Agenda packet — Orinda City Council, September 15, 2026

CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
07:00 PM
Orinda Library Auditorium
26 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA
Zoom Webinar Link: https://www.tinyurl.com/OrindaCityCouncil By Phone: +1 669 900 6833
Meeting ID: 810 2271 2723
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cityoforinda9535/streams HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING:

Public comment is generally limited to 3 minutes per speaker per agenda item. For additional information, please refer to the Council’s Policies and Procedures Manual.

In-Person Comments: In-person speakers 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 present in person who has not submitted a speaker card may form a line at the lectern.

Remote Comments: Speakers who are participating via Zoom should use the “raise hand” function or the *9 function to indicate they wish to comment. You will be called upon and unmuted when it is your time to speak, which will generally be after the City Council hears from in-person speakers. Persons wishing to comment should use the Zoom link to participate in the meeting, not the YouTube link. The YouTube link is a livestream provided as a courtesy and does not allow for public comment.

Written Comments: In advance of the meeting, you may submit written public comment for the Council to read 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 City’s Website Meetings Calendar, by selecting the date of the meeting, and “Communications from Public”.

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

A. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Cara Hoxie, Latika Malkani, Janet Riley Vice Mayor Darlene Gee, Mayor Brandyn Iverson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CLOSED SESSION REPORT (when applicable)
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.

ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
Proclamation Declaring September as Emergency
Preparedness Month

Page 6 ends

Proclamation Honoring Sheri Marie Smith and Declaring
September 26, 2026, "Sheri Smith Day" in the City of Orinda

Page 7 ends

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
Adopt Resolution No. 70-26 approving Parcel Map for MS 2026- 001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive

Page 8 ends

The City Council will consider adopting Resolution No. 70-26 approving the Parcel B.

E.1
E.2
F.

I.1
Packet Page 2
Map for MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive, which has been reviewed by the Planning and Public Works departments in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Title 16 of the City of Orinda Municipal Code (OMC), the Conditions of Approval, and in accordance with SB9 legislation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 70-26, Approving Parcel Map for MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive.

Adopt Resolution No. 72-26 Approving the Downtown Banner Program Policy

Page 18 ends

The City Council will consider adopting Resolution No. 72-26 approving the Downtown Banner Program Policy. The proposed policy updates the existing banner program to allow the City to continue accommodating private banner displays while prioritizing City banner displays and improving program administration.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 72-26 Approving the Downtown Banner Program Policy.

Ordinance No. 26-10 Purchasing Agent Authority Page 27
On September 1, 2026, the City Council considered potential changes to the City’s purchasing and contracting regulations as a policy matter. Based on the Council’s direction, Staff prepared Ordinance No. 26-10 to clarify the City’s purchasing requirements, establish annual purchasing authority, and increase the City Manager’s purchasing authority from $60,000 to $75,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce Ordinance No. 26-10 Amending Chapter 2.55 (Purchasing and Contracts), by reading of the title only and waiving further reading.

Lamorinda Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (PADU)
Prototype Designs

Page 36 ends

The City of Orinda, in partnership with the City of Lafayette and the Town of Moraga, is participating in the Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Program with grant funding of $150,000 ($50,000 per jurisdiction pooled) to develop a shared library of preapproved ADU (PADU) plans for Lamorinda residents. This report provides an overview of Orinda’s participation in the program and presents a resolution approving four prototype ADU designs to be made available to the public, a required step to satisfy state grant guidelines by September 30, 2026, in order to retain the program's funding.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 71-26 Approving the Lamorinda Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling I.2
I.3
I.4
Packet Page 3
Unit (PADU) Prototype Designs.

Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 73-26 in Support of Measure W

Page 143 ends

The City Council will consider supporting Measure W, a parcel tax for Acalanes Union High School District.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 73-26 In Support of Measure W for the November 2026 Election
PUBLIC HEARING
POLICY MATTERS
Downtown Precise Plan Work Session Page 147
RECOMMENDATION:

Hold the work session and provide direction to Staff regarding Downtown Precise Plan revisions, reopening ConnectOrinda for amendments, and the possibility for a Housing Pool, as well as receive the report on the infeasibility of the Orinda BART station for future housing cycles.

MATTERS INITIATED

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

I, Joelle Fockler, MMC, 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, Joelle Fockler, MMC, 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.

I.5
J.

K.1
L.

Packet Page 4
~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 5
Item E.1
Packet Page 6
Item E.2
Packet Page 7

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: September 15, 2026
SUBJECT:

Adopt Resolution No. 70-26, Approving Parcel Map for MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider adopting Resolution No. 70-26 approving the Parcel Map for MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive, which has been reviewed by the Planning and Public Works departments in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Title 16 of the City of Orinda Municipal Code (OMC), the Conditions of Approval, and in accordance with SB9 legislation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 70-26, Approving Parcel Map for MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive.

BACKGROUND:

Under SB9 legislation, which was effective January 1, 2022, the subject property owners James Evans and Peyling Yap submitted an application for a lot split for 24 Northwood Drive. The application was deemed complete, and the Tentative Parcel Map was approved on May 4, 2026 (Attachment D); no discretionary approvals are required/allowed under SB9.

DISCUSSION:

The owners have submitted the final Parcel Map (Attachment C) for MS 2026-001 with all supplementary documents and fees to the City for filing in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Title 16, of the City of Orinda Municipal Code (OMC), and the Conditions of Approval. The required signatures are in the process of being acquired.

The Public Works and Engineering Services Department has reviewed the Parcel Map for the 24 Northwood Drive Minor Subdivision (MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split) and found it to be in conformance with the Tentative Parcel Map and Conditions of Approval.

The Planning Department has determined that all applicable requirements, including the Conditions of Approval, have been satisfied for the 24 Northwood Drive Minor Subdivision (MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split).

Item I.1
Packet Page 8
Public Works prepared an exhibit of the Parcel Map for 24 Northwood Drive Minor Subdivision (MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split) overlaid on an aerial for reference (Attachment B).

Moraga Orinda Fire Department provided Plan Approval with Comment(s) Letter on October 15, 2025, for the 24 Northwood Drive Minor Subdivision (MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split) for the Lot Split Parcel Map: Dated 09/11/2024.

According to the Subdivision Map Act section 66458(a), and the provisions of Chapter 16 of the OMC, the City Council must approve the Parcel Map for 24 Northwood Drive Minor Subdivision (MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split) if it substantially conforms to all of the requirements. Resolution No. 70-26 (Attachment A) formalizes the City Council’s action with related findings, including approving the Parcel Map.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The owners of 24 Northwood Drive Minor Subdivision (MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split) have paid required fees and reimbursed city for staff and consultant review costs.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. 70-26 - Approving Parcel Map for MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive
B. Map Overlay
C. Parcel Map (to be signed by all parties)
D. May 4, 2026, SB 9 Lot Split & Minor Subdivision Application Deemed Complete 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 I.1
Packet Page 9
Resolution No. 70-26 1
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 70-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
APPROVING PARCEL MAP FOR SUBDIVISION MS 2026-001 URBAN LOT SPLIT AT 24 NORTHWOOD DRIVE
WHEREAS, an application for a SB9 Urban Lot Split Subdivision Tentative Map of property at 24 Northwood Drive, Orinda California was deemed complete by the Orinda Planning Department on May 4, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the owners have submitted the Final Map for Subdivision MS 2026- 001, Urban Lot Split and it is in the process of being signed by all parties required to execute the certificates on the map (owner and surveyor), together with all supplementary documents and fees, to the Public Works Department for filing in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Orinda Municipal Code and the tentative map conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has determined that the Parcel Map, all associated documents and fees are satisfactory in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 16 of the Orinda Municipal Code and the tentative map conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orinda finds that the Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive substantially conforms with the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map and must now be approved pursuant to State law.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby approve the Parcel Map for Subdivision MS 2026-001 Urban Lot Split at 24 Northwood Drive with all supplementary documents.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on September 15, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:__________________________
Joelle Fockler, MMC, City Clerk
Item I.1
Packet Page 10
Attachment B Item I.1
Packet Page 11
Attachment C
Item I.1
Packet Page 12
Item I.1
Packet Page 13
From: Darin Hughes
To: James Evans
Cc: Peyling Yap; Jesse L. Fullen
Subject: RE: 24 Northwood Drive, SB 9 Application 2ND SUBMITTAL Documents Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 9:25:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
404905010 L Geotech Completeness Review_2nd Submittal.pdf Northwood Drive #24 - 2nd check comments.pdf
24 NORTHWOOD SB9 LOT SPLIT TM-REV1 - Approved.pdf
Good morning,
With this email, effective today, I am memorializing City of Orinda staff’s ministerial approval of the attached Tentative Parcel Map for 24 Northwood Drive. This Tentative Parcel Map is being approved ministerially in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 9 as well as the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Orinda Municipal Code, and all applicable objective standards. Because all applicable standards were met, City staff determined they have no discretion under State Law to deny this SB9 lot split.

The Tentative Parcel Map is subject to the following conditions of approval:

The applicant shall provide a final parcel map including closure calculations, supporting documents and title report as listed in the SB 9 Lot Split application.

The applicant shall provide any public or private agreements required (i.e. drainage, easements, utilities).

The applicant shall provide a tax letter stating all liens have been paid.

This approval is limited to the SB9 lot split and does not include approval of any proposed structures.

The applicant shall obtain the required permits for any proposed structures if and when applicable.

The next step in the lot split process is for the City to review, and for you to obtain an approval of, the (final) Parcel Map. The Parcel Map is reviewed and processed by the Public Works Department and typically appears on the City Council consent calendar. Per the State of California Subdivision Map Act, the Council’s role is limited (e.g., confirming consistency with the approved Tentative Parcel Map and compliance with any associated conditions). The Final Parcel Map needs to be approved prior to the expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map. The expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map is governed by the State of California Subdivision Map Act.

This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Please let me know if you have any questions. Have an excellent week! Regards,
Darin Hughes he/him
Associate Planner
22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563
925.253.4269
[email protected]
www.cityoforinda.gov
From: James Evans <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2026 9:18 AM
To: Darin Hughes <[email protected]>
Cc: Peyling Yap <[email protected]>; Jesse L. Fullen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 24 Northwood Drive, SB 9 Application 2ND SUBMITTAL Documents Attachment D Item I.1
Packet Page 14
EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.

Hi Darin,
Upon further thought and consideration we have decided to leave things as they are with regard to our affidavit. Some external circumstances were pushing us the other direction but these have since subsided.

Please continue with our application as planned.

Thanks
James Evans
660-455-6183
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 30, 2026, at 3:15 PM, Darin Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Peyling, James,
I’ve just forwarded your information to HCD so that they can reach out to you to gain clarity on your intent.

As discussed over the counter, if you confirm with me that your intent is not to sell the existing house as you have stated below/in conversation with me, then I’ll provide you with the next steps for the application without the need for further input from HCD. This is not, however, a requirement if you’d prefer to await HCD’s determination based on your circumstances. As discussed, the law requires you to sign an affidavit that clarifies that the applicant “intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years….” While you’ve already signed such an affidavit, the intent you discussed below is what is currently providing a contradiction that necessitates HCD’s input on how we may proceed to ensure intent is appropriately demonstrated. If anything has changed about the circumstance, feel free to let me know and I’ll proceed accordingly.

Regards,
Darin Hughes he/him
Associate Planner
22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563
925.253.4269
[email protected]
www.cityoforinda.gov
From: Peyling Yap <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 11:00 AM
To: Darin Hughes <[email protected]>
Cc: James Evans <[email protected]>
Item I.1
Packet Page 15
Subject: Re: 24 Northwood Drive, SB 9 Application 2ND SUBMITTAL Documents EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.

Hi Darin,
I wanted to check whether we can sell the existing house under its current APN following the lot split. Our intention is to retain ownership of the newly subdivided parcel.

Please let me know if this is feasible or if there are any considerations we should be aware of.

Thank you,
Peyling Yap
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 10:54 AM Darin Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,
$1,500 for the updated geotechnical deposit amount. Everything else is still covered.

Regards,
Darin Hughes he/him
Associate Planner
22 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563
925.253.4269
[email protected]
www.cityoforinda.gov
From: Peyling Yap <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 10:45 AM
To: Jesse L. Fullen <[email protected]>
Cc: Darin Hughes <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: 24 Northwood Drive, SB 9 Application 2ND SUBMITTAL Documents EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.

Dear Darin,
I would like to come by in about an hour to drop off a check for the 24 Northwood Drive SB 9 application.

Could you please let me know the exact amount I need to write? Item I.1
Packet Page 16
Best regards,
Peyling Yap
On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 10:28 AM Jesse L. Fullen <[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning, M. Hughes.

Attached please find the revised and updated documents, addressing the 1st plan check comments.

All comments have been addressed, but please let me know if there is anything else that you need.

Thank you, and have a great day.

Jesse
Fullen Surveying & Mapping, Inc.

Jesse L. Fullen, PLS
President
5100-B1 Clayton Road #287
Concord, CA 94521
Office: 925.679.7176
Cell: 925.642.2543
Virus-free.www.avg.com
Item I.1
Packet Page 17

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Public Works/Engineering
Meeting Date: September 15, 2026
SUBJECT:

Adopt Resolution No. 72-26 Approving the Downtown Banner Program Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 72-26 approving the Downtown Banner Program Policy.

BACKGROUND:

At its May 16, 2017, meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 49-17 approving a Banner Display Policy which allowed applicants to obtain Banner Permits to display private banners promoting public events on designated streetlight poles in Downtown Orinda. Despite sunsetting in May 2019, the program sustained interest, and staff continued to receive private banner display requests. Accordingly, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 46-25 (Attachment B) on August 19, 2025, confirming the policy without a sunset date. No other changes were made at that time.

Following the City's mid-cycle budget update presentation on May 5, 2026, the City Council directed staff to allocate funding for Downtown beautification, including new City banners and flower baskets on streetlight poles. The allocation was subsequently approved for Fiscal Year 2026-27, and the project is now underway. As part of this effort, Staff reviewed the existing Banner Display Policy and is proposing approval of an updated policy to better align the program with current operations and Downtown beautification efforts.

