
i. Certificate(s) of Commercial General Insurance and Automobile Liability Insurance; and
ii. Additional Insured Endorsement such as CG 20 10 “Designated Person Or Organization Endorsement”.
b. Prior to commencement of the Project as described in Section 2.4., Applicant shall furnish City with contractor’s certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required herein.

3.2.1.6 Contractors and Subcontractors. Applicant agrees to include with all contractors or subcontracts the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement including the Indemnification and Insurance requirements to the extent they apply to the scope of the Subcontractor’s work. Contractors or subcontractors hired by Applicant agree to be bound to Applicant and the City in the same manner and to the same extent as Applicant is bound to the City under the Contract Documents.

3.2.1.7 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverages, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City’s interests are otherwise fully protected.

3.2.1.8 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Applicant and its contractor(s) shall disclose to and obtain the written approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, employees, and volunteers; or the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

3.2.1.9 Wasting Policies. No policy required by this Section 3 shall include a “wasting” policy limit (i.e. limit that is eroded by the cost of defense).

Item J.2
Packet Page 263
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 7 of 12

3.2.1.10 Endorsement Requirements. Each insurance policy required by this Section 3 shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after 30 days’ prior written notice has been provided to the City.

3.2.1.11 Excess Insurance. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of City (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect City as a named insured.

3.2.1.12 Notice of Reduction in Coverage. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, or materially affected in any other manner, Applicant shall provide written notice to City at Applicant’s earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than five days after Applicant is notified of the change in coverage.

3.2.2 Term of Coverage. Applicant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain all insurance policies required by this Agreement for the duration of the Agreement’s Term. Applicant shall require that all contractors and subcontractors, at their own cost and expense, maintain the insurance policies required by this Agreement until the Project is complete and the Applicant accepts contractor’s completion notice.

3.2.3. Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Applicant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Applicant’s breach:
 Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;
 Order Applicant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Applicant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Applicant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or  Terminate this Agreement.

Section 4. PREVAILING WAGES.

Applicant shall require any contractors performing work under this Agreement to pay prevailing wages pursuant to the requirements of the California Labor Code, Section 1771, et seq. For the purpose of this Agreement, prevailing wages are the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute this Agreement as ascertained by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California. The holidays upon which such rates shall be paid shall be all holidays recognized in the collective bargaining agreement applicable to the particular craft, classification, or type of worker employed on the project.

Item J.2
Packet Page 264
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 8 of 12
The Contractors and each subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll record showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker or other employee employed by the Contractors or subcontractors in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be kept in accordance with the provisions of Section 1776 of the California Labor Code, and Contractor and each subcontractor shall otherwise comply with requirements of such Section 1776.

Section 5. MAINTENANCE COVENANTS.

The Applicant covenants and agrees, for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, that the Applicant will maintain, at Applicant's own cost and expense, the improvements on the Site in a clean and orderly condition, free of graffiti, and in good condition and repair, and will keep the Site free from any accumulation of debris and waste materials. Any damage to the building visible from the street is to be repaired immediately. The Applicant shall promptly touch up painted areas and perform any other repairs needed to maintain an attractive building appearance, including cleaning all awnings, if any, at least once a year.

The foregoing covenants shall remain in effect for a period of 60 months from the completion of the Project. During this 60-month period, Applicant agrees, for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest, that it will not materially alter the improvements made with City funds, without the prior written consent of City which consent may be conditioned by City to preserve those features to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of City for entering into this Agreement. Any violation of this section not cured within 60 days shall entitle City to reimbursement of the funds granted by City from the person or entity responsible for the violation.

5.1 Improvements Cannot Be Removed by Applicant Without City’s Consent. All Eligible Improvements will become permanent fixtures of the property and cannot be removed by Owner upon expiry or termination of the lease of current tenant at the Site or sale of the property. Exceptions can be made with the prior written consent of the City. Any violation of this section not cured within 60 days shall entitle City to reimbursement of the funds granted by City from the person or entity responsible for the violation.

Section 6. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

6.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.

6.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Applicant and its Contractor and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.

6.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Applicant shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.

6.4 Licenses and Permits. Applicant represents and warrants to City that its Contractor and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Applicant represents and warrants to City that its Contractor and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole Item J.2
Packet Page 265
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 9 of 12
cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Applicant shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, a valid Business Registration from City and Applicant’s Contractor and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain a valid Business Registrations from City during the construction phase of the project.

6.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Applicant and its Contractor and any subcontractors shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, sex, gender, religion (including religious dress and grooming practices), national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition (including cancer and genetic characteristics), marital status, age, sexual orientation, color, creed, pregnancy, genetic information, gender identity or expression, political affiliation or belief, military/veteran status, or any other classification protected by applicable local, state, or federal laws (each a “Protected Characteristic”), against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Applicant under this Agreement.

Section 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

7.1 Rights of Access. Representatives of the City shall have the reasonable right to access the Site, without charges or fees, for the purpose of inspecting the Project, including the Eligible Improvements. City (or its representatives) shall, except in emergency situations, give Applicant reasonable advance notice prior to exercising its rights herein. Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the ability of the City to conduct code enforcement and other administrative inspections of the Site in accordance with applicable law.

7.2 Compliance with Laws. Applicant shall carry out the Project in conformity with all applicable federal, state and local laws, including Labor Code requirements; City zoning and development standards; building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes; all other provisions of the City's Municipal Code; and all applicable disabled and handicapped access requirements, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., Government Code Section 4450, et seq., Government Code Section 11135, et seq., and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51, et seq.

7.3 Assignment. Applicant shall have the right to assign all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement, provided however that any such assignment shall be effective only upon receipt by City of written notice of the assignment.

7.4 Notices, Demands and Communications between the Parties. Any approval, disapproval, demand, document or other notice ("Notice") which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid, personal delivery, or reputable overnight courier (but not by facsimile or email), to the party to whom the Notice is directed at the address of the party as set forth below, or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice.