Item I.2
Packet Page 18
DISCUSSION:

The proposed Downtown Banner Program Policy (Attachment A) maintains the existing framework for private banner displays while updating program standards and procedures to accommodate City banner displays and improve clarity and consistency in program administration.

The existing policy established program guidelines and procedures for private banner displays on designated streetlight poles but did not address the City's use of these poles for its own banner displays.

In response to the City Council’s request to beautify the Downtown, City banners will be installed on various streetlight poles that are also available for private displays. City banners will be displayed year-round, with designs rotated seasonally. To avoid unnecessarily limiting location availability for private applicants, the proposed policy allows temporary removal of City banners to accommodate approved private displays.

However, the proposed policy expressly establishes that City banner displays take precedence, and that private banner requests may be modified or denied if proposed locations are unavailable or reserved for City use.

The proposed policy also updates several program standards and procedures to establish clear expectations and ensure consistent administration, including:
 Banner design standards: Adds requirements for double-sided banners, weather-resistant materials, and compatibility with City hardware.  Application requirements: Establishes minimum submittal requirements for Banner Permit applications and clarifies the application process.  Installation and removal: Requires private banners to be installed and removed by the City's preferred contractor to protect infrastructure and ensure safe, consistent practices.
 Safety and maintenance: Clarifies applicant responsibility for banner maintenance and the City's authority to remove private banners that become damaged or hazardous, or when necessary for maintenance, emergencies, construction, or other municipal activities.

Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 72-26 approving the proposed Downtown Banner Display Policy (Attachment A) to allow the City to continue accommodating private banner displays while providing the City with greater flexibility to install its own banners and ensuring effective, consistent program administration.

Item I.2
Packet Page 19
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no significant fiscal impact associated with adoption of the Downtown Banner Program Policy. The proposed policy continues to provide full cost recovery of permit processing activities for private banners.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

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

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution No. 72-26 – Downtown Banner Program Policy B. Resolution No. 46-25 – Existing Policy
Prepared by: Estela Ramirez, Management Analyst
Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
Approved by:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.2
Packet Page 20
Resolution No. 72-26 1
RESOLUTION NO. 72-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN BANNER PROGRAM POLICY
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 49-17 approving a Banner Display Policy to govern temporary display of private banners on designated Downtown streetlight poles, which had a sunset date of May 16, 2019; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 46-25 confirming the Banner Display Policy without a sunset date; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to establish a clear, consistent, and efficient process governing private banner displays while prioritizing City banner displays that beautify and revitalize the Downtown; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Banner Program Policy, attached as Exhibit A, maintains the core provisions of Resolution No. 46-25 while clarifying the City's priority use of banner locations and improving program administration.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby rescind Resolution No. 46-25.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Downtown Banner Program Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager or designee to administer and interpret the Downtown Banner Program as necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on September 15, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joelle Fockler, MMC, City Clerk
Attachment A
Item I.2
Packet Page 21
Resolution No. 72-26 2
Exhibit A

CITY OF ORINDA

DOWNTOWN BANNER PROGRAM POLICY
September 15, 2026

1. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY
The purpose of this policy is to establish standards and procedures for the temporary display of private banners on designated streetlight poles within the Downtown. This policy protects public safety, preserves City infrastructure and right-of-way, maintains the aesthetic character of Downtown, and provides for fair, consistent administration of the Downtown Banner Program.

This policy is intended to govern a limited public forum and impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the display of private banners on streetlight poles in the Downtown, not impose any constitutionally impermissible restrictions.

The City may engage in government speech by displaying its own banners on streetlight poles in the Downtown and reserves the right to install and display banners at any time.

City banner displays shall take precedence over private banner displays.

Private banner requests must relate to an event that is open to the public and takes place within the City of Orinda or within one-half mile of the City's boundaries.

The designated streetlight poles available for private banner display are identified in the Downtown Banner Pole Inventory maintained by the City Manager or designee.

This policy does not apply to banners displayed at the BART overcrossing or the Orinda Library, which are governed by other procedures and/or entities. In addition, this policy does not apply to flag displays on streetlight poles, which are entirely controlled by the City and not available for private display.

2. DESIGN STANDARDS
A. Banner design shall identify the event being promoted.

B. Banner design shall be double-sided.

C. Sponsor recognition shall not exceed 15 percent of the banner area and shall be located at the bottom of the banner. Sponsor lettering shall not exceed 12 inches in height.

D. Banner text and imagery shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Applicants are solely responsible for obtaining any necessary copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property permissions.

Item I.2
Packet Page 22
Resolution No. 72-26 3
E. Banner size restrictions vary by pole location as detailed on the Downtown Banner Pole Inventory. No banner shall exceed 30 inches in width and 84 inches in height.

F. All banners shall be constructed of durable, weather-resistant materials suitable for outdoor exposure.

G. Banners shall be constructed to be compatible with existing hardware, in accordance with City-provided specifications.

3. DISPLAY STANDARDS
A. The maximum display period is 70 consecutive calendar days calculated as follows:
display commencing no earlier than 30 days before the event and concluding no later than 10 days after the event, with a maximum event duration of 30 days.

B. A minimum of 6 and a maximum of 50 banners may be displayed under a single Banner Permit.

C. Only one applicant’s banners may be displayed at any given time, subject to the following exception. When a Banner Permit has been approved for only one side of the Downtown (either north or south of the SR-24 freeway), a separate, concurrent Banner Permit may be approved for the opposite side.

D. Banners shall maintain a minimum clearance of 15 feet above roadways and 12 feet above sidewalks.

4. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
A Banner Permit and Encroachment Permit are required before any private banner may be installed. Banner Permit applications may be submitted no earlier than 3 months before and no later than 1 month before the requested installation date.

At a minimum, each Banner Permit application shall include:

A. Applicant and organization contact information
B. Event name, description, and location
C. Requested display dates
D. Requested banner locations
E. Proposed number of banners
F. Color rendering of proposed banner design detailing dimensions and materials G. Contractor proof of insurance.

The City Manager or designee will ministerially approve complete applications that comply with this policy, subject to location availability. The City Manager or designee may modify or deny a request when banner locations are unavailable or reserved for municipal purposes. In the event of competing requests, priority will be determined based on the date and time a complete application is received.

Item I.2
Packet Page 23
Resolution No. 72-26 4
Banner Permit fees shall be set by the City Manager or designee at the level necessary for full cost recovery and shall be adopted by City Council resolution. The applicant shall pay all applicable fees before any permit is issued unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or Designee.

5. INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL
Banners shall be installed and removed by the City’s preferred contractor. The applicant shall be responsible for contractor coordination and payment of all associated costs unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or designee. The applicant shall also be responsible for providing proof of insurance demonstrating that the contractor meets the City’s insurance requirements and naming the City as an additional insured.

If City banners must be temporarily removed to accommodate an approved private display, the applicant shall coordinate their removal and reinstallation with the City’s preferred contractor.

6. CONDITIONS
Issuance of a Banner Permit constitutes acceptance of all terms contained in this policy and applicable laws.

The applicant shall maintain banners in safe, good condition throughout the approved display period. Upon written notice from the City Manager or designee, the applicant shall promptly coordinate with the City’s preferred contractor for the removal of torn, faded, frayed, loose, damaged, or otherwise hazardous banners. If the applicant fails to do so, the City Manager or designee may remove the banners and recover associated costs from the applicant.

The City Manager or designee may remove banners without notice to accommodate emergencies, construction, utility work, maintenance activities, public safety concerns, or other municipal activities.

Banners removed by the City Manager or designee may be stored at City Hall for up to 30 calendar days. Banners not claimed within that period may be discarded without further notice.

The City assumes no responsibility for damage to or loss of banners resulting from weather, theft, traffic accidents, or other causes.

Banner Permits are revocable by the City Manager or designee when continued display is determined to be inconsistent with this policy or applicable laws.

Item I.2
Packet Page 24
1 RESOLUTION NO. 46-25

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

CONFIRM BANNER DISPLAY POLICY ON STREET LIGHT POLES
WHEREAS, the City wishes to memorialize its historic policy of allowing community groups to display banners promoting public events in and near Orinda on City-owned street light poles in the downtown area;
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017 a Banner Policy was formally established by adoption of Resolution 49-17, which had a sunset date of May 16, 2019; WHEREAS, the policy described in this resolution is intended to govern a limited public forum and impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the display of banners on City poles in the downtown, not impose any constitutionally impermissible restrictions;
WHEREAS, the policy described in this resolution covers only the downtown poles inventoried and mapped by City Staff;
WHEREAS, the Staff inventory (available from the Public Works & Engineering Services Department) also notes which poles can accommodate City flags; WHEREAS, the policy described in this resolution excludes banners at the BART overcrossing and Library, which are governed by other procedures/entities; WHEREAS, the policy described in this resolution also excludes flags displayed on City poles, which display is entirely controlled by the City, not available for displays by others; WHEREAS, the policy described in this resolution is identical to that in Resolution 49- 17, except that there is no sunset date;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orinda as follows:

1. Physical display: The following requirements and procedures apply to protect City infrastructure, promote public health/safety, and address potential aesthetic concerns:
a. Maximum banner size: 36" wide by 84" tall.
b. Bottom bracket minimum 15' above the surface of the roadway and 12' above the level of the sidewalk
c. Maximum percentage of banner used for sponsor name = 15% at bottom, with lettering no taller than 12"
d. Banners may be displayed regardless of whether a flag is concurrently displayed by the City on the same pole
e. Banners must be in good condition at all times during display (not torn, faded, etc.).

Attachment B Item I.2
Packet Page 25
2 2. Fairness: The following requirements and procedures apply to ensure the City’s process for dealing with requests to display banners (including potential competing requests) is fair and transparent :
a. Banner display applications that comply with this policy will be approved ministerial by staff.
b. Only one applicant’s banners may be on display at any given time, subject to the following exception. When a banner display has been requested and approved for just one side of the downtown (either north or south of the freeway), a separate, concurrent banner display request may be approved for the other side of the downtown.
c. Complete applications will be reviewed and approved in the order received, with applications accepted no more than 6 months in advance of the intended display date.
d. Banners must relate to an event to which the Orinda community is invited and that takes place at least partly in, or within ½ mile of Orinda. e. Maximum display time is 70 days, calculated as follows: display commencing no more than 30 days prior to event and concluding no more than 10 days after event, with a maximum event length of 30 days.
f. Maximum number of banners displayed: 50
g. Minimum number of banners displayed: 6

3. Permitting & Logistics:
a. Banners must be installed by a qualified, insured installer. b. Banners require a standard City encroachment permit, including indemnification for the City.
c. The Public Works & Engineering Services Department will:
i. administer this policy
ii. keep the banner display calendar
iii. accept/process banner permit applications
iv. accept/process the associated encroachment permit applications d. All banner display applicants must pay fees for City processing of banner display/encroachment applications permit, which fees will be set at the level necessary for full City cost recovery.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on August 19, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gee, Hoxie, Iverson, Riley
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: Malkani
Latika Malkani, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
Item I.2
Packet Page 26

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: September 15, 2026
SUBJECT:

Ordinance No. 26-10 Amending Chapter 2.55 (Purchasing and Contracts) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 1, 2026, the City Council considered potential changes to the City’s purchasing and contracting regulations as a policy matter. Based on the Council’s direction, Staff prepared Ordinance No. 26-10 to clarify the City’s purchasing requirements, establish annual purchasing authority, and increase the City Manager’s purchasing authority from $60,000 to $75,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce Ordinance No. 26-10 Amending Chapter 2.55 (Purchasing and Contracts), by reading of the title only and waiving further reading.

BACKGROUND:

Proposed changes to the City’s purchasing and contracting regulations were presented to the City Council as a policy matter at its September 1, 2026, meeting. Based on the Council’s direction, Staff prepared Ordinance No. 26-10 to amend Chapter 2.55 of the Orinda Municipal Code.

DISCUSSION:

The ordinance would:
• Increase the City Manager’s purchasing authority from $60,000 to $75,000; • Establish the City Manager’s purchasing authority annually; • Expand the definition of “general services”; and
• Define “substantially similar goods or services.”
These amendments are intended to clarify the City’s purchasing requirements and improve the efficiency of routine purchasing and contracting activities while maintaining appropriate City Council oversight.

If introduced, the ordinance will return to the City Council for adoption on October 6, 2026, and will become effective 30 days after adoption.

Item I.3
Packet Page 27
FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

ATTACHMENT:

A. Ordinance No. 26-10 Amending Chapter 2.55 (Purchasing and Contracts) Respectfully Submitted by,
Cole Haselip, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.3
Packet Page 28
Attachment A

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

An Ordinance Amending Title 2 of the Orinda
Municipal Code (Administration and
Personnel) to make amendments to Chapter

2.55 (Purchasing and Contracts).

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

SECTION 1.

The City Council of the City of Orinda intends, by adopting this ordinance, to amend Chapter 2.55 (Purchasing and Contracts) These changes are intended to establish an annual purchasing authority for the City Manager, expand the definition of “general services”, define “substantially similar goods or services” and increase the City Manager’s purchasing authority from $60,000 to $75,000.

SECTION 2.

The following portions of the Municipal Code are amended, added, and deleted as specified below and in Attachment A. Attachment A shows additions with doubleunderlined text and deletions with strike-out text.

SECTION 3.

If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, Municipal Code Provision Action as shown in Attachment A §2.55.020 Text Amended
§2.55.040 Text Amended
§2.55.050 Text Amended
§2.55.080 Text Amended
§2.55.090 Text Amended
§2.55.105 Text Amended
Item I.3
Packet Page 29
clause or phrase of this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase.

SECTION 4.

The City Council finds this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378). CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) excludes from the definition of a project “organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.”
SECTION 5.

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

SECTION 6.

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

Following a duly-noticed public hearing, the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on September 15, 2026 and was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting held on October 6, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:

Joelle Fockler, City Clerk
Attachment A: OMC Title 2 Text Deletions and Amendments Item I.3
Packet Page 30
Attachment A

2.55.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the words set out in this section shall have the following meanings:
…
G. "General services" means and includes any work performed or services rendered by an independent contractor, with or without the furnishing of materials, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Maintenance or nonstructural repair of city buildings, structures or improvements which does not require engineering plans, specifications or design, including, but not limited to, unscheduled replacement of broken window panes, fire extinguisher maintenance, minor roof repairs, plumbing, HVAC maintenance; elevator maintenance, custodial services and pest control, etc.;

2. Repair, modification and maintenance of city equipment and software;

3. Cleaning, analysis, testing, moving, removal or disposal (other than by sale) of city supplies and equipment;

4. Replanting, care or maintenance of public grounds, including, but not limited to, maintenance of trees, shrubbery, flowers, and lawns;

5. Providing temporary personnel services through an agency;

6. Providing other miscellaneous services to facilitate city operations;

7. Performing repair, demolition or other work required to abate nuisances under this code;

8. Licensing software services;

9. Leasing or rental of equipment (personal property) for use by the city;

10. Maintenance of equipment owned or leased by the city.

11. All other items not already listed under “general services” or another definition in this section, chapter 2.55.020
"General services" does not include consultant or professional services, or work associated with a public project.

2.55.040 Purchasing Agent designated.

The City Manager is designated as Purchasing Agent. The Purchasing Agent may delegate all or a portion of the contracting or purchasing duties to any city staff member.

The Purchasing Agent shall have the authority to:

A. Contract for or procure public projects consultant or professional services, general services, supplies and equipment required by the city, in accordance with purchasing procedures outlined in this chapter;
Item I.3
Packet Page 31
B. Negotiate and recommend execution of contracts for the purchase of public projects, consultant or professional services, general services, supplies and equipment;
C. Act to procure for the city the necessary quality in public projects, consultant or professional services, general services, supplies and equipment at the lowest cost to the city;
D. Establish and maintain such administrative procedures as are reasonably necessary for the operation of this chapter;
E. Pursuant to Section 2.55.150, arrange the sale or disposal of all supplies and equipment which cannot be used by the city, or which have become unsuitable for city use;
F. Join with other governmental agencies in joint purchasing endeavors where the purchasing procedures conform to the provisions of this chapter and state law.

2.55.050 Purchasing Agent authority for contracts and purchases—Less than sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00).

A. The Purchasing Agent is authorized to enter into a contract on behalf of the city and approve a purchase by the city without the prior approval of the City Council, so long as the contract or purchase satisfies each of the following conditions:

1. The total cost is less than sixty thousand thousand dollars ($60,000.00). The total amount paid or payable for contract or purchase, including all amendments and change orders, does not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000). This limit applies cumulatively to multiple contracts or purchases with the same person or entity for the same or substantially similar goods, services, equipment, supplies, or public project work. This authorization includes contracts for consultant or professional services, general services, supplies and equipment services that are ongoing in nature, spanning multiple fiscal years, so long as no such contract involves an expenditure of more than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) in any single fiscal year.

For purposes of this section, goods, services, equipment, supplies, or public project work are “the same or substantially similar” when they serve the same or a closely related purpose, are associated with the same project or operational requirement, constitute the same general type or category of purchase, or could reasonably have been procured together from the same group of potential vendors. Purchases need not be identical to be substantially similar.

Separate purchases may be evaluated independently when they are separately identifiable and independently necessary and have materially different scopes, deliverables, objectives, technical requirements, uses, or potential vendor markets. Purchases shall not be considered separate when they are interdependent, components or phases of the same project or requirement, or were divided or separately structured to avoid an approval threshold or procurement requirement.

Item I.3
Packet Page 32
Contracts or purchases shall not be divided, phased, separately contracted, separately invoiced, or otherwise structured for the purpose of avoiding the approval thresholds or procurement requirements of this chapter.

2. The monies have been appropriated in a Budget duly adopted by the City Council and there is an unexpended unencumbered balance of such appropriation sufficient to pay the expense of the contract, and the appropriate procurement procedures have been followed.

3. The contract or purchase is for consultant or professional services, general services, supplies, equipment or public project.

B. In an emergency the Purchasing Agent may authorize the expenditure of any unencumbered monies, notwithstanding the fact that such monies may not have been appropriated for such purpose, to the extent that said emergency funds are available and can be legally spent for the purchase and/or contract.

1. If the emergency expenditure is pursuant to an emergency declared by the Federal government and for which the City may receive Federal grant funds, the Purchasing Agent shall comply with applicable procurement standards in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 2, Part 200.

2. Further, a public project that is an emergency shall also comply with California Public Contract Code Chapter sections 22035 and 22050.

C. When approving contracts and purchases, the City Council may, by resolution, delegate authority to the Purchasing Agent that exceeds the authority described in this chapter.

2.55.080 Contracts and purchases of general services, supplies, and equipment— Greater than or equal to ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and less than sixty seventy-five thousand dollars ($6075,000).

A. For purchases of general services, supplies and equipment greater than or equal to ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and less than sixty seventy-five thousand dollars ($6075,000.00) every reasonable effort shall be made to obtain at least three quotations. Negotiated pricing is allowed.

1. For purchases greater than or equal to ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and less than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00), the quotations may be verbal or written.

2. For purchases greater than or equal to twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) and less than sixty seventy-five thousand dollars ($6075,000.00), the quotations shall be in writing, which writings may include facsimile and electronic mail transmissions.

B. Quotations with the required documentation shall be available for review by the Purchasing Agent or his/her designee. The purchase of any general services, supplies and equipment greater than or equal to ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and less than sixty seventy-five thousand dollars ($6075,000.00) shall be made Item I.3
Packet Page 33
from the vendor that submits the lowest total cost and is consistent with the factors stated in Section 2.55.060.

C. At the discretion of the Purchasing Agent, the competitive bidding procedure set forth in Section 2.55.090 may be used for any acquisition of general services, supplies and equipment, regardless of the value.

2.55.090 City Council authority for contracts and purchases—Greater than or equal to sixty thousand dollars ($6075,000.00)—Competitive bidding.

City Council approval shall be required to authorize the contract for or purchase of general services or supplies and equipment with a cost greater than or equal to sixty seventy-five thousand dollars ($6075,000.00); and such purchases shall comply with the competitive bidding procedure set forth in this section, unless the City Council approves an exception pursuant to Section 2.55.100.

A. Notices inviting bids shall include a general description of the services and/or articles to be purchased or sold, where bid blanks and specifications may be obtained, the time and place for bid openings, and whether a bid deposit or bond and a faithful performance bond will be required.

B. Notices inviting bids shall be posted on the City website and may also be advertised by other means of public posting, at least fourteen (14) calendar days before the date of opening the bids.

C. The Purchasing Agent shall solicit sealed bids from all responsible prospective suppliers whose names are on a City bidder's list and may advertise the notice inviting bids in applicable publications and websites readily accessible to the public.

D. Bids shall be opened in public at the time and place stated in the public notices. A tabulation of all bids received shall be open for public inspection during regular business hours for a period of not less than thirty (30) calendar days after the bid opening.

E. At its discretion, the City Council may reject all bids presented and re-advertise for bids.

F. At its discretion the City Council shall have the right to waive any defect or informality in the bidding or in the procedures set forth in this section. Unless provided by law, no defect or informality shall void any contract entered into.

G. Contracts shall be awarded by the City Council to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, except as otherwise provided herein.

H. If two or more bids received from responsible bidders are for the same total amount or unit price, quality and service being equal, preference shall be given to the local vendor, or the City Council may accept the lowest bid made by negotiation with the tie bidders and the Purchasing Agent at the time of the bid opening.

Item I.3
Packet Page 34
Created: 2026-04-07 08:15:33 [EST]
(Supp. No. 24)

Page 7 of 7 ends

2.55.105 Contracts for consultant or professional services.

A. Consultant or Professional Services: Contracts or purchases involving the acquisition of consultant or professional services are exempt from competitive bidding; however, the procurement of such services shall be awarded on the basis of demonstrated competence and professional qualifications for the satisfactory performance of the services required and the reasonableness of the cost of services subject to the following:

1. Contracts or purchases involving the acquisition of consultant or professional services greater than or equal to sixty seventy-five thousand dollars ($6075,000.00) will require City Council approval.

2. With respect to contracts for or procurement of professional services from private architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, land surveying, or construction project management firms, the Purchasing Agent shall establish administrative procedures to assure that such services are engaged on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the types of services to be performed and at fair and reasonable prices in compliance with Government Code Section 4526 or its successor.

3. The Purchasing Agent may utilize a request for quotation or request for proposal, to ensure the services are matched with the needs of the city.

Item I.3
Packet Page 35

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Planning
Meeting Date: September 15, 2026
SUBJECT:

Lamorinda Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (PADU) Prototype Designs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Orinda, in partnership with the City of Lafayette and the Town of Moraga, is participating in the Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Program with grant funding of $150,000 ($50,000 per jurisdiction pooled) to develop a shared library of pre-approved ADU (PADU) plans for Lamorinda residents. This report provides an overview of Orinda’s participation in the program and presents a resolution approving four prototype ADU designs to be made available to the public, a required step to satisfy state grant guidelines by September 30, 2026, in order to retain the program's funding.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 71-26 Approving the Lamorinda Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (PADU) Prototype Designs
BACKGROUND:

The City of Orinda, in partnership with the City of Lafayette and the Town of Moraga, is participating in the Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Program to develop a shared library of pre-approved ADU (PADU) plans for residents throughout Lamorinda (see Weblink A for program details.) The California Budget Act of 2023 allocated $2.5 million through the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the program, which supports both financial incentives for ADU construction and development of preapproved ADU plans. The program aims to facilitate the construction of ADUs and address barriers to ADU development, including design costs and permitting time.

DISCUSSION:

Lamorinda PADU Program Overview
The Lamorinda PADU program is a community resource designed to simplify, demystify, and reduce barriers to the process of building an ADU. By offering a library of professionally designed, code-compliant architectural plans at no cost, the program helps homeowners save significantly on upfront design fees (typically 10% of the project cost) and months of drafting time, thereby removing major barriers to creating new housing.

Item I.4
Packet Page 36
When the program launches, a member of the public will interact with it in three basic steps:

1. Browse and select: The homeowner reviews the catalog, hosted jointly by the three jurisdictions of available pre-approved designs and selects the prototype that best fits their needs, budget, and lot size.

2. Prepare site-specific plans: The homeowner requests access and downloads the architectural plan sets and works with a designer, drafter, or engineer to create a site plan showing exactly where the unit will go on their specific property. The homeowner and their consultant select from the various options included in each plan set that will meet their needs (finishes, colors, foundation style, porches, interior walls, etc.)

3. Submit permits: The homeowner submits the pre-approved architectural plans alongside their custom site plan for a building permit. Because the structure itself has already been vetted for building code compliance, by each local jurisdiction, as well as the Building Department’s review, the process is streamlined.

While the PADU program significantly streamlines the process, pre-approval of the prototype plans will not constitute automatic approval of an ADU on any particular property. A homeowner using a PADU prototype must submit site-specific plans demonstrating compliance with applicable building, fire, access, utility, grading, drainage, tree protection, and other requirements.

Site-specific modifications may be necessary based on the property's conditions. The final PADU materials will clearly identify the intended use and limitations of the prototype plans so residents understand that the plans may not be suitable for every property, and that additional site engineering or design work will still be required before construction can begin.

Program development
Each participating jurisdiction received $50,000 to develop pre-approved ADU plans and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to consolidate these funds for a joint Lamorinda PADU program, with Lafayette acting as lead agency. The jurisdictions issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in May 2026, seeking a consultant to develop permit-ready prototype plans, and received eight proposals. Staff across the three jurisdictions jointly reviewed the applications and selected RRM Design Group to develop the prototype plans as a result of their regional project experience, expertise in developing similar PADU programs, competitive pricing, and robust design portfolio (see Attachment D for RRM Design Group’s proposal.)
Consolidated Feedback and Plan Revisions- Planning Commission Throughout August 2026, the Planning Commissions of Orinda, Moraga, and Lafayette all reviewed the draft prototypes.

Item I.4
Packet Page 37
On August 11, 2026, the Orinda Planning Commission held a study session to review the four draft PADU prototype designs (Weblink B). The Commission provided high-level advisory feedback on the architectural character, functionality, and overall design of the plans. This input, along with feedback collected from each other jurisdiction’s commission, was consolidated and provided to RRM Design Group. After making adjustments that were possible based on feedback, RRM Design Group provided the final draft PADU plan sets (Attachment B).

Under the SD 7 ADU Accelerator Program requirements, each jurisdiction must adopt the PADU plans by Town/City Council resolution by September 30, 2026, the program's conclusion date, to retain the grant funding. Any unused funding would be returned at that time.

After receiving approval by the respective Councils, RRM Design Group will prepare complete building plan sets. Each final plan set will fully comply with the 2025 California Building Code and all Local Contra Costa County Amendments. They will include the following:

1. Floor plan

2. Foundation plans, including slab-on-grade and options for moderately sloped sites

3. Sections (1 – 2)

4. Exterior elevations

5. Roof plan

6. Renderings of exterior and interior features suitable for publication

7. Material schedules for each of the three architectural styles

8. Electrical

9. Schematic Mechanical

10. All other Preapproved Accessory Dwelling Unit Submittal Checklist requirements of the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department The consultant will coordinate with the participating jurisdictions, fire districts, and the Contra Costa County Building Division to address applicable building and permitting requirements after receiving approval of the floor plan and designs.

The anticipated go-live for the program is March 2027.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The proposed action does not constitute a "Project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5). The action is an administrative and organizational activity of the City that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Future physical construction of ADUs utilizing pre-approved plan sets will be subject to a ministerial building permit review process. ADUs and JADUs approved ministerially are Item I.4
Packet Page 38
statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects) of the CEQA guidelines and Section 21080, subdivision (b)(1) of the Public Resources Code. In addition, ADUs can be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines.