To City:

City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Item J.2
Packet Page 266
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 10 of 12
Orinda, CA 94563
Attention: CityManager
To Applicant:

Address_____
Any Notice shall be deemed received on the date of delivery if delivered by personal service, on the date of delivery or refused delivery as shown by the return receipt if sent certified mail, and on the date of delivery or refused delivery as shown by the records of the overnight courier if sent via nationally recognized overnight courier. Notices sent by a party's attorney on behalf of such party shall be deemed delivered by such party.

7.5 Relationship between City and Applicant. It is hereby acknowledged that the relationship between City and Applicant is not that of a partnership or joint venture and that City and Applicant shall not be deemed or construed for any purpose to be the agent of the other. Accordingly, except as expressly provided herein or in the Attachments hereto, City shall have no rights, powers, duties or obligations with respect to the development, operation, maintenance or management of the Site or the Eligible Improvements. Applicant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City from any claim made against City arising from a claimed relationship of partnership or joint venture between City and Applicant with respect to the development, operation, maintenance or management of the Site or the Eligible Improvements.

7.6 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged in this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect.

7.7 Modifications. Any alteration, change or modification of or to this Agreement, in order to become effective, shall be made in writing and in each instance signed on behalf of each party.

7.8 Conflicts of Interest. No member, official or employee of City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested.

7.9 Applicant's Indemnity; Waiver. Applicant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City), protect and hold City, and its officers, employees, agents and representatives, harmless from, any and all Claims of any kind or nature arising out of the Project or this Agreement or the implementation hereof, including, but not limited to, any damages to property, injuries to persons or Item J.2
Packet Page 267
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 11 of 12
accidental death (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs), which may be caused by the work performed under this Agreement or any activities associated with the Project, whether such activities or work is performed by Applicant or by anyone directly or indirectly employed or contracted with by Applicant.

Applicant's indemnity obligations under this section shall survive termination of this Agreement. Applicant's indemnity obligations under this section shall not extend to claims, demands, damages, defense costs or liability for property damage, bodily injury or death occasioned by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, or its officers, employees, agents or representatives.

Applicant hereby waives, releases and discharges forever the City, and its employees, officers, volunteers, agents and representatives, from any and all present and future Claims arising out of or in any way connected with this Agreement, the performance of the work, or Applicant's obligation to comply with all laws with respect to the work.

7.10 Non-liability of Officials and Employees of City. No member, official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to Applicant, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount which may become due to Applicant or its successors, or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.

7.11 Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws principles, shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.

7.12 No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is made and entered into solely for the benefit of the City and Applicant and no other third party shall have any right of action under this Agreement.

7.13 Disclosure of Documents. Applicant acknowledges that the City is subject to the provisions of the California Public Records Act and that any information submitted to the City may be disclosed to the extent required by law.

7.14 Liability. Owner is wholly liable for any Claims arising out of this Agreement.

7.15 Termination. In addition to City’s right to terminate under Section 2.4 and 2.5, City or Applicant may terminate this Agreement upon written Notice to the other in the event that the other party fails to comply with its obligations under this Agreement. [remainder of page intentionally left blank]
Item J.2
Packet Page 268
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement Between City of Orinda and Page 12 of 12
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. The persons whose signatures appear below certify that they are authorized to sign on behalf of the respective Party.

CITY:

CITY OF ORINDA, a municipal corporation
By:

Name, City Manager
Attest:

Name, City Clerk
Approved as to form
Name, City Attorney
PROPERTY OWNER:
, a California
By:
<name, title>
Item J.2
Packet Page 269
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement between City of Dublin and Exhibit A - Page 1

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK
Item J.2
Packet Page 270

EXHIBIT B
Applicant is the

ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
in Orinda,
California and shall construct and install the façade improvements including, but not limited to the following:
• x
• x
• x
• x
• x
Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program Agreement between City of Dublin and Exhibit B - Page 1
property/business owner of (A.P.N. )
Item J.2
Packet Page 271

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
SUBJECT:

Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update, Including CIP Changes, Approval of New Job Classifications, and Annual Consolidated Salary Schedule Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

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, which includes changes to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the following resolutions: 1) Resolution 48-26 Approving the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Adjustment, 2) Resolution 43-26 Approving New Job Classifications, and 3) Resolution 44-26 Approving the Amended Consolidated Salary Schedule.

BACKGROUND:

On May 5, 2026, Staff presented a preliminary look at the City’s Mid-Cycle Budget Update, including CIP changes proposed for next Fiscal Year. The City Council provided feedback to Staff and that feedback has been incorporated into this item for the Council’s consideration. A more detailed discussion of those changes is incorporated into the Discussion section below.

DISCUSSION:

Staff has prepared a proposed update to Year 2 (Fiscal Year 2026-27) of the existing Biennial Budget. This effort examined both revenues and expenditures necessary to provide for a sound financial plan while maintaining current service levels to the community. As part of that examination, operational needs and workload distribution were evaluated and, as a result, Staff is proposing a realignment of duties to better reflect current service demands, improve efficiency, and support continuity of operations which Item J.3
Packet Page 272
is reflected in the updated Staffing Allocation and the addition of three new Job Classifications.

The proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update document (Attachment B) also incorporates proposed changes to the CIP for projects which are scheduled to occur during Fiscal Year 2026-27. The CIP identifies public infrastructure projects and funding sources for long-term investments. Infrastructure includes these public facilities:
transportation, drainage, parks & recreation facilities and city buildings. The CIP contains projections beyond the current adopted biennial budget period which Staff uses to plan for future needs (FY 2027-28 thru FY 2029-30) in light of estimated available fund balances. These projections are for planning purposes only and are subject to change based on a variety of factors. Expenditures exceeding $60,000 generally require City Council approval, so even after this budget update is approved, individual contract awards and approvals in excess of $60,000 are subject to City Council approval.