Program design framework and constraints
To ensure these plans are functional, cost-effective, and legally streamlined for residents, the designs are bound by several specific parameters:
• State Streamlining: The PADU plans are intentionally limited to under 800 square feet with proposed maximum heights ranging from 13'-2" to 15'-7", remaining under the maximum allowable height of 16 feet. This ensures they are eligible for streamlined, ministerial ADU review under State law and the Orinda Municipal Code across all participating Lamorinda jurisdictions. By State law, square footage for ADUs is measured to include interior usable space and walls and does not include exterior walls.
• Impact Fee Flexibility: While Plans #3 and #4 both provide two-bedroom layouts, Plan #3 is intentionally kept just under 750 square feet at exactly 746 sq. ft. ADUs 750 square feet or larger are required to pay a proportion of development impact fees; this plan provides homeowners with a two-bedroom option that minimizes additional costs.
• Lamorinda Site Conditions: Because Lamorinda contains diverse site conditions, the final plan sets will include foundational options for both level and sloped sites (raised floor, stem wall, and stepped footings).
• Wildfire Resiliency: All properties within Orinda and Moraga are located in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUI-FA). The plans will include WUIcompliant construction details and will be reviewed by the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD).

Overview of the proposed plan sets
Attachment B includes the complete draft PADU library (floor plans, elevations, and renderings). All four base plans include a dedicated, externally accessed water heater room (3'-0" x 3'-0") and a laundry facility. The colors shown in the design package are strictly illustrative; construction documents will note that final material and color selections should match the property's primary residence.

Table 1 outlines the four draft plan sets for review.

Item I.4
Packet Page 39
Table 1: Plan set comparison
Plan #1 (Sheets A2–
A6) PDF
Plan #2 (Sheets
A7–A11) PDF
Plan #3 (Sheets
A12–A16) PDF
Plan #4
(Sheets A17–
A21) PDF
495 sq. ft. 496 – 601 sq. ft. 746 sq. ft. 796 sq. ft.

Studio / 1-Bath 1-Bed / 1-Bath 2-Bed / 2-Bath 2-Bed / 2-Bath • Features optional
interior walls and a
door to enclose an
optional bedroom
space.
• Option to add a
skylight or solatube.
• Includes an optional
5'-0" x 10'-6" covered
front porch.
• Adaptable
bathroom and
open living
spaces.
• Base plan
includes an
optional 16'-6" x
5'-6" covered
porch.
• Expandable:

Porch may be
replaced with an
extended living
area, increasing
space to 601 sq.
ft.
• Keeps size
strictly under the
750 sq. ft. impact
fee threshold.
• Flexible layout
allows the
second bedroom
to easily convert
into an optional
office.
• Optional 15'-2"
x 5'-0" covered
porch.
• Maximizes the
800 sq. ft. state
streamlining
limit.
• Symmetrical
layout with a
bed/bath on
each side of the
unit.
• Optional 17'-0"
x 5'-0" covered
porch.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is minimal fiscal impact, as the consultant contract and associated review costs are fully covered by the consolidated $150,000 grant allocation from the Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Program.
• Total Grant Budget: $150,000
• RRM Design Group Base Contract: $106,910
• Remaining Budget: $43,090
The remaining $43,090 budget serves as a buffer to cover optional consultant tasks (such as Craftsman detailing and mirrored plan revisions) as well as anticipated external agency review fees. These external fees include an estimated $20,000 for the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development review and TBD costs for the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) review.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

Item I.4
Packet Page 40
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Proposed Resolution 71-26 Adopting PADU Prototype Plans for the Joint Lamorinda PADU Program, with Exhibit A, Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
B. Lamorinda Memorandum of Understanding for PADU Program C. RRM Design Group – Response to RFP proposal
D. Executed Professional Services Agreement with RRM Design Group E. Staff Presentation
WEBLINK(S):

A. ADU Accelerator Program for Senate District 7:
https://www.danville.ca.gov/1055/ADU-Accelerator-Program-for-Senate-Distr B. Orinda Planning Commission Study Session, August 11, 2026:
https://pub-orinda.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=1285597e-7b64-46e7- 98e3-
c5d7977366d6&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=3218&Tab=attachments Prepared by: Darin Hughes, Associate Planner
Respectfully Submitted by,
Lashun Cross, Planning Director
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.4
Packet Page 41
Resolution No. 71-26 1
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO. 71-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

ADOPTING PRE-APPROVED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (PADU) PROTOTYPE

PLANS AS PART OF THE JOINT LAMORINDA PADU PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the California Budget Act of 2023 allocated $2,500,000 to the Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Program, administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, to encourage the production of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to help address California's housing crisis; and WHEREAS, the City of Orinda, in partnership with the City of Lafayette and the Town of Moraga, is participating in the Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Program to develop a shared library of pre-approved ADU (PADU) plans for residents throughout Lamorinda; and
WHEREAS, the Lamorinda PADU program is designed to simplify the building process and remove major barriers to creating new housing by offering professionally designed, code-compliant architectural plans at no cost to homeowners; and WHEREAS, the proposed action does not constitute a "Project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it is an administrative and organizational activity of the City that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and
WHEREAS, future physical construction of ADUs utilizing these pre-approved plan sets will be subject to a ministerial building permit review process and are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15268 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21080, subdivision (b)(1) of the Public Resources Code, and can be categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Program guidelines require the City to adopt a resolution approving the ADU Plans prior to the program's expenditure deadline on September 30, 2026, to retain the grant funding; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2026, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the City Council discussed the issues and considered all evidence presented in making its decision.
//
//
Item I.4
Packet Page 42
Resolution No. 71-26 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby adopt the Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (PADU) prototype plans, attached hereto as Exhibit A, for use in the Lamorinda PADU Program.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a regular meeting on September 15, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

________________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Joelle Fockler, MMC, City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A - Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 43

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PACKAGE

LAMORINDA

PRE-APPROVED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

PREPARED BY
RRM Design Group

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH

OPTIONAL BEDROOM
10'-0" x 11'-0"
BATH
7'-4" x 5'-2"

KITCHEN
7'-4" x 16'-2"

LIVING / DINING
10'-3" x 16'-2"
CL
10'-0 x 2'-2"

LAUNDRY
3'-2" x 3'-2"
WH
3'-0" x 3'-0"
18' - 6"
30' - 0"

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
5'-0 x 10'-6"
GROSS AREA: 555 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 495 SF

OPTIONAL WALLS
&DOOR
REF
DW
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE
PRE-APPROVED ADU 1-BED/1-BATH (495 SF) A1
LAMORINDA 4232-01-PP26 07/15/26
PLAN 1 | STUDIO / 1 BATH | 495 SF
PLAN 1 1 3/16” = 1’ - 0” (ON 11X17 SHEET)
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 45
A3 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 1 | PERSPECTIVE | CRAFTSMAN / RANCH 4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
OPTIONAL BEDROOM 10'-0" x 11'-0"
BATH
7'-4" x 5'-2"

KITCHEN
7'-4" x 16'-2"
LIVING / DINING 10'-3" x 16'-2"
CL 10'-0 x 2'-2"

LAUNDRY
3'-2" x 3'-2"
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
18' - 6"
30' - 0" OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
5'-0 x 10'-6"
GROSS AREA: 555 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 495 SF

OPTIONAL WALLS
&DOOR
REF
DW
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE
PROVED ADU 1-BED/1-BATH (495 SF) A1
4232-01-PP26 07/15/26
PLAN 1 - CRAFTSMAN / RANCH A RENDERING
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 46
A4 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

ADHERED MASONRY
VENEER

ASPHALT SHINGLE

ROOFING

FIBER CEMENT
SIDING
FRONT ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
RIGHT ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION 3 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION 4 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
PLAN 1 | ELEVATIONS | CRAFTSMAN / RANCH
0’-0”FF
0’-0”FF

FINISHED FLOOR

FINISHED FLOOR
9’-1”
9’-1”

PLATE HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
16’-0”
16’-0”
13’-2”
13’-2”

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOF
OPT. ADHERED

MASONRY VENEER
5:12 TYP.

ROOF SLOPE
TYP. OVERHANGS
EAVES - 12”
RAKES - 12”
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 47
A5
LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
OPTIONAL BEDROOM 10'-0" x 11'-0"
BATH
7'-4" x 5'-2"

KITCHEN
7'-4" x 16'-2"
LIVING / DINING 10'-3" x 16'-2"
CL 10'-0 x 2'-2"

LAUNDRY
3'-2" x 3'-2"
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
18' - 6"
30' - 0" OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
5'-0 x 10'-6"
GROSS AREA: 555 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 495 SF

OPTIONAL WALLS
&DOOR
REF
DW
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE
PROVED ADU 1-BED/1-BATH (495 SF) A1
4232-01-PP26 07/15/26
PLAN 1 - MEDITERRANEAN C RENDERING
PLAN 1 | PERSPECTIVE | MEDITERRANEAN
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 48
A6 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 1 | ELEVATIONS | MEDITERRANEAN 4232-01-PP26

S-TILE ROOF

DECORATIVE FAUX

ROOF VENT
STUCCO
FINISH

RAFTER TAILS
5:12 TYP.

ROOF SLOPE TYP. OVERHANGS
EAVES - 12”
RAKES - 4”
FRONT ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
RIGHT ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION 3 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION 4 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
0’-0”FF
0’-0”FF

FINISHED FLOOR

FINISHED FLOOR
9’-1”
9’-1”

PLATE HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
16’-0”
16’-0”
13’-4”
13’-4”

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 49
A7
LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 558 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 496 SF
NET AREA (PORCH FILL IN MINUS WH): 601 SF

KITCHEN / DINING
20'-2" x 8'-4"
ADAPT. BATH
7'-2" x 8'-4"

LAUNDRY
3'-6" x 3'-2"
CL
6'-6 x 3'-2"

BEDROOM
10' - 6" x 10' - 6"
WH
3'-0" x 3'-0"
17' - 3"

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
16'-6 x 5'-6"
28' - 0"

OPTIONAL EXTENDED LIVING AREA IN LIEU
OF PORCH. INCREASES SF TO 601 SF
LIVING
20'-2" x 9'-8"
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE

KITCHEN / DINING
20'-2" x 8'-4"
ADAPT. BATH
7'-2" x 8'-4"

LAUNDRY
3'-6" x 3'-2"
CL
6'-6 x 3'-2"

STANDARD PLAN EXTENDED LIVING ROOM PLAN
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 50
A8 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 2 | PERSPECTIVE | CRAFTSMAN / RANCH 4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 558 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 496 SF
NET AREA (PORCH FILL IN MINUS WH): 601 SF
KITCHEN / DINING 20'-2" x 8'-4"
ADAPT. BATH 7'-2" x 8'-4"

LAUNDRY
3'-6" x 3'-2"
CL 6'-6 x 3'-2"

BEDROOM
10' - 6" x 10' - 6"
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
17' - 3"

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
16'-6 x 5'-6"
28' - 0"

OPTIONAL EXTENDED LIVING AREA IN LIEU
OF PORCH. INCREASES SF TO 601 SF
LIVING
20'-2" x 9'-8"
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE
KITCHEN / DINING 20'-2" x 8'-4"
ADAPT. BATH 7'-2" x 8'-4"

LAUNDRY
3'-6" x 3'-2"
CL 6'-6 x 3'-2"

BEDROOM
10' - 6" x 10' - 6"
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
22' - 9"
28' - 0"
LIVING
CL
23' - 9"
16' - 6" 11' - 6"
20'-2" x 15'-2"
2'-1" x 3'-4"
PRE-APPROVED ADU 1-BED/1-BATH (598 SF) A2 LAMORINDA 4232-01-PP26 07/15/26 PLAN 2 - CRAFTSMAN / RANCH A RENDERING
OPT. METAL ROOF
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 51
A9 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

FIBER CEMENT
SIDING
PLAN 2 | ELEVATIONS | CRAFTSMAN / RANCH

ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOF
5:12 TYP.

ROOF SLOPE
OPT. ADHERED
OPT. METAL ROOF MASONRY VENEER
TYP. OVERHANGS
EAVES - 12”
RAKES - 12”
FRONT ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
RIGHT ELEVATION 4 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION 3 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
0’-0”FF
0’-0”FF

FINISHED FLOOR

FINISHED FLOOR
9’-1”
9’-1”

PLATE HEIGHT

PLATE HEIGHT
16’-0”
16’-0”

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
13’-4”

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
13’-4”
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 52
A10 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 558 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 496 SF
NET AREA (PORCH FILL IN MINUS WH): 601 SF
KITCHEN / DINING 20'-2" x 8'-4"
ADAPT. BATH 7'-2" x 8'-4"

LAUNDRY
3'-6" x 3'-2"
CL 6'-6 x 3'-2"

BEDROOM
10' - 6" x 10' - 6"
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
17' - 3"

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
16'-6 x 5'-6"
28' - 0"

OPTIONAL EXTENDED LIVING AREA IN LIEU
OF PORCH. INCREASES SF TO 601 SF
LIVING
20'-2" x 9'-8"
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE
KITCHEN / DINING 20'-2" x 8'-4"
ADAPT. BATH 7'-2" x 8'-4"

LAUNDRY
3'-6" x 3'-2"
CL 6'-6 x 3'-2"

BEDROOM
10' - 6" x 10' - 6"
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
22' - 9"
28' - 0"
LIVING
CL
23' - 9"
16' - 6" 11' - 6"
20'-2" x 15'-2"
2'-1" x 3'-4"
PRE-APPROVED ADU 1-BED/1-BATH (598 SF) A2 LAMORINDA 4232-01-PP26 07/15/26 PLAN 2 - MEDITERRANEAN C RENDERING
PLAN 2 | PERSPECTIVE | MEDITERRANEAN
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 53
A11
LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 2 | ELEVATIONS | MEDITERRANEAN 4232-01-PP26

DECORATIVE FAUX S-TILE ROOF

ROOF VENT
STUCCO
FINISH
0’-0”FF
0’-0”FF

FINISHED FLOOR

FINISHED FLOOR
9’-1”
9’-1”

PLATE HEIGHT

PLATE HEIGHT
16’-0”
16’-0”

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
5:12 TYP.