The Fiscal year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update document focuses on the proposed changes to the Fiscal 2026-27 Budget which City Council adopted on June 3, 2025, and is formatted with the following key components:
 Sources and Uses All Funds
 Revenues Summary by Category & Proposed Revenue Changes  Expenditure Summary by Category & Proposed Expenditure Changes  Projected Fund Balances FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27
 City Staffing by Position
 Appropriations Limit Calculation for FY 2026-27
This new format results in a much smaller overall document which highlights the changes to the existing appropriations and staffing. At the May 5, 2026, City Council Meeting, Staff presented minor adjustments to the operating budget revenues and expenditures as summarized below:

Item J.3
Packet Page 273
Item J.3
Packet Page 274
At the May 5th Meeting, City Council directed staff to include funding for a streetlight banner program which included replanting the hanging flower baskets. Also, on tonight’s agenda as a Policy Matter is the Pilot Facade Improvement Program which would require funding not currently reflected in the table above. Additionally, on tonight’s consent agenda is an item awarding the contract for the Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Master Plan which, with contingencies, exceeded the funding being proposed in the table above.

Those three items reflect to totality of additional proposed changes to the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update since it was presented at the May 5th City Council Meeting. These additional changes are summarized in the table on the following page.

Item J.3
Packet Page 275
In order to continue delivering services and programs at a high level in a resourcecontained environment, ongoing evaluation of staffing levels and position allocations is necessary. Following an evaluation of organizational needs, the City Manager proposes changes to the existing staffing model as follows:

The net result is an increase in ability to provide programs and services without an increase to overall staffing levels. The proposed changes require the establishment of three new job classifications:
 Code Enforcement Specialist (part-time): to enhance responsiveness to increasing code enforcement activity;
 Geographic Information Systems Technician (part-time): to address the City’s growing need for GIS-related services; and
 Senior Maintenance Worker (full-time): a hybrid position combining Public Works maintenance functions with inspection-related duties to maximize operational efficiency.

Staff developed job descriptions and corresponding salary ranges to maintain internal equity and ensure external competitiveness. The City met and conferred with Teamsters Local No. 856 regarding potential impacts to the bargaining unit. Staff believes these changes will improve the ability to respond to Council priorities and day-to-day service demands.

The City maintains a consolidated salary schedule to present all authorized salary ranges for regular positions in a single document for administrative efficiency and transparency.

The adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget includes 40.5 positions, and the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget maintains the same staffing level.

For compensation purposes, employees are grouped as follows:

Item J.3
Packet Page 276
 General Employees: represented by Teamsters Local No. 856, with salaries and benefits governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU);  Unrepresented Employees: consisting of mid-management and management classifications; and
 City Manager: whose compensation is established by individual employment agreement.

On June 17, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 33-25 approving a four-year MOU with Teamsters Local No. 856 (July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2029), which includes the following negotiated salary adjustments:
• 5% effective July 12, 2025
• 4% effective July 11, 2026
• 3% effective July 10, 2027
• 3% effective July 8, 2028
Also on June 17, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 35-25 updating terms and conditions for unrepresented employees and Resolution No. 38-25 adopting a consolidated salary schedule incorporating the 5% increase effective July 12, 2025. The City Manager’s salary is unchanged by this action and was last amended on November 29, 2025, via Resolution No. 65-25.

Under the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council must conduct compensation decisions in an open and transparent manner. Government Code section 54953(c)(3) requires that, prior to final action, the Council orally report a summary of any compensation affecting local agency executives, including department heads. Because a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) impacts executive compensation, this requirement is triggered. The summary must be sufficient to inform the public, which includes identifying applicable salary ranges. Accordingly, Staff presents and reads the salary ranges for affected executive classifications into the record prior to Council action. This ensures compliance with the Brown Act and promotes transparency in compensation decisions.

Staff has prepared updated salary schedules reflecting a 4% cost-of-living adjustment effective July 11, 2026 (the first full pay period), consistent with the adopted MOU and proposed adjustments for unrepresented employees (Attachment F). The updated Consolidated Salary Schedule also incorporates the new classifications listed above, which are being considered under Resolution No. 43-26 (Attachment E).

In addition, due to salary compaction resulting from the creation of the Senior Maintenance Worker Classification, Staff recommends a one-time equity adjustment to the Public Works Supervisor classification to maintain appropriate differentiation and market alignment.

At the May 5, 2026, City Council meeting, Staff presented a draft update to the CIP, including the addition of 10 new projects and the promotion of five projects from the Item J.3
Packet Page 277
unfunded list. Staff utilizes a capital planning software “Plan-It” to manage projects, balance funding sources, and prepare the CIP documents. At that meeting, City Council asked Staff to make the following changes:

1. Project No. 4022, Community Center Kitchen Upgrades: expand project to include renovating the adjoining Founders Auditorium. To accommodate this change, Staff has increased the total proposed project budget from $75,000 to $155,000.

2. Project No. 5055, Park Monument Signage: expand this project to include upgrading the City/Club sign at the Safeway corner of Camino Sobtrante and Camino Pablo. To accommodate this change, Staff has increased the proposed project budget from $40,000 to $80,000.

3. Add a new project to consider adding sidewalk on Ivy Dr. between Moraga Way and Ardith Dr.: Staff has added Project No. 5056, Ivy Dr. Sidewalk, for a proposed budget of $50,000 to perform preliminary work on the alignment of the sidewalk, which would be approximately 800 lineal ft. and tie into existing sidewalk that runs from Ardith Dr. to Orinda Intermediate School. Such work should allow for effective grant applications to fund the completion of the project. Overall project cost is likely at least $500,000.

Attachment G is the updated CIP Funding Source Summary and CIP Fund Sources and Uses reports. The Project Detail reports for all projects which have proposed changes for Fiscal Year 2026-27 are included as Attachment H.

Staff presented Mid-Cycle Budget Update reports to the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Committee (May 13), the Finance Advisory Committee (May 28), and the Library Parcel Tax Independent Review Committee (May 28) for feedback and input. The reports were well received by all three Committees with no specific implementable feedback or input provided.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total General Fund (Fund 100) operating expenditure appropriations for Fiscal Year 2026-27 are proposed to increase by $157,890. Total Measure R operating expenditure increase for Fiscal Year 2026-27 is proposed to be $900,510. Both the Traffic Impact Fund (Fund 205) and the CCTA Return to Source Fund (Fund 330) operating expenditures are proposed to increase by $118,445 each. In addition, the General Fund (Fund 100) will increase transfers out by $2.5 million with the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 700) and the Building Maintenance Fund (Fund 603) receiving transfers in of $1 million and $1.5 million respectively. CIP related appropriations for Fiscal Year 2026-27 will increase by a total of $3,095,000 across 18 different funding sources entity wide. All of these changes are reflected in the Projected Fund Balance FY 2026-27 table on page 13 of the Mid-Cycle Budget Update document.