ROOF SLOPE TYP. OVERHANGS
EAVES - 12”
RAKES - 4”
FRONT ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
RIGHT ELEVATION 4 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION 3 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)

RAFTER TAILS

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
14’-4”

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
14’-4”
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 54
A12 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 824 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 746 SF
WH
3'-0" x 3'-0"
CL 1
8'-1" x 2'-2"
BED 1
10'-0" x 10'-1"
CL 2
2'-2" x 6'-7"
BATH 2
8' 6" X 7'

LAUNDRY
3'-4" x 3'-2"
BATH 1
8'-1" x 5'-0"
LIVING
14'-4" x 12'-7"

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
15'-2" x 5'-0"
CL
3'-3" x 2'-1"

KITCHEN / DINING
14'-4" x 8'-4"
40' - 0"
2' - 3" 19' - 9"
5' - 0"
22' - 0"
27' - 0"

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE

OPTIONAL WALLS
&DOOR
BED 2 / OPT. OFFICE
11'-8" x 10'-6"
PRE-APPROVED ADU 2-BED/2-BATH (746 SF) A3
LAMORINDA 4232-01-PP26 07/15/26
PLAN 3 | 2 BED / 2 BATH | 746 SF
PLAN 3 3 3/16” = 1’ - 0” (ON 11X17 SHEET)
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 55
A13 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 3 | PERSPECTIVE | CRAFTSMAN / RANCH 4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 824 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 746 SF
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
CL 1
8'-1" x 2'-2"
BED 1
10'-0" x 10'-1"
CL 2
2'-2" x 6'-7"
BATH 2
8' 6" X 7'

LAUNDRY
3'-4" x 3'-2"
BATH 1
8'-1" x 5'-0"
LIVING
14'-4" x 12'-7"

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
15'-2" x 5'-0"
CL 3'-3" x 2'-1"
KITCHEN / DINING 14'-4" x 8'-4"
40' - 0"
2' - 3" 19' - 9"
5' - 0"
22' - 0"
27' - 0"

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE

OPTIONAL WALLS
&DOOR
BED 2 / OPT. OFFICE 11'-8" x 10'-6"
PRE-APPROVED ADU 2-BED/2-BATH (746 SF) A3 LAMORINDA 4232-01-PP26 07/15/26 PLAN 3 - CRAFTSMAN / RANCH A RENDERING
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 56
A14 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 3 | ELEVATIONS | CRAFTSMAN / RANCH 4232-01-PP26
5:12 TYP.

ROOF SLOPE
0’-0”FF
0’-0”FF

FINISHED FLOOR

FINISHED FLOOR
9’-1”
9’-1”

PLATE HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
16’-0”
16’-0”
13’-8”
13’-8”

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
FRONT ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
RIGHT ELEVATION 4 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION 3 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
TYP. OVERHANGS
EAVES - 12”
RAKES - 12”

FIBER CEMENT
SIDING
OPT. ADHERED

MASONRY VENEER

ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOF
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 57
A15
LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 824 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 746 SF
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
CL 1
8'-1" x 2'-2"
BED 1
10'-0" x 10'-1"
CL 2
2'-2" x 6'-7"
BATH 2
8' 6" X 7'

LAUNDRY
3'-4" x 3'-2"
BATH 1
8'-1" x 5'-0"
LIVING
14'-4" x 12'-7"

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
15'-2" x 5'-0"
CL 3'-3" x 2'-1"
KITCHEN / DINING 14'-4" x 8'-4"
40' - 0"
2' - 3" 19' - 9"
5' - 0"
22' - 0"
27' - 0"

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE

OPTIONAL WALLS
&DOOR
BED 2 / OPT. OFFICE 11'-8" x 10'-6"
PRE-APPROVED ADU 2-BED/2-BATH (746 SF) A3 LAMORINDA 4232-01-PP26 07/15/26 PLAN 3 - MEDITERRANEAN C RENDERING
PLAN 3 | PERSPECTIVE | MEDITERRANEAN
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 58
A16 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 3 | ELEVATIONS | MEDITERRANEAN 4232-01-PP26

DECORATIVE FAUX

ROOF VENT

S-TILE ROOF STUCCO
FINISH
5:12 TYP.

TYP. OVERHANGS
EAVES - 12”
RAKES - 4”

ROOF SLOPE
FRONT ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
RIGHT ELEVATION 4 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION 3 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
0’-0”FF
0’-0”FF

FINISHED FLOOR

FINISHED FLOOR
9’-1”
9’-1”

PLATE HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
16’-0”
16’-0”
13’-4”
13’-4”

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 59
A17
LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 872 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 796 SF

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
17'-0 x 5'-0"
HALL
3'-6"' X 12'-11"
BED 1
11' 1" X 10'-1"
CL
2'-2" x 6'-0"
BATH 2
10'-5" X 5'-1" LNDRY
3' X 5' 6"
BATH 1
8'-5" x 5' 6"
CL
3'-6" x 3'-0"
CL
2'-2" x 6'-0"
LIVING
16'-1" x 10'-9"
CL
2' X 3'
WH
3'-0" x 3'-0"
BED 2
10'-5" x 10'-1"

KITCHEN / DINING
10'-9" x 14'6"
27' - 10"
31' - 4" 5' - 2"
17' - 0" 10' - 10"
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE
PRE-APPROVED ADU 2-BED/2-BATH (796 SF) A4
LAMORINDA 4232-01-PP26 07/15/26
PLAN 4 | 2 BED / 2 BATH | 796 SF
PLAN 4 4 3/16” = 1’ - 0” (ON 11X17 SHEET)
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 60
A18 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 4 | PERSPECTIVE | CRAFTSMAN / RANCH 4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 872 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 796 SF

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
17'-0 x 5'-0"
HALL 3'-6"' X 12'-11"
BED 1
11' 1" X 10'-1"
CL 2'-2" x 6'-0"
BATH 2
10'-5" X 5'-1" LNDRY
3' X 5' 6"
BATH 1
8'-5" x 5' 6"
CL 3'-6" x 3'-0"
CL 2'-2" x 6'-0"
LIVING
16'-1" x 10'-9"
CL
2' X 3'
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
BED 2
10'-5" x 10'-1"
KITCHEN / DINING 10'-9" x 14'6"
27' - 10"
31' - 4" 5' - 2"
17' - 0" 10' - 10"
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE
ROVED ADU 2-BED/2-BATH (796 SF) A4
4232-01-PP26 07/15/26
PLAN 4 - CRAFTSMAN / RANCH A RENDERING
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 61
A19 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

ADHERED MASONRY
VENEER

ASPHALT SHINGLE

ROOFING
PLAN 4 | ELEVATIONS | CRAFTSMAN / RANCH
5:12 TYP.

TYP. OVERHANGS
EAVES - 12”
RAKES - 12”

ROOF SLOPE
0’-0”FF
0’-0”FF

FINISHED FLOOR

FINISHED FLOOR
9’-1”
9’-1”

PLATE HEIGHT

PLATE HEIGHT
16’-0”
16’-0”

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
14’-8”

FIBER CEMENT
SIDING

ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOF
OPT. ADHERED

MASONRY VENEER
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 62
A20 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
4232-01-PP26

OPTIONAL SHOWER

IN LIEU OF TUB
GROSS AREA: 872 SF
NET AREA (MINUS WH): 796 SF

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
17'-0 x 5'-0"
HALL 3'-6"' X 12'-11"
BED 1
11' 1" X 10'-1"
CL 2'-2" x 6'-0"
BATH 2
10'-5" X 5'-1" LNDRY
3' X 5' 6"
BATH 1
8'-5" x 5' 6"
CL 3'-6" x 3'-0"
CL 2'-2" x 6'-0"
LIVING
16'-1" x 10'-9"
CL
2' X 3'
WH 3'-0" x 3'-0"
BED 2
10'-5" x 10'-1"
KITCHEN / DINING 10'-9" x 14'6"
27' - 10"
31' - 4" 5' - 2"
17' - 0" 10' - 10"
OPT. SKYLIGHT

OR SOLATUBE
ROVED ADU 2-BED/2-BATH (796 SF) A4
4232-01-PP26 07/15/26
PLAN 4 - MEDITERRANEAN C RENDERING
PLAN 4 | PERSPECTIVE | MEDITERRANEAN
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 63
A21 LAMORINDA PROTOTYPE ADUS ISSUE DATE: 08/28/2026
PLAN 4 | ELEVATIONS | MEDITERRANEAN 4232-01-PP26
0’-0”FF
0’-0”FF

FINISHED FLOOR

FINISHED FLOOR
9’-1”
9’-1”

PLATE HEIGHT

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
16’-0”
16’-0”
15’-7”

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
5:12 TYP.

TYP. OVERHANGS
EAVES - 12”
RAKES - 4”

ROOF SLOPE
FRONT ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
RIGHT ELEVATION 4 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION 3 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" (11 X 17 SHEET)

MAX PROPOSED HEIGHT
15’-7”

STUCCO S-TILE ROOF
FINISH

RAFTER TAILS
Resolution 71-26 Exhibit A: Final Draft Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Item I.4
Packet Page 64
1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, THE TOWN OF MORAGA,

AND THE CITY OF ORINDA FOR PARTICIPATION IN
SENATE DISTRICT 7 ADU PLAN PROGRAM
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into this 9th day of June 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Lafayette, a California municipal corporation (“Lafayette”), the Town of Moraga, a California municipal corporation (“Moraga”), and the City of Orinda, a California municipal corporation (“Orinda”). Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this MOU.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Senate District 7 ADU Plans Program (“SD 7”) provides funding to participating jurisdictions for the development of pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) plans; and WHEREAS, each of the Parties has received or anticipates receiving funding through SD 7 for such purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to collaborate to maximize the efficiency and impact of such funding by pooling resources and coordinating with respect to the procurement of consulting and design services; and
WHEREAS, the Parties intend to develop a shared library of permit-ready or pre-approved ADU plans that comply with applicable State and local regulations, subject only to site-specific requirements, such as individual site plans and structural engineering, and only for use within each Party’s jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are required to return any unspent program funds and provide SD 7 with adopted Council resolutions reflecting approval of the pre-approved ADU plans by the conclusion of the SD 7 program on September 30, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set forth the terms and conditions governing their collaboration through this MOU.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Purpose
The purpose of this MOU is to establish a collaborative framework among the Parties to participate in SD 7 by pooling allocated funds, coordinating resources, and coordinating with respect to Attachment B Item I.4
Packet Page 65
2 Lafayette’s procurement and administration of consulting and design services for the development of a shared library of pre-approved ADU Plans (“ADU Plans”). The Parties intend that this effort will result in permit-ready or pre-approved ADU plans that comply with applicable State and local regulations, reduce upfront design and permitting costs for residents, streamline plan review and approval processes, and provide high-quality, adaptable designs suitable for a range of lot sizes and site conditions within each Party’s jurisdiction.

2. Scope of Collaboration

2.1 The Parties agree to collaborate in good faith to establish project parameters, design criteria, and program requirements. The Parties further agree to coordinate in good faith with respect to the selection of a qualified consultant or design team (“Consultant”), review and evaluation of project deliverables, and implementation of the ADU Plans. Lafayette, as Lead Agency, shall conduct the procurement process, enter into the Consultant agreement, and administer the Consultant agreement, in consultation with the other Parties as provided in this MOU. Nothing in this MOU shall obligate any Party to approve, adopt, or implement any specific ADU Plan. Each Party retains sole and absolute discretion with respect to the adoption, use, or implementation of any ADU Plans within its jurisdiction.

2.2 The Parties shall work collaboratively and in good faith to resolve any disagreements or conflicts related to implementation of this MOU. Designated staff representatives from each Party shall first meet and confer to address any issues that may arise during the program. If the designated representatives are unable to resolve the matter, the issue may be elevated to the respective City/Town Managers, or their designees, for further consideration and resolution. If the City/Town Managers, or their designees, are unable to resolve the matter, the Parties shall confer regarding appropriate next steps, which may include amendment, suspension, or termination of this MOU in accordance with its terms.

3. Lead Agency and Administration

3.1 City of Lafayette shall serve as the lead agency (the “Lead Agency”) for purposes of administering the project contemplated under this MOU. In such capacity, the Lead Agency shall be responsible for coordinating the procurement process, entering into and administering the Consultant contract, reviewing and processing invoices, and facilitating coordination among the Parties with respect to project deliverables. The Parties acknowledge that the Consultant agreement shall be between Lafayette and Consultant only, and that Moraga and Orinda shall not be parties to the Consultant agreement.

3.2 The Lead Agency shall perform its responsibilities in good faith and in a manner consistent with applicable law. However, nothing in this MOU shall be construed to impose fiduciary duties or create any heightened standard of care. The Lead Agency shall not be responsible for the independent review, approval, or implementation decisions of the other Parties.

Item I.4
Packet Page 66
3 3.3 Each Party shall designate a representative to coordinate with the Lead Agency regarding project administration, review of deliverables, and other related matters.

3.4 The Parties acknowledge and agree that Lafayette, as Lead Agency, shall be responsible for providing direction to Consultant under the Consultant agreement. Moraga and Orinda may provide comments, requested revisions, and other input to Lafayette regarding the ADU Plans and project deliverables, but shall not directly authorize changes in scope, additional services, contract amendments, schedule modifications, or other Consultant obligations unless expressly authorized by Lafayette in writing.

4. Term
This MOU shall become effective as of the Effective Date and shall remain in effect until completion of the ADU Plans, unless earlier terminated as provided herein.

5. Withdrawal and Termination

5.1 Any Party may withdraw from this MOU for any reason upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other Parties.

5.2 A withdrawing Party shall remain responsible for the funding set forth in Section 6.1 whether incurred, so long as committed prior to the effective date of withdrawal, including costs associated with any executed Consultant agreement. The withdrawing Party shall not be entitled to a refund of any funds previously expended.

5.3 This MOU may be terminated at any time by mutual written agreement of all Parties.

5.4 The Lead Agency may terminate the Consultant agreement in accordance with its terms if the project becomes infeasible, funding is insufficient, or the Parties are unable to reach agreement on material project decisions. In such event, the Parties shall be responsible for their respective shares of costs incurred through the effective date of termination.

6. Funding and Cost Sharing

6.1 Each Party anticipates contributing funding received through SD 7, currently estimated at approximately Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($50,000.00) per Party, toward the development of the ADU Plans. The total project budget and each Party’s anticipated contribution shall be confirmed in writing prior to execution of the Consultant Agreement, but shall in no event exceed the amount each Party receives through SD 7 toward the development of the ADU Plans.

Item I.4
Packet Page 67
4 6.2 Project costs shall be allocated among the Parties based on actual costs incurred for services performed under the Consultant Agreement. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties, all project costs shall be divided equally among the three Parties, with each Party responsible for a one-third (1/3) share. The Lead Agency shall be responsible for receiving and reviewing invoices from the Consultant and providing copies or summaries of Consultant invoices to the other Parties upon request.

6.3 The Lead Agency shall provide periodic accountings of project expenditures to the Parties, including copies or summaries of Consultant invoices upon request. Each Party shall be responsible for reimbursing the Lead Agency or paying its share of the invoices, as applicable, in accordance with procedures established by the Parties. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all project costs shall be divided equally among the three participating Parties, with each Party responsible for a one-third (1/3) share.

6.4 Each Party’s total financial obligation under this MOU shall not exceed the amount of funding set forth in Section 6.1 above unless this MOU is amended in writing by the Parties. No Party shall be responsible for the financial obligations of any other Party, and no Party shall have authority to obligate any other Party to expend funds or incur liability.

7. Cost Overruns and Scope Changes

7.1 The Lead Agency shall not authorize any amendment to the Consultant contract that would increase the total project cost or materially change the scope of work unless this MOU is amended in writing by the Parties.

7.2 In the event that additional services or funding are required to complete the project, the Parties shall confer in good faith to determine whether to proceed with such work and how any associated costs will be allocated. No Party shall be obligated to contribute additional funds unless this MOU is amended in writing by the Parties.

7.3 If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding additional funding or scope changes, the Lead Agency may proceed to complete the project within the existing approved budget, modify the scope accordingly, or terminate the Consultant contract, as appropriate.

8. Procurement
The procurement of the Consultant shall be conducted by the Lead Agency in a manner consistent with applicable California law and the Lead Agency’s procurement requirements. The Lead Agency shall consult with the other Parties regarding the selection of the Consultant and the scope of work, but final procurement actions shall be taken in accordance with the Lead Agency’s applicable procedures. Each Party acknowledges that it is independently responsible Item I.4
Packet Page 68
5 for compliance with any procurement or contracting requirements applicable to its participation in the project.

9. Ownership and Use of Work Product
As between the Parties, all ADU Plans, drawings, specifications, and related materials developed pursuant to this MOU and the Consultant Agreement (collectively, the “Work Product”) shall be made available to each Party. Lafayette shall receive and hold the Work Product under the Consultant Agreement for purposes of the collaborative project described in this MOU. Each Party shall have a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use, reproduce, modify, and implement the Work Product for governmental purposes within its jurisdiction, including making such Work Product available for use by members of the public, subject to applicable local adoption and implementation requirements and the terms of the Consultant Agreement. Each Party shall be solely responsible for ensuring that any use or site-specific implementation of the Work Product complies with its local codes, ordinances, and policies. No Party makes any representation or warranty regarding the suitability of the Work Product for use by another Party.

10. Delivery of Notices
A. All notices, invoices, and other communication pertaining to this MOU must be directed to the following representatives:

If to Lafayette:

City of Lafayette
3675 Mount Diablo Blvd., #210
Lafayette, CA 94549
Attn: Madison Church, Assistant Planner
If to Moraga:

Town of Moraga
329 Rheem Blvd.

Moraga, CA 94556
Attn: Cassius Carandang, Assistant Planner
If to Orinda:

City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 94563
Attn: Darin Hughes, Associate Planner
Item I.4
Packet Page 69
6 B. Any notice or other communication (“Notice”) given under this MOU shall be in writing and may be delivered by personal delivery, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or nationally recognized overnight courier, to the addresses set forth above or to such other address as a Party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be deemed received: (i) immediately, if delivered by personal delivery; (ii) on the third day after deposit in the United States mail, if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; and (iii) on the next business day, if sent by nationally recognized overnight courier.

11. General Provisions

11.1 Compliance with Law. Each Party shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances in carrying out its obligations under this MOU.

11.2 Amendments. This MOU may only be amended in writing and such amendment must be executed by all Parties.

11.3 Authority. Each person executing this MOU on behalf of a Party warrants that the person is duly authorized to execute this MOU on behalf of that Party and that by doing so, that Party is formally bound to the provisions of this MOU.

11.4 Severability. If any part of this MOU is held to be invalid, void, or otherwise unenforceable to any extent by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this MOU is not affected thereby, and all other parts of this MOU remain valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

11.5 Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which is deemed an original. All counterparts are construed together and constitute one single MOU. A Party may sign this MOU electronically.

11.6 Governing Law. This MOU must be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this MOU, the action must be brought in a state or federal court in the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

11.7 Relationship of the Parties. Except as otherwise provided herein, nothing contained herein may be construed to create an association, trust, or partnership or to impose a trust or partnership obligation on or with regard to any of the Parties. Each Party is individually responsible for its own obligations as herein provided.

11.8 Indemnification. Each Party shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other Parties and their respective elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, costs, and expenses (including reasonable Item I.4
Packet Page 70
7 attorneys’ fees) arising out of or relating to the negligent acts, errors, or intentional misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its officers, employees, contractors, or agents in connection with this MOU.

Nothing in this provision shall be construed to obligate any Party to indemnify another Party for that Party’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. For purposes of this Section, “contractors” does not include the Consultant retained by Lafayette pursuant to the Consultant Agreement, whose indemnity obligations shall be governed by the Consultant Agreement.

11.9 Waiver. The delay or failure of any Party at any time to require performance or compliance by another Party of any of its obligations or agreements does not waive a right to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this MOU is effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy with respect to any occurrence or event may not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy with respect to any other occurrence or event, nor does any waiver constitute a continuing waiver.

11.10 Entire Agreement. This MOU represents the entire understanding of the Parties as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each Party acknowledges that no representation, inducement, promise, or agreement has been made by any person that has not been incorporated herein, and that any other agreement is void.

11.11 Claims Involving Consultant Agreement. If any Party receives a claim, demand, notice, or lawsuit arising out of or relating to the Work Product, Consultant’s services, or the Consultant Agreement, that Party shall promptly notify the other Parties. The Parties shall coordinate in good faith regarding any tender to Consultant or Consultant’s insurer, any request for defense or indemnity under the Consultant Agreement, and any response involving the Project or Work Product.
[Signature Page on Following Page]

Item I.4
Packet Page 71
8 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, THE TOWN

OF MORAGA, AND THE CITY OF ORINDA
FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE SENATE DISTRICT 7 ADU PLAN PROGRAM IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this MOU as of the Effective Date first written above.

CITY OF LAFAYETTE TOWN OF MORAGA
By:_________________________
City Manager
Date:_________________________
By:_______________________________
Town Manager
Date:_______________________________
ATTESTED TO:

By:____________________________
City Clerk
ATTESTED TO:

By:____________________________
Town Clerk
Approved as to Form:

By:___________________________
City Attorney
Approved as to Form:

By:___________________________
Town Attorney

CITY OF ORINDA
By:_________________________
City Manager
Date:_________________________
ATTESTED TO:

Item I.4
Packet Page 72
9 By:____________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

By:___________________________
City Attorney
Item I.4
Packet Page 73
Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
Proposal submitted on May 29, 2026

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR

PERMIT-READY PROTOTYPE ADU
PLANS
RFP RELEASED: May 1, 2026
QUESTIONS DUE: May 15, 2026, 5:00 pm local time
RESPONSES DUE: May 29, 2026; 3:00 pm local time
City of Lafayette
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #210
Lafayette, CA 94549
Town of Moraga
329 Rheem Boulevard
Moraga, CA 94556
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, CA 9456
Attachment C
Item I.4
Packet Page 74
Item I.4
Packet Page 75
Re: Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
Dear Mr. Madison, Mr. Carandang, and Mr. Hughes,
The jurisdictions of City of Lafayette, Town of Moraga, and the City of Orinda, collectively know as the Jurisdictions representing the Lamorinda communities are looking to implement a pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) program to aid in meeting local housing needs. ADUs represent a substantial opportunity to realize the area goals by providing diverse housing options to meet the needs of smaller households, young adults, seniors, persons with special needs, extended families, and lower-income households.

The City will be using the program to support the development of ADUs to provide more cost-effective and streamlined access to the opportunities ADUs can provide, and as an implementation of Assembly Bill 1332. Funding is identified as being provided through Senate District 7 (SD7) ADU program grant funding. To that end, RRM is submitting a proposal for all sections of the scope within your Request for Proposal (RFP) for PermitReady Prototype ADU plans.

The Project Type and the Community
For 50 years, RRM’s architects, planners, urban designers, landscape architects, civil and structural engineers, and surveyors have worked extensively with public and private sector housing clients. We know what is feasible and understand the realities that can stymie housing production. Our experience on both sides of the counter gives us unique insight into potential barriers to adopting and successfully executing ADU construction documents that yield quality, implementable housing. Leveraging our production housing experience, we can generate cost-effective solutions while responding to the end user’s desire for customization opportunities. RRM has planned and designed thousands of affordable ADU, multifamily, and mixed-use housing units in California, including many pre-approved ADU programs in the Contra Costa County. This unique combination allows us to create a permit-ready ADU program package that fits your community and has been truth-tested by architects and entitlement experts. While RRM has offices across the state, the pre-approved ADU project will be run from the San Leandro and San Luis Obispo offices.

Listening and Love of Collaborating
RRM listens and responds collaboratively, employing various professionals’ skills and experience on each job with the assignment’s demands. We are devoted to community-based planning that engages the public meaningfully and produces a vision that will be embraced. RRM is a team of skilled professionals and creative thinkers who plan and design for implementation with impeccable attention to detail—on time, on budget, and sensitive to political and social issues.

Passionate
ADU prototypes, affordable housing, multifamily and mixed-use development, the development review process, and collaboration with City staff are the jobs that keep us inspired and excited. RRM enjoys helping craft permitready ADU program packages tailored to individual communities. We understand and are fulfilled by efforts to curb the housing crisis and maintain a community’s integrity and character. We appreciate the opportunity to help you achieve your goals. If you need more information, please feel free to call me anytime at (805) 903-1227. At RRM, this job matters! We are eager to solve your challenges and ask for your confidence in awarding us this project.

Best Regards,
RRM Design Group
Randy Russom, AIA, ASID Kristine Ferreira, NCARB
Principal-in-Charge & Authorized Signatory Project Manager May 29, 2026
Madison Church, Assistant
Planner
City of Lafayette
3675 Mt. Diablo Blvd,
Suite 210 Lafayette CA,
94549
Cassius Carandang,
Assistant Planner
Town of Moraga
329 Rheem Boulevard,
Moraga, CA 94556
Darin Hughes, Associate
Planner
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way, Orinda,
CA 94563
RRM Design Group
325 Davis Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
p: (510) 751-4910
www.rrmdesign.com
Item I.4
Packet Page 76
Item I.4
Packet Page 77
Graphics & Photographs:

This document features images of RRM Design Group and its subconsultant partners' projects, the graphics and photos of which are owned, copyrighted, and/or licensed by our respective firms. Some images may be modified due to privacy concerns.

About RRM Design Group:
325 Davis St. • San Leandro, CA 94577 • (510) 751-4910 • rrmdesign.com • A California corporation • Leonard Grant, Architect C26973 • Robert Camacho, PE 76597 • Steven Webster, LS 7561 • Jeff Ferber, PLA 2844 The written and graphic materials contained in this proposal are the exclusive property of RRM Design Group. The unauthorized use of any portion of these text or graphic materials without RRM’s prior written consent is expressly prohibited. ©2026 RRM Design Group Proposal For Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
Table of Contents
Relevant Experience and Qualifications .......................... 7 Team Organization and Qualifications............................15 Work Plan, Schedule and Cost..................................... 25 Indemnification and Insurance Requirements Response .. 33 Item I.4
Packet Page 78
Item I.4
Packet Page 79
Section One:

Relevant Experience and Qualifications
Proposal for
Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
Pictured:

City of Agoura Hills ADU Prototype,
Agoura Hills, CA
1 Item I.4
Packet Page 80
8 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans We love being a 100% employee-owned design firm, and
we plan on doing this for the next 50 years
All of us at RRM thrive on our passion for crafting enjoyable environments, a commitment that has fueled our success for fifty years. From the inception of our journey to our current state of expansion, our team of architects, landscape architects, engineers, surveyors, and planners collaborates closely with clients to shape our communities. Whether the project is public or private, commercial or residential, we excel in attentive listening, thoughtful design, and timely, budget-conscious delivery—values we’ve upheld since our establishment in 1974.

We want to be known as friendly, helpful, and
collaborative design professionals
We feel that this client quote sums up the experience of working with RRM:
“RRM was equally attentive and responsive to issues both large and small, real and imagined. I was consistently impressed with their calm, informed manner and attention to details.”
We’re doing
an incredible
amount of work:
2,300+
RRM projects in
the last decade
Our clients enjoy
the experience of
working with us:

8.5 NPS
(Overall Net
Promoter Score)
well above AEC
industry average
of 7.2
Our employees like their
careers at RRM:
“Best Firm
to Work for”
2022, 2023, 2024
- Zweig Group
7 RRM Offices
Our headquarters are located at:
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
p: (805) 543-1794
Our lead office for this
project is located at:
325 Davis Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
p: (510) 751-4910
www.rrmdesign.com
Additional offices:

Santa Barbara,
San Juan Capistrano, Ventura,
San Diego, and Seattle
200+ Employees
in 6 Disciplines
• Architects
• Civil Engineers
• Landscape Architects
• Planners & Urban Designers
• Structural Engineers
• Surveyors
100% EmployeeOwned Firm
RRM Design Group is a California
corporation and a 100%
employee-owned company (ESOP),
incorporated November 26, 1974
RRM Design Group
50 Years of Creating Environments People Enjoy
RRM by the Numbers
Our Principal,
Randy Russom has
completed/lead:
30+
RRM ADU projects in
the last 5 years
Item I.4
Packet Page 81
Relevant Experience and Qualifications | Section 1 9
Skills, Ability, and Experience
RRM's multidisciplinary team of professionals have worked on a variety of ADU plans for government municipalities, counties, and departments and we would be pleased to partner with the City of Lafayette, Town of Moraga, and the City of Orinda for the Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit Plans.