Item J.3
Packet Page 278
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 48-26 Approving Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2026-27 B. Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update Document C. Resolution 43-26 Approval of newly created Job Classifications D. Draft Job Classifications for GIS Technician, Code Enforcement Specialist and Senior Maintenance Worker
E. Resolution 44-26 Approval of Annual Salary Schedule Update F. Updated Consolidated Salary Schedule
G. CIP Funding Source Summary and CIP Fund Sources and Uses Reports.

H. Updated CIP Project Detail Reports
Respectfully Submitted by,
Douglas Alessio, Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item J.3
Packet Page 279
RESOLUTION NO. 48-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 MID-CYCLE BUDGET ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Title II, Section 2.08.070 F of the Orinda Municipal Code, the City Manager duties include presenting a proposed Budget; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has prepared and submitted a Mid-Cycle Budget Update describing estimated income and expenses for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026, and continuing through June 30, 2027; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2026, the City Council reviewed and took public input on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission; the Independent Library Parcel Tax Oversight Commission; and the Finance Advisory Committee reviewed elements of the proposed Budget at public meetings and the input was presented to the City Council prior to the City Council taking action on the adoption of the budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council meeting on June 9, 2026, was considered a final hearing on the budget and the City Council action was to be inclusive of any adjustments to Operating Budget and/or Capital Projects as directed by action of the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Adjustment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby:

1. Adopt the Summary of Appropriations & Estimated Fund Balances for Fiscal Year 2026-27 inclusive of any adjustments directed at the final Budget Hearing and attached hereto;

2. Authorize the City Manager to make expenditures within the budget as necessary to implement the services and policies of the City Council;

3. Authorize the City Manager to administratively approve the following without additional action by the City Council;
i. Transfer budgeted amounts between line items, provided that the transfer is within the same fund, and within the same expenditure category; ii. Increase grant funded revenue and expenditure budgets, when revenue estimates exceed the amount approved in the Budget due to an increase in Item J.3
Packet Page 280
grant revenues as verified in the financial records. The adjustment may also account for increased expenditures in an amount not to exceed the amount of increased grant revenue. These changes shall be disclosed as part of quarterly financial reports or other reporting presented to the City Council. iii. Administratively process Fiscal Year 2026-27 Operating Budget Adjustments, as deemed by the City Manager to be appropriate, to account for the carryover of unspent operating budget appropriations from Fiscal Year 2025-26. These changes shall only be for purchases assumed in the Budget to be completed by June 30, 2025, but were not completed and rely on carry-over funding. These changes shall be disclosed as part of quarterly financial reports or other reporting presented to the City Council. iv. Make adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Project Appropriations to account for the carryover of unspent appropriations from Fiscal Year 2025-26 to the extent that:

1. the carryover shall be only for active projects that remain incomplete but are underway as of June 30, 2026; and

2. the carryover does not increase the total project cost as shown in the Adopted 2025-2030 CIP.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any other modifications to the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Appropriations or the approved number of full-time equivalent regular staff positions shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on June 9, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item J.3
Packet Page 281
Item J.3
Packet Page 282
Item J.3
Packet Page 283

Item J.3
Packet Page 284
Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 3 Table of Contents
BUDGET OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Sources and Uses ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Revenues ................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Expenditure by Category ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Expenditure Budget Changes Highlights............................................................................................................................. 9 Operating Expenditures by Department............................................................................................................................ 10 Projected Fund Balance FY 2025-26 .................................................................................................................................. 12 Projected Fund Balance FY 2026-27 .................................................................................................................................. 13 City Staffing................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Appropriation Limit................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Item J.3
Packet Page 285
Item J.3
Packet Page 286

BUDGET OVERVIEW
Item J.3
Packet Page 287

BUDGET SUMMARY

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 6 Sources and Uses
The following tables provide an overview of sources (revenues and transfers in) and uses (expenditures and transfers out) for all funds.

Sources and Uses

ALL FUNDS
YEAR 1
FY 2025-26 BUDGET
YEAR 2
FY 2026-27 BUDGET
General
Purpose
General Fund Other Funds Total
General
Purpose
General Fund Other Funds Total
Revenue $ 18,527,797 $ 17,322,259 $ 35,850,056 $ 18,948,529 $ 14,452,977 $ 33,401,506 Transfers in - 2,685,000 2,685,000 - 2,500,000 2,500,000 Total Sources $ 18,527,797 $ 20,007,259 $ 38,535,056 $ 18,948,529 $ 16,952,977 $ 35,901,506 Expenditures- Operating $ 18,642,994 $ 9,879,389 $ 28,522,383 $ 19,192,592 $ 9,325,469 $ 28,518,061 Expenditures- Capital (CIP) - 4,972,905 4,972,905 - 15,570,659 15,570,659 Transfers Out 2,685,000 - 2,685,000 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 Total Uses $ 21,327,994 $ 14,852,294 $ 36,180,288 $ 21,692,592 $ 24,896,128 $ 46,588,720 As shown in the tables above,
• Total spending for Year 1 (FY 2025-26) is $36.2 million funded by $35.8 million in revenue and interfund transfers total $2.7 million.
• The General Fund represents 52% of the revenue and 65% of the operating expenditure for FY 2025-26. • The total spending for Year 2 (FY 2026-27) is $46.6 million funded by $33.4 million in revenue and interfund transfers of $2.5 million. The remaining uses of $10.7 million is one-time in nature (primarily CIP related) and appropriately funded with the accumulated fund balance (primarily from “Other Funds”). • The General Fund represents 57% of the revenue and 67% of the operating expenditure for FY 2026-27.

Item J.3
Packet Page 288

BUDGET SUMMARY

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 7 Revenues .