The following link will direct you to RRM’s ADU project experience examples (Construction Document Sets, Design Manuals, and Schematic Designs): https://tinyurl.com/RRM-ADU-Prepared-Plans RRM proposes to work with the Jurisdictions to develop pre-approved prescriptive ADUs for homeowners to streamline the processing of utilizing those plans for their unique and individual needs. RRM will work with City staff to refine the program and scope for the proposed ADUs to provide the best fit for the Jurisdictions.

Discussions with staff and previous project experience suggest alternate or additional configurations that may better serve the community. RRM’s scope of services provides for possible alternatives which will be evaluated during the initial tasks of the project. RRM’s community-based design will help assure that these plans have elevation options that allow for personal taste and are appropriate to the community’s architectural vernacular.

RRM achieves a high project efficiency and coordination level due to the multidisciplinary service structure.

We provide implementable solutions due to a single-line in-house responsibility that allows the project manager to coordinate most of the components of a project directly. While most of the primary scope will be provided in-house by RRM architecture, planning, and structural engineering, there will be times when outside consultants and City coordination will be required. RRM may need to coordinate and meet with City staff, various departments, and interest groups in addition to those specifically outlined in our scope.

We know the “Lamorinda” area and the surrounding area
RRM has projects across Contra Costa County that expand housing options and enhance community spaces.

In Concord, RRM created permit-ready plans for detached ADUs to help meet the city’s housing goals. In San Ramon, they designed one-bedroom ADUs focused on affordability, comfort, and preserving neighborhood character. Pleasant Hill partnered with RRM to develop customizable studio, one-, and two-bedroom ADU plans as part of a new Permit-Ready Program. In Walnut Creek, RRM created four ADU designs in different sizes and styles, along with a homeowner handbook and outreach materials for the city’s PRADU Program.

Beyond housing, RRM has done over 25 parks in the area and is also leading the renovation of Contra Loma Estates Park right in the City of Antioch, further contributing to quality of life in Contra Costa County.

RRM has worked with the following public agencies in developing ADU plans:
• City of Agoura Hills
• City of Carpinteria
• City of Claremont
• City of Coachella
• City of Concord
• City of Dublin
• City of Jurupa Valley
• County of Mono
• City of Newport Beach
• City of Porterville
• County of San Luis Obispo
• City of San Ramon
• County of Santa Cruz
• City of Stanford
• City of Walnut Creek
• City of San Marcos
• City of Escondido
• City of Culver City
Item I.4
Packet Page 82
10 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Concord Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU) Standard Drawings Development
RRM Design Group was retained to provide construction drawing sets for detached ADUs for the City of Concord. The City recognized that ADUs represent a substantial opportunity to realize its goals as outlined in its Housing Element by providing diverse housing options to meet the needs of smaller households, young adults, seniors, persons with special needs, extended families, and households with lower incomes. RRM prepared a collection of architectural and building permit-ready plan sets, including structural calculations, for detached ADUs of varying unit types, architectural designs, and sizes.

Client & Location
City of Concord
The RRM Teams Involved
• Architecture
• Planning
• Structural Engineering
Key Personnel
Randy Russom, Jessica Meadows
Project Timeline
2021-2023
Reference
Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Address: 1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: (925) 671-2489
Email: [email protected]
Total
$140,000
T 2 2ND PLANNING REVIEW DATE: 12/16/21
2131-01-CU20
PLAN
PLAN
PLAN
PLAN
PLAN 1 (SHOWN AS CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW)
PLAN 4 (SHOWN AS SPANISH)
PLAN 4 (SHOWN AS MODERN)
PLAN 6 (SHOWN AS SUBURBAN RANCH)
PLAN 4 (SHOWN AS SPANISH)
PLAN 4 (SHOWN AS MODERN)
T 2 2ND PLANNING REVIEW DATE: 12/16/21

D ADU PROTOTYPES
2131-01-CU20
LAN
A3-1 UNIT 3 - 1-BEDROOM - 634 SF: FLOOR PLAN
A3-2 UNIT 3 - CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
A3-3 UNIT 3 - CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
A3-4 UNIT 3 - SPANISH
A3-5 UNIT 3 - SPANISH
A3-6 UNIT 3 - SUBURBAN RANCH
A3-7 UNIT 3 - SUBURBAN RANCH
A3-8 UNIT 3 - MODERN
A3-9 UNIT 3 - MODERN
A4-1 UNIT 4 - 1-BEDROOM - 684 SF: FLOOR PLAN
A4-2 UNIT 4 - CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
A4-3 UNIT 4 - CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
A4-4 UNIT 4 - SPANISH
A4-5 UNIT 4 - SPANISH
A4-6 UNIT 4 - SUBURBAN RANCH
A4-7 UNIT 4 - SUBURBAN RANCH
A4-8 UNIT 4 - MODERN
A4-9 UNIT 4 - MODERN
A5-1 UNIT 5 - 1-BEDROOM - 672 SF: FLOOR PLAN
A5-2 UNIT 5 - CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
A5-3 UNIT 5 - CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
A5-4 UNIT 5 - SPANISH
A5-5 UNIT 5 - SPANISH
A5-6 UNIT 5 - SUBURBAN RANCH
A5-7 UNIT 5 - SUBURBAN RANCH
A5-8 UNIT 5 - MODERN
A5-9 UNIT 5 - MODERN
A6-1 UNIT 6 - 2-BEDROOM - 906 SF: FLOOR PLAN
A6-2 UNIT 6 - CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
A6-3 UNIT 6 - CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
A6-4 UNIT 6 - SPANISH
A6-5 UNIT 6 - SPANISH
A6-6 UNIT 6 - SUBURBAN RANCH
A6-7 UNIT 6 - SUBURBAN RANCH
A6-8 UNIT 6 - MODERN
A6-9 UNIT 6 - MODERN
PLAN 1 (SHOWN AS CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW)
PLAN 4 (SHOWN AS SPANISH)
PLAN 4 (SHOWN AS MODERN)
PLAN 6 (SHOWN AS SUBURBAN RANCH)
ORG
Item I.4
Packet Page 83
Relevant Experience and Qualifications | Section 1 11
San Ramon Pre-Approved ADU Program
The County of San Ramon hired RRM to develop floor plans and elevation designs and Prototype Construction Documents for three one-bedroom Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The ADUs range in size from 560-728 square feet, providing a range of efficiency and unique footprints. The goals of the design process included maintaining County character in elevation design, increasing density and available one-bedroom rentals, and creating cost-conscious designs for the homeowner that are both comfortable and functional.

Client & Location
City of San Ramon, CA
The RRM Teams Involved
• Architecture
• Landscape Architecture
• Planning
• Structural Engineering
Key Personnel
Randy Russom, Alex Martinez,
Jessica Meadows
Project Timeline
2021-Present
Reference
Ryan Driscoll, Associate Planner
Address: 2401 Crow Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
Phone: (925) 973-2670
Email: [email protected]
Total
$75,000
Item I.4
Packet Page 84
12 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans HILL ADU PROTOTYPES ISSUE DATE: 09/19/20

UNGALOW - PERSPECTIVE
LOW
PLEASANT HILL ADU PROTOTYPES ISSUE DATE: 09/19/2024 A14 PLAN 2 - MODERN - PERSPECTIVE PLAN 2 (ONE BED/ONE BATH) 532 SF | MODERN
4' - 0" 14' - 0"
18' - 0" 5' - 0"
A) 3' WINDOW
B) 3' FULL LITE
DOOR
Pleasant Hill_1/4" 636A AUGUST 20, 2024
PLEASANT HILL ADU PROTOTYPES ISSUE DATE: 09/19/2024 A16 PLAN 3 (TWO BED) - FLOOR PLAN BED 1
10' 7" X 11' 2"
BED 2
11' 1" X 11' 2"
HALLWAY 10' X 3' 8"

LAUNDRY
6' 6" X 3' 1"
ADAPTABLE BATH 6' 7" X 11' 4"
WH
LIVING
14' 11" X 12' 5"

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
23' X 5'
CLOSET
7' 6" X 2' CLOSET 8' X 2'
KITCHEN / DINING 14' 11" X 6' 6"
45' - 6"
15' - 0" 5' - 0"
20' - 0" 5' - 0"

QUEEN BED QUEEN BED
A) TUB
B) WALK-IN 3' X 5' SHOWER CLOSET 3' X 3'
A) 3' WINDOW
B) 3' FULL LITE
DOOR
A) 3' WINDOW
B) 3' FULL LITE
DOOR
FRIDGE

A) COVERED PORCH

B) NO PORCH
11' - 6" 23' - 0" 11' - 0"

SHELVING
798 SF_2 Bed_1 Bath_Linear_Pleasant Hill_1/4" 798 AUGUST 20, 2024 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 BED / 1 BA | 798 SF
798 SF | 2 BED / 1 BATH 3 1/4” = 1’-0” (11X17 SHEET)
+115 SF
PLEASANT HILL ADU PROTOTYPES ISSUE DATE: 09/19/2024 A19 PLAN 3 - CALIFORNIA RANCH - PERSPECTIVE PLAN 3 (TWO BED/ONE BATH) 798 SF | CALIFORNIA RANCH 1
BED 1
10' 7" X 11' 2"
BED 2
11' 1" X 11' 2"
HALLWAY 10' X 3' 8"

LAUNDRY
6' 6" X 3' 1"
ADAPTABLE BATH 6' 7" X 11' 4"
WH
LIVING
14' 11" X 12' 5"

OPTIONAL COVERED
PORCH
23' X 5'
CLOSET
7' 6" X 2' CLOSET 8' X 2'
KITCHEN / DINING 14' 11" X 6' 6"
45' - 6"
15' - 0" 5' - 0"
20' - 0" 5' - 0"

QUEEN BED QUEEN BED
A) TUB
B) WALK-IN 3' X 5' SHOWER CLOSET 3' X 3'
A) 3' WINDOW
B) 3' FULL LITE
DOOR
A) 3' WINDOW
B) 3' FULL LITE
DOOR
FRIDGE

A) COVERED PORCH

B) NO PORCH
11' - 6" 23' - 0" 11' - 0"

SHELVING
798 SF_2 Bed_1 Bath_Linear_Pleasant Hill_1/4" 798 AUGUST 20, 2024 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 BED / 1 BA | 798 SF
Pleasant Hill Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) Program
RRM Design Group is partnering with the City of Pleasant Hill to develop a Permit-Ready Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program. This active initiative will provide residents with pre-approved plans that simplify the process of adding an ADU to their property. The program includes three base plan types—a studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom unit—each offered with customizable design options and multiple architectural styles to reflect Pleasant Hill’s character. Accessible and flexible features, such as ADA adaptability and varied entry locations, ensure broad applicability across the city’s diverse lot types.

To support implementation, RRM is preparing full construction-ready documents compliant with the California Residential Code and Title 24, as well as illustrative marketing materials and a streamlined application template. The team is collaborating closely with City staff at key milestones and supporting public hearings to ensure the program delivers cost-effective, high-quality housing solutions that expand opportunities for Pleasant Hill residents.

Client & Location
City of Pleasant Hill, CA
The RRM Teams Involved
• Architecture
• Planning
• Structural Engineering
Key Personnel
Randy Russom, Jessica Meadows,
Carstairs Energy
Project Timeline
2024-Present
Reference
Ethan Bindernagel, Senior Planner
Address: 100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone: (925) 671-5270
Email: [email protected]
Total
$95,000
CO
Item I.4
Packet Page 85
Relevant Experience and Qualifications | Section 1 13
024 A10
Walnut Creek Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU) Acceleration
The City of Walnut Creek retained RRM Design Group to create the PreReviewed ADU Program (PRADU) which is intended to make it more affordable and easier for homeowners to build an ADU. Development of the program was funded by grants administered by the State Housing and Community Development Department. RRM Design Group developed four different ADU plans which included a 408 SF studio, a 615 SF squareshaped one-bedroom, a 672 SF linear-shaped one-bedroom, and a 796 SF two-bedroom. The four different ADU plans have been designed to each incorporate options that reflect cottage style, modern style, and ranch style.

As part of these efforts, RRM Design Group developed a handbook and handouts for homeowners to learn about ADUs and the PRADU Program.

The handbook includes an introduction to ADUs, an overview of the PRADU Program, description of the prototype plans available, and application requirements checklists. RRM Design Group filmed and published a video which has been shared on the City’s website and YouTube channel to increase public awareness about ADUs and PRADU Program.

Client & Location
City of Walnut Creek, CA
The RRM Teams Involved
• Architecture
• Landscape Architecture
• Planning
• Structural Engineering
Key Personnel
Randy Russom, Alex Martinez,
Jessica Meadows
Project Timeline
2024-Present
Reference
Jessica Gonzalez, Community
Development Department
Address: 1666 N. Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 943-5899
Email: [email protected]
Total
$160,000
ISSUE DATE: 09/21/2022 A

WALNUT CREEK ADU PROTOTYPES

SCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVE VIEW - COTTAGE

OTTAGE - PERSPECTIVE
PLAN B - ONE-BEDROOM (615SF)
3/16” = 1’-0”
W/D
BED
10x11
CL
5x5
BATH
10x7-6
KITCHEN/DINING 16-8x7
LIVING
16-8x11
COV. PORCH

OPT PORCH
WH
L.
20' - 0" 5' - 0"
F
28' - 0"
11' - 9" 5' - 3" 8' - 0"
17' - 2" 10' - 10"
11' - 0"

WALNUT CREEK ADU PROTOTYPES

WALNUT CREEK

UNPROTECTED OPENINGS
6 SF / 242 SF = 2.7% < 25% PER
CBC TABLE 705.8, NOTE D

UNPROTECTED OPENIN
2 SF / 200 SF = 1.0% < 2
CBC TABLE 705.8, NOT

WALNUT CREEK ADU PROTOTYPES

SCHEMATIC PERSPECTIVE VIEW - MO

MODERN - PERSPECTIVE

WALNUT CRE

WALNUT CREEK
ISSUE DATE: 09/21/2022 A 9 WALNUT CREEK ADU PROTOTYPES
FLOOR PLAN B - ONE-BEDROOM 615SF
W/D
W/D

SIDEWALK

MIN LOT DEPTH
100' - 0"

MIN LOT WIDTH
80' - 0"

PRIMARY

RESIDENCE

FRONT SETBACK
20' - 0"
NEW

ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNIT
(SHOWN AS
25' - 0"

PLAN B)
4' - 0"
4' - 0" 28' - 0"
10' - 0"
MIN
5' - 0"
MIN
10' - 0"
39' - 0" MIN.

SETBACK

BETWEEN

BUILDINGS

SIDEWALK

MIN LOT DEPTH
100' - 0"

MIN LOT WIDTH
80' - 0"

PRIMARY

RESIDENCE

FRONT SETBACK
20' - 0"
NEW

ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNIT
(SHOWN AS

PLAN B)
32' - 0"
4' - 0" 25' - 0"
10' - 0"
MIN
5' - 0"
MIN
10' - 0"
4' - 0"
42' - 0" MIN.

SETBACK

BETWEEN

BUILDINGS
WALNUT CREEK ADU PROTOTYPES TYP. SITE - R-10 AS02 WALNUT CREEK 2264-01-CU20 3/23/21 1 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN - R10 PLAN B - FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/16 = 1’-0”

OPTIONAL AREA FOR

REQUIRED PHOTOVOLTAIC
PANELS

OPTIONAL AREA

FOR REQUIRED

PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
Item I.4
Packet Page 86
14 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Antioch Pre-Approved Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Plans
RRM Design Group is supporting the City of Antioch as it develops a PreApproved Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program. This Senate District 7 (SD7) ADU Program grant funded project will provide residents with preapproved (plan checked) plans to reduce design and permitting costs, streamline approval process, and ultimately encourage construction of ADUs as a means to increase housing supply. The program includes three base plan types—a studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom unit—each offered with customizable design options and multiple architectural styles to reflect Antioch’s stylistic vernacular. RRM is preparing full constructionready documents compliant with the California Residential Code and Title 24, as well as illustrative marketing materials and a streamlined application templates. The team is collaborating closely with City staff at key milestones and supporting public hearings to ensure the program delivers cost-effective, high-quality housing solutions that expand opportunities for residents of the City of Antioch.

Client & Location
City of Antioch, CA
The RRM Teams Involved
• Architecture
• Planning
• Structural Engineering
Key Personnel
Randy Russom, Jessica Meadows
Project Timeline
2025-Present
Reference
200 H. St
Antioch, CA 94531
Phone: (925) 779-6115
Email: [email protected]
Total
$50,000
Item I.4
Packet Page 87
15 Section Two:

Team Organization and Qualifications
Proposal For Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
Pictured: Myrtle Street Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Interior, Arroyo Grande, CA 2 Item I.4
Packet Page 88
16 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Assembling Our Team
As project manager, Kristine’s primary responsibility is delivering the project to you on time and on budget.

Working in cooperative partnership with City staff, RRM’s project manager will serve as an extension of staff to successfully coordinate the design and create plans for the ADU process. She is responsible for coordinating with all technical design team members to harness the team’s horsepower to successfully develop the full potential of the project work products. Kristine’s responsibilities include the following:
• Project Point of Contact
• Client Coordination and Reporting
• Contract Administration
• Schedule Development and Management
• Budget Supervision
• Quality Control and Assurance
• Resource Allocation
• Staff Forecasting
Kristine has selected the following team to join her in supporting the Jurisdictions needs:

Kristine Ferreira, NCARB
Project Manager
Randy Russom, AIA, ASID
Principal-in-Charge
Authorized Signatory
Architecture
Structural Engineering
RRM Design Group
Alex Martinez
Job Captain
Jessica Meadows, SE, PE
Structural Engineer
Item I.4
Packet Page 89
Team Organization and Qualifications | Section 2 17
As an engineering major with an early love of creation and a family of artists, a career in architecture was inevitable for Randy. Now, with over three decades of experience as an architect, Randy is an expert in construction management, hospitality projects, and custom residential work. As the former planning commissioner for the City of Arroyo Grande and a current member of the Board of Directors for the San Luis Obispo Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, Randy brings a collaborative approach to his work, aiming to utilize all the creative intellect his team encompasses. His work with RRM yields award-winning results that satisfy the needs of his clients, his team, and the community.

Randy’s featured project experience
Agoura Hills Pre-Approved Building Plans
for ADUs
Antioch Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Plans
Baldwin Park Pre-Approved Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Conceptual Plans and
Construction Plans
Butte County ADU Prototype Plans
Calabasas ADU Pre-Approval Program
Carpinteria Downtown Design Overlay
Program ADU Prototypes
Claremont Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Standard Design Plans
Coachella Design Services for PreApproved ADU Plans
Coronado Pre-Approved Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Building Permit
Construction Plans
Culver City ADU Prototypes
Dublin Prototype ADU Code Updates
Escondido Pre-Approved Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program
Huntington Beach Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU) Design
Jurupa Valley Consulting Services for
Permit-Ready ADU
Lancaster Permit Ready Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Plans
Lompoc Permit Ready Accessory Dwelling
Unit Program (PRADU)
Long Beach ADU and SB9 Local Ordinances
Mono County ADU Design
Newport Beach Permit Ready ADU Plan
and Public Outreach Improvement Services
Pleasant Hill Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) Program
Rancho Mirage Pre-Approved ADUs
Redlands Pre-Approved ADU Plans
Riverside Pre-Approved ADU
San Ramon Pre-Approved ADU Program
Santa Barbara County Pre-Approved
ADU Plans
Santa Cruz County ADU Pre-Approved
Building Plan Options
Walnut Creek ADU Acceleration
San Luis Obispo County Pre-Approved
ADU Plans
Principal with 27 years of
experience
13 years with RRM Design Group
Education
• Bachelor of Architecture,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo,
San Luis Obispo, CA
Licenses and more
• Architect, CA, C24410
• International Council of
Shopping Centers (ICSC),
Member (Personal)
• American Society of Interior
Designers (ASID), Member
• American Institute of Architects
(AIA), San Luis Obispo Chapter,
Board Member
There’s more: Randy has
provided architectural
design and construction
management for over
390 hospitality and
custom residential
projects at RRM
Randy Russom AIA, ASID
Project Role: Principal-in-Charge
Item I.4
Packet Page 90
18 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans With nearly a decade of architectural experience, Kristine Ferreira brings a farranging skillset to RRM's Architecture Department. As project manager, Kristine leads her team from start to finish on projects; from commercial and restaurant sites to multi-family housing developments. Beyond her technical expertise, Kristine's clear and effective communication helps guide clients' visions into reality. She works with her team from concept to completion to ensure that clients' needs are met and the design is executed with precision. Overall, Kristine's thoughtful approach translates into intentional and meaningful design for both the client and community.

Kristine’s featured project experience
Baldwin Park Pre-Approved Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Conceptual Plans and
Construction Plans
Butte County ADU Prototype Plans,
Oroville
Concord Accessory Dwelling Units
Standard Drawings Development
Dublin Citywide Multifamily Design
Standards
Fullerton Pre-Approved Building Plans for
Accessory Dwelling Units
Huntington Beach Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU) Design
Laguna Niguel On-Call Architectural Peer
Review Services
Lancaster Permit Ready Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Plans
Lompoc Permit Ready Accessory Dwelling
Unit Program (PRADU
Mono County ADU Design
Mono County ADU Plan 5 and Garage
Engineering
Newport Beach Permit Ready ADU Plan
and Public Outreach Improvement Services
Pleasant Hill Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Program, Pleasant Valley
Porterville Accessory Dwelling Unit and
Multifamily Dwelling Unit Plans
Redlands Pre-Approved ADU Plans
San Luis Obispo County Pre-Approved ADU
Plans
San Ramon Pre-Approved ADU Program
Santa Barbara County Pre-Approved ADU
Plans
Santa Cruz County ADU Pre-Approved
Building Plan Option
Temple City Objective Design Standards
Architecture Project
Manager with 13 years of
experience
5 years with RRM Design Group
Education
• Bachelor of Architecture,
Woodbury University, San Diego,
CA
Licenses and more
• Architect, CA, C38017
There’s more: Kristine
has managed and
provided architectural
design for over 70
commercial and
multifamily housing
projects at RRM
Kristine Ferreira NCARB
Project Role: Project Manager
Item I.4
Packet Page 91
Team Organization and Qualifications | Section 2 19
With 5 years of experience in ADU design, Alex brings a unique blend of design expertise and skills honed over a decade in the nonprofit sector. Her work spans both public and private projects of varying scales, where she brings a detail-oriented, passionate, and efficient approach. Driven by a love of learning and personal growth, she’s committed to creating thoughtful, functional spaces that align with each client’s goals and values.

Alex’s featured project experience
Agoura Hills Pre-Approved Building Plans
for ADUs
Butte County ADU Prototype Plans
Calabasas ADU Pre-Approval Program
Cathedral City Pre-Approved ADU Plans
Claremont Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Standard Design Plans
Coachella Design Services for PreApproved ADU Plans
Colusa Pre-Reviewed ADU Plans
Dinuba Downtown Civic Square Conceptual
Plan
Escondido Pre-Approved Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program
Fillmore Terrace Construction Documents
Kings County Area Rural Transit New
Facility
Lancaster Permit Ready Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) Plans
Mono County ADU Code Updates
Mono County ADU Design
Porterville Accessory Dwelling Unit and
Multifamily Dwelling Unit Plans
San Marcos ADU Building Plans
San Ramon Pre-Approved ADU Plans Code
Updates
Santa Cruz County ADU Pre-Approved
Building Plan Options
Sierra Gardens Single-Family Residential
Development
Walnut Creek ADU Acceleration
Job Captain with 5 years
of experience
5 years with RRM Design Group
Education
• Bachelor of Architecture,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, San
Luis Obispo, CA

Alex Martinez
Project Role: Job Captain
Item I.4
Packet Page 92
20 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans A passionate structural engineer and project manager at RRM Design Group, Jessica Meadows brings over a decade of experience to each project she works on. As Project manager, Jessica oversees the design and construction on a multitude of educational facilities. From new campus and building modernization to seismic rehabilitation and accessory structures, her projects range in size and type. Dedicated to sharing her passion for structural engineering, Jessica serves as a mentor and teacher to young professionals and students at Cal Poly SLO. An active professional and community leader, Jessica brings her wealth of experience to RRM Design Group and beyond.

Jessica’s featured project experience
1011 Joseph Court ADU, Nipomo
1138 Madonna Road ADU,
San Luis Obispo
21712 Lane Street ADU, Perris
2995 Beachcomber Drive Remodel and
ADU, Morro Bay
5700 Portola Road ADU, Atascadero
712 Anapamu Street ADU, Santa Barbara
Agoura Hills Pre-Approved Building Plans
for ADUs
Coachella Design Services for PreApproved ADU Plans
Cathedral City Pre-Approved ADU Program
Concord Accessory Dwelling Units
Standard Drawings Development
Culver City ADU Prototypes
Dublin Citywide Multifamily Design
Standards
Escondido Pre-Approved Accessory
Dwelling Units
(ADU) Program
Jurupa Valley Consulting Services for
Permit-Ready ADU
Lancaster Permit Ready Accessory Dwelling
Unit
(ADU) Plans
Mission Street Studios ADU,
Santa Barbara
Mono County ADU Design
Newport Beach Permit Ready ADU Plan
and Public Outreach Improvement Services
Pleasant Hill Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Program
Porterville Accessory Dwelling Unit and
Multifamily Dwelling Unit Plans
San Luis Obispo County
Pre-Approved ADU Plans
San Ramon Pre-Approved
ADU Program
Santa Cruz County ADU
Pre-Approved Building
Plan Options
Walnut Creek ADU Acceleration
Project Manager -
Structural with 15 years
of experience
6 years with RRM Design Group
Education
• Bachelor of Science,
Architectural Engineering,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, San
Luis Obispo, CA
Licenses and more
• Structural Engineer, CA, S6488
• Civil Engineer, CA, C81987
There’s more: Jessica
has managed structural
engineering design for
over 300 educational
facility, building
modernization, and
seismic rehabilitation
projects at RRM
Jessica Meadows SE, PE
Project Role: Structural Engineer
Item I.4
Packet Page 93
Section Three:

Project Understanding and Approach
Proposal For Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
21 Pictured: City of Pleasant Hill Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program - Plan 2, Modern, Pleasant Valley, CA

LL ADU PROTOTYPES

DERN - PERSPECTIVE
3 Item I.4
Packet Page 94
22 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans RRM Project:

City of
Claremont
Pre-Approved
ADU Standard
Design Plans
Item I.4
Packet Page 95
Project Understanding and Approach | Section 3 23
Project Approach and Understanding
Our process includes a four-phase approach. As with any public project, a City is responsible to its citizens to spend money wisely and effectively. This is the problem that an initial due diligence or programming phase can address. We are looking to identify the greatest opportunity to impact housing stock through a pre-approved ADU program for this project. Starting with the kickoff meeting, the City will be a partner in formulating the best solution to address the goals unique to your area. The success of this program will not come from the plan set product but will be founded on crafting context-appropriate designs and then facilitating implementation. RRM’s community-based design will help ensure that these plans have elevation options that allow for personal taste and are appropriate to the community’s identified architectural vernacular. Identifying the correct designs for the Lamorinda communities will come through RRM’s collaboration with City staff. Responding to the prevalent styles coupled with an inventory of lot space opportunities, these outcomes will inform the second phase’s building block: design. We understand that residential design can be one of the purest manifestations of community character; many people are passionate about homes. This is where our collaborative approach to design and RRM’s large book of ADU designs results in successful outcomes. Building from RRM’s production housing experience, we will customize designs with options to help provide the greatest variety of plans founded on the base project program. RRM will collaborate with the staff and building departments in the early phase to create efficient, implementable designs that fit the Permit-Ready process’s goals.

In the third phase, RRM will work with City staff and building officials to generate complete permit