Revenue Summary by Category
FY 2024-25
Actual
FY 2025-26
Adopted
Budget
FY 2026-27
Adopted
Budget
FY 2026-27
Update
FY 2026-27
Change
Governmental Funds
Property Tax 14,237,960 14,247,197 14,553,929 14,553,929 - Sales Tax 5,061,698 5,267,000 5,321,000 5,321,000 -
Franchise Tax 1,355,415 1,384,000 1,409,000 1,409,000 - Transient Occupancy Tax 23,030 25,000 25,000 25,000 -
Use of Money and Property 1,958,032 1,351,900 1,220,875 1,220,875 - Intergovernmental Revenues 2,241,644 5,899,548 3,520,000 3,773,348 253,348 Charges for Current Services 7,503,127 6,297,311 5,601,243 5,680,254 79,011 Other Revenues 21,348 79,500 79,500 79,500 -
Transfers in 62,447 2,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Total Governmental 32,464,701 36,551,456 31,730,547 33,062,906 1,332,359 Internal Service Funds
Use of Money and Property 178,059 100,000 90,000 90,000 - Internal Service Charges 992,531 1,198,600 1,248,600 1,248,600 - Other Revenues 40,609 - - - -
Transfers in 542,114 685,000 - 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total internal Service Funds 1,753,313 1,983,600 1,338,600 2,838,600 1,500,000 Total All Funds 34,218,014 $ 38,535,056 $ 33,069,147 $ 35,901,506 $ 2,832,359 FY 2026-27 Revenue Changes Highlights
Fund Increase
(Decrease)
Transportation Development Act $ 253,348
Assessment Districts L-42, M-9,
and M-11
79,011
Building Maintenance Internal
Service Fund
1,500,000
General Capital Project Fund 1,000,000
Total Change 2,832,359
Added transfers from General Fund for $1.0 million to provide funding for CIP projects.

Explanation For The Change
Updated for the grant reimbursement for expenditures budgeted.

Updated for the Levied amount and General Fund’s contribution to services occurring withing the districts which either provide for a general benefit or cover for a shortfall of assessment revenue necessary for the districts to maintain a non-negative balance.

Added transfers from General Fund to provide funding for operations and one time projects.

Item J.3
Packet Page 289

BUDGET SUMMARY

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 8 Expenditure by Category
Expenditure Summary by Category
FY 2024-25
Actual
FY 2025-26
Adopted
Budget
FY 2026-27
Adopted
Budget
FY 2026-27
Update
FY 2026-27
Change
Governmental Funds
Personnel Services 5,120,477 5,779,955 6,099,199 6,070,172 (29,027) Benefits 1,717,284 1,970,393 2,042,636 2,042,636 -
Contractors 8,456,225 11,188,088 9,966,750 10,710,640 743,890 Materials & Supplies 1,442,504 1,393,706 1,427,212 1,427,212 - Special Department Expenses 5,535,720 6,024,179 5,703,514 6,283,941 580,427 Vehicle Expenses 272,593 236,600 243,600 243,600 -
Transfers out 604,561 2,685,000 - 2,500,000 2,500,000
Total Governmental 23,149,364 29,277,921 25,482,911 29,278,201 3,795,290 Internal Service Funds
Contractors 317,212 358,871 267,500 267,500 -
Materials & Supplies 51,100 49,750 50,250 50,250 -
Special Department Expenses 1,299,122 1,520,841 1,539,000 1,539,000 - Total Internal Service Funds 1,667,434 1,929,462 1,856,750 1,856,750 - Total Operating Expenditures 24,816,798 31,207,383 27,339,661 31,134,951 3,795,290 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Governmental Funds 5,248,977 5,127,905 12,295,659 15,210,659 2,915,000 Internal Service Funds 592,942 45,000 370,000 550,000 180,000 Total CIP Expenditures 5,841,919 5,172,905 12,665,659 15,760,659 3,095,000 Total Expenditures 30,658,717 36,380,288 40,005,320 46,895,610 6,890,290 Item J.3
Packet Page 290

BUDGET SUMMARY

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 9 Expenditure Budget Changes Highlights
FY 2026-27 Expenditure Changes
Category/ Function Fund Increase
(Decrease) Explanation For The Change
Personnel Services
Administration General Fund $ 80,572 Added 0.5 FTE Accountant Planning General Fund 66,660 Added 0.5 FTE Code Enforcement Technician Public Works General Fund (67,940) Replaced 1.00 FTE of Senior Administrative Assistant with

0.5 FTE Administrative Assistant I/II
Public Works General Fund 61,160 Addition of 0.5 FTE for GIS Technician Public Works General Fund (127,109) Removed Maintenance Worker III Public Works Stormwater Utility (42,370) Removed Maintenance Worker III Total Personnel Services (29,027)
Contractors
City Manager Measure R 252,000 Ladris contract renewal
Public Works Measure R 150,000 GIS mapping with NCE
Public Works Transportation Impact 118,445 Bike Trails & Walkway Master Plan Update Public Works CCTA - Return To Source 118,445 Bike Trails & Walkway Master Plan Update Total Contractors 638,890
Special Department Expenses
Administrative Services General Fund 81,917 General Fund contributions to the City's three Landscaping and Lighting Districts (LLDs)
City Manager General Fund 30,000 Streetlight banner prograrm City Manager General Fund 75,000 Façade Improvement
City Manager Measure R 450,000 Agreement with FSMO
City Manager Measure R 48,510 Outreach and education services Total Special Department Expenses 685,427
Transfers to Other Funds
Nondepartmental General Fund 1,500,000 Transfer to the Building Maintenance Internal Service Fund (#603)
Nondepartmental General Fund 1,000,000 Transfer to General Capital Project Fund (#700) to fund CIP projects
Total Transfers to Other Funds 2,500,000
Total Operating Budget Changes 3,795,290
Total CIP Changes 3,095,000
Total Budget Changes $ 6,890,290
Item J.3
Packet Page 291

BUDGET SUMMARY

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 10 Operating Expenditures by Department
Operating Expenditure Summary (Excluding Transfers)
FY 2024-25
Actual
FY 2025-26
Adopted
Budget
FY 2026-27
Adopted
Budget
FY 2026-27
Update
FY 2026-27
Change
Governmental Funds
Non Departmental $ 3,509,586 $ 3,611,178 $ 3,552,361 $ 3,552,361 $ - City Council 97,056 99,200 74,689 74,689 -
City Manager 1,092,323 1,665,686 1,166,054 2,171,564 1,005,510 City Attorney 514,033 667,500 670,000 670,000 -
City Clerk 463,645 418,683 483,638 483,638 -
Administrative Services 1,423,382 1,469,445 1,468,123 1,630,612 162,489 Police Safety 5,156,262 6,452,837 6,565,144 6,565,144 - Public Works and Engineering 6,325,209 7,374,953 6,789,315 6,849,946 60,631 Park & Recreation 2,144,629 2,537,329 2,568,964 2,568,964 - Library 547,153 572,392 555,977 555,977 -
Planning 1,271,525 1,723,718 1,588,646 1,655,306 66,660 Total Governmental $ 22,544,803 $ 26,592,921 $ 25,482,911 $ 26,778,201 $ 1,295,290 Internal Service Funds
Information Technology 388,650 432,371 366,000 366,000 - Building Maintenance 146,253 224,891 139,750 139,750 -
Vehicle Replacement 526,949 645,000 665,000 665,000 -
Risk Management 605,582 627,200 686,000 686,000 -
Total Internal Service Funds $ 1,667,434 $ 1,929,462 $ 1,856,750 $ 1,856,750 $ - Total Operating Expenditures $ 24,212,237 $ 28,522,383 $ 27,339,661 $ 28,634,951 $ 1,295,290 Item J.3
Packet Page 292
Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 11 Item J.3
Packet Page 293

BUDGET SUMMARY

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 12 Projected Fund Balance FY 2025-26

CITY-WIDE SOURCES, USES, AND FUND BALANCE SUMMARY
FY 2025-26 PROJECTED
Beginning Fund
Balance 7/1/2025 Revenue Transfers In
Operating
Expenditures
Capital
Improvement Plan
Expenditures Transfers out
Ending Fund
Balance 6/30/2026
General Fund
General Purpose $ 7,028,757 $ 18,527,797 $ - $ 18,642,994 $ - 2,685,000 $ 4,228,560 Add-On Sales Tax (Measure R) 6,831,020 4,022,000 - 2,563,301 620,000 - 7,669,719 General & Long Term Plans (42,342) - - 256,030 - - (298,372) Total General Funds 13,817,435 22,549,797 - 21,462,325 620,000 2,685,000 11,599,907 Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax 1,234,749 2,267,668 - 199,663 620,980 - 2,681,774 Transportation Impact 776,842 20,000 - - 42,500 - 754,342 Drainage Impact 970,689 70,000 - - 313,437 - 727,252
Tree Mitigation 16,702 350 - - - - 17,052
Creek Mitigation 4,285 50 - - - - 4,335
Park Dedication 959,309 105,000 - - 126,750 - 937,559
Federal Grants - 2,432,851 - - 30,000 - 2,402,851
State Grants - 194,029 - - 54,000 - 140,029
Recycle Grants 369,202 8,000 - 103,000 - - 274,202
Other Grants - 390,000 - - 80,000 - 310,000
Transportation Development Act (TDA) (3,348) 210,000 - - 20,000 - 186,652 Accessibility Compliance Fund 13,152 2,700 - - - - 15,852 Supplemental Law Enforcement Grant 181,910 197,000 - 200,000 - - 178,910 CCTA - Return To Source 1,343,960 36,000 - - 405,000 - 974,960 CCTA - Regional $ Program 28C 183,194 4,500 - 6,000 9,000 - 172,694 Rd. Maintenance (Garbage Co.) 2,993,731 1,338,720 - - 670,020 - 3,662,431 Wilder Endowment 69,669 61,738 - - - - 131,407
Field Maintenance Surcharge 354,317 36,000 - - 226,700 - 163,617 Facility Maintenance Surcharge 260,106 46,000 - 30,000 50,000 - 226,106 Affordable Housing 2,198,183 3,000 - 20,000 - - 2,181,183 General Plan Surcharge 281,283 34,000 - 20,000 - - 295,283 Permit Technology Surcharge 52,701 9,000 - - - - 61,701 Assessment Dist L-42 21,294 10,576 - 7,684 - - 24,186
Assessment Dist M-9 - 15,847 - 15,847 - - -
Assessment Dist M-11 - 112,730 - 112,730 - - -
Stormwater Utility 260,933 300,000 - 352,491 - - 208,442 Library Parcel Tax 544,336 509,000 - 514,822 188,104 - 350,410 Wilder Cmmty Facility District (627,708) 497,500 - 497,500 - - (627,708) Total Special Revenue Funds 12,459,491 8,912,259 - 2,079,737 2,836,491 - 16,455,522 Capital Funds
Capital General 4,617,104 - 2,000,000 - 1,601,414 - 5,015,690 Oaksprings 274,533 6,500 - - - - 281,033
Rd & Drainage Stabilization 987,002 25,000 - - 70,000 - 942,002 Total Capital Project Funds 5,878,639 31,500 2,000,000 - 1,671,414 - 6,238,725 TOTAL OPERATING & CAPITAL 32,155,565.00 31,493,556 2,000,000 23,542,062 5,127,905 2,685,000 34,294,154 Debt Service Funds
2014 GO Bonds (Series A & B) 1,171,460 1,273,300 - 1,218,754 - - 1,226,006 2016 GO Bonds (Series A) 1,668,234 1,784,600 - 1,832,105 - - 1,620,729 Total Debt Service Funds 2,839,694 3,057,900 - 3,050,859 - - 2,846,735 Internal Service Funds (ISF)
Information Systems 1,538,653 253,500 - 432,371 - - 1,359,782 Building Maintenance 2,656,561 191,500 - 224,891 45,000 - 2,578,170 Vehicle Replacement 1,588,130 203,600 - 645,000 - - 1,146,730 Risk Management (453,120) 650,000 685,000 627,200 - - 254,680 Total Internal Service Funds 5,330,224 1,298,600 685,000 1,929,462 45,000 - 5,339,362 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 40,325,483 35,850,056 $ 2,685,000 $ 28,522,383 $ 5,172,905 $ 2,685,000 $ 42,480,251 Item J.3
Packet Page 294

BUDGET SUMMARY

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 13 Projected Fund Balance FY 2026-27

CITY-WIDE SOURCES, USES, AND FUND BALANCE SUMMARY
FY 2026-27 PROJECTED
Beginning Fund
Balance 7/1/2026 Revenue Transfers In
Operating
Expenditures
Capital
Improvement Plan
Expenditures
Transfers
Out
Ending Fund
Balance 6/30/2027
General Fund
General Purpose $ 4,228,560 $ 18,948,529 $ - $ 19,297,592 $ - $ 2,500,000 $ 1,379,497 Add-On Sales Tax (Measure R) 7,669,719 4,045,000 - 2,071,110 3,660,000 - 5,983,609 General & Long Term Plans (298,372) - - 150,490 - - (448,862) Total General Funds 11,599,907 22,993,529 - 21,519,192 3,660,000 2,500,000 6,914,244 Special Revenue Funds
Gas Tax 2,681,774 1,168,000 - 179,710 2,141,000 - 1,529,064 Transportation Impact 754,342 20,000 - 118,445 560,000 - 95,897 Drainage Impact 727,252 70,000 - - 180,000 - 617,252
Tree Mitigation 17,052 325 - - - - 17,377
Creek Mitigation 4,335 50 - - - - 4,385
Park Dedication 937,559 105,000 - - 517,000 - 525,559
Federal Grants 2,402,851 1,795,000 - - 2,447,913 - 1,749,938 State Grants 140,029 - - - 78,000 - 62,029
Recycle Grants 274,202 5,000 - 103,000 - - 176,202
Other Grants 310,000 - - - 310,000 - -
Transportation Development Act (TDA) 186,652 253,348 - - 440,000 - - Accessibility Compliance Fund 15,852 2,900 - - - - 18,752 Supplemental Law Enforcement Grant 178,910 197,000 - 200,000 - - 175,910 CCTA - Return To Source 974,960 25,000 - 118,445 420,000 - 461,515 CCTA - Regional $ Program 28C 172,694 4,500 - 6,000 30,000 - 141,194 Rd. Maintenance (Garbage Co.) 3,662,431 730,000 - - 2,610,000 - 1,782,431 Wilder Endowment 131,407 2,000 - - - - 133,407
Field Maintenance Surcharge 163,617 34,000 - - - - 197,617 Facility Maintenance Surcharge 226,106 46,000 - 30,000 100,000 - 142,106 Affordable Housing 2,181,183 3,000 - 20,000 - - 2,164,183 General Plan Surcharge 295,283 34,000 - 20,000 - - 309,283 Permit Technology Surcharge 61,701 9,000 - - - - 70,701 Assessment Dist L-42 24,186 10,576 - 8,016 - - 26,746
Assessment Dist M-9 - 16,610 - 16,610 - - -
Assessment Dist M-11 - 116,168 - 116,168 - - -
Stormwater Utility 208,442 300,000 - 328,216 - - 180,226 Library Parcel Tax 350,410 509,000 - 502,157 - - 357,253 Wilder Cmmty Facility District (627,708) 498,500 - 498,500 - - (627,708) Total Special Revenue Funds 16,455,522 5,954,977 - 2,265,267 9,833,913 - 10,311,319 Capital Funds
Capital General 5,015,690 - 1,000,000 - 1,286,746 - 4,728,944 Oaksprings 281,033 6,500 - - - - 287,533
Rd & Drainage Stabilization 942,002 20,000 - - 430,000 - 532,002 Total Capital Project Funds 6,238,725 26,500 1,000,000 - 1,716,746 - 5,548,479 TOTAL OPERATING & CAPITAL 34,294,154.00 28,975,006 1,000,000 23,784,459 15,210,659 2,500,000 22,774,042 Debt Service Funds
2014 GO Bonds (Series A & B) 1,226,006 1,293,300 - 1,239,834 - - 1,279,472 2016 GO Bonds (Series A) 1,620,729 1,794,600 - 1,753,908 - - 1,661,421 Total Debt Service Funds 2,846,735 3,087,900 - 2,993,742 - - 2,940,893 Internal Service Funds (ISF)
Information Systems 1,359,782 253,500 - 366,000 - - 1,247,282 Building Maintenance 2,578,170 181,500 1,500,000 139,750 550,000 - 3,569,920 Vehicle Replacement 1,146,730 203,600 - 665,000 - - 685,330 Risk Management 254,680 700,000 - 686,000 - - 268,680
Total Internal Service Funds 5,339,362 1,338,600 1,500,000 1,856,750 550,000 - 5,771,212 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 42,480,251.00 33,401,506 $ 2,500,000 $ 28,634,951 $ 15,760,659 $ 2,500,000 $ 31,486,147 Item J.3
Packet Page 295
Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 14 Item J.3
Packet Page 296
Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 15

CITY STAFFING
Item J.3
Packet Page 297

CITY STAFFING

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 16 Budgeted Updated
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027

CITY POSITIONS
City Manager 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
City Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant to the City Manager* - - - - 1.00 1.00
Outreach & Education Coordinator* - 1.00 1.00 1.00 - -
Sr. Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Clerk 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Administrative Assistant I/II - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - -
Administrative Services
(Finance / Human Resources) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.50 Accountant - - - - - 0.50
Accounting Technician I/II/III 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Administrative Services Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Human Resources Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Assistant (Allocated) - - - - - -
Senior Accountant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Police 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Community Services Officer - - - - - -
Office Assistant (Allocated) - - - - - -
Receptionist/Secretary - - - - - -
Public Works & Engineering Services 11.00 11.00 12.00 17.00 16.00 15.00 Administrative Assistant - - - - 0.50
Assistant Engineer* 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
City Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Director of Public Works 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facilities & Parks Supervisor* - - - 1.00 - -
Facility Maintenance Worker I/II - - - 2.00 2.00 2.00
GIS Technician - - - - - 0.50
Maintenance & Facilities Superintendent - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maintenance Worker I/II/III 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 Management Analyst* - - - - 1.00 1.00
P.W. Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Public Works Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Senior Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Senior Civil Engineer 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Senior Maintenance Worker - - - - 1.00
Parks & Recreation 8.50 8.50 9.50 6.50 7.50 7.50
Administrative Assistant I/II 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Director of Parks & Recreation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Facilities & Parks Supervisor 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - -
Facility Maintenance Worker I/II 2.00 2.00 2.00 - - -
Recreation Manager* - - - 1.00 1.00
Recreation Supervisor I/II* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - -
Recreation Coordinator* 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

CITY OF ORINDA STAFFING BY POSITION
Item J.3
Packet Page 298

CITY STAFFING
Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 17 Budgeted Updated
FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Planning 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.50
Assistant / Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Code Enforcement Technician - - - - - 0.50
Director of Planning 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Principal Planner 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Planner - 1.00 1.00 - - -
SUBTOTAL REGULAR CITY POSITIONS 34.50 35.50 38.50 40.50 40.50 40.50 Contract - Police Services 14.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Police Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sergeant 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Deputies 9.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Relief Deputy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Investigator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

TOTAL COMBINED
CITY & CONTRACT POLICE 48.50 49.50 53.50 55.50 55.50 55.50 Note: In addition, there are part-time seasonal, hourly staffing in all departments with the Parks & Recreation Department accounting for the largest use of part-time program Staff. Part-Time Staff are also used for Parking Enforcement duties.

CITY OF ORINDA STAFFING BY POSITION

CONTRACT POSITIONS
(Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office Positions Assigned to Orinda) * At October 7, 2025 City Council Meeting, Council addopted a modification to the City's Staffing Allocation which added/ deleted these positions for FY 2026
Item J.3
Packet Page 299
Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 18 Item J.3
Packet Page 300
Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 19

APPROPRIATION LIMIT
Item J.3
Packet Page 301

APPROPRIATION LIMIT

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 20 California voters approved propositions, amending the State Constitution, which require that the annual City budget include a calculation of the Appropriations Limit, sometimes referred to as the Gann Limit. This requirement was imposed by Proposition 4 (1979) and later amended by Proposition 111 (1990). The legislation imposes a restriction on the amount of government revenue which may be appropriated in any fiscal year.

Since the City of Orinda was formed after the adoption of a requirement for an Appropriations Limit, the City’s initial appropriations limit was established by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. This was included in the ballot for the incorporation vote. Under State law (Article XIII B of the California Constitution) the limit can be increased each year based on a specific formula and specified growth factors. The Appropriations Limit does not apply to all funds. It only applies to “proceeds of taxes”.

Each year, the adjustment to the Appropriations Limit takes into consideration two factors:
1) Change in the cost of living, and
2) Change in population
For each of these factors, the City may select between two optional factors.

A. SELECTION OF OPTIONAL FACTORS

1. Change in cost of living: The City selects the change in the State per capita personal income.

Options % Increase
a. Change in State Per Capita Personal Income* 4.95%
b. Change in Orinda Non-Residential Assessed Valuation N/A**

2. Change in Population: The City selects the change in the Contra Costa County population.

Options Population
1/1/2025
Population
1/1/2026
% Increase
(Decrease)
a. City of Orinda* 19,494 19,412 -0.42%
b. Contra Costa County* 1,167,506 1,163,891 -0.31%
* The per capita personal income and population information is provided by the State of California Department of Finance each year which can be found at the following address:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/price-and-population-factors/. ** Change in non-residential assessed valuation was not available and given that much of the assessed valuation in Orinda is designated as residential this factor would be expected to be lower than the Change in Per Capita Income.

The Fiscal Year 2026-27 limit to which the adjustment is applied uses the Fiscal Year 2025-26 (Prior Year) Appropriations Limit of $28,660,591, as adopted by the City Council on June 3, 2025 (Resolution No. 31-25). As shown in the calculation on the next page, the appropriation limit for the City of Orinda for Fiscal Year 2026-27 is established at $29,986,057.

Item J.3
Packet Page 302

APPROPRIATION LIMIT

Mid-Cycle Budget Update Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27 21 B. APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27
Factors
Percentage
Change Amounts Calculation
Population Change for Contra Costa County -0.31% 0.99690 (-0.31+ 100)/100 Change in State Per Capita Personal Income 4.95% 1.04950 (4.95 + 100)/100 Adjustment Factor for FY 2026-27 1.046247 0.99690 x 1.04950 Prior Year Appropriation Limit (FY 2025-26) $28,660,591 Appropriation Limit FY 2026-27 $29,986,057 $28,660,591 x 1.046247 C. APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO LIMITATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 $19,899,929
555,953
5,259,503
$15,196,379 a+b-c
$29,986,057
f) Under (Over) Limit $14,789,678 e-d
a) Proceeds of Taxes
b) Amount of interest earned from "proceeds of taxes"
c) Exclusions for debt service and qualified capital outlay d) Appropriations Subject to Limitation
e) Appropriations Limit (current year)
Based on the Budget for FY 2026-27, the amount deemed to be subject to limitation (Proceeds of Taxes net of exclusions related to debt service for General Obligation Bonds and qualified capital outlays) totaled $15,196,379, which is $14,789,678 (or 49%) under the authorized Limit.

Item J.3
Packet Page 303
Item J.3
Packet Page 304
RESOLUTION NO. 43-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

APPROVING NEW GENERAL EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to approve all job classifications utilized by the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff has developed job descriptions for three new General Employee classifications to support service delivery needs and enhance operational efficiency across departments; and
WHEREAS, the salary ranges for these classifications have been established to maintain internal equity and ensure external competitiveness; and WHEREAS, the City has met and conferred with representatives of Teamsters Local 856 regarding any potential impacts to the bargaining unit; and WHEREAS, funding for these classifications will be considered by the City Council as part of the personnel budget in the 2026-27 Mid-Cycle Budget Update process.

Orinda City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Orinda City Council
June 9, 2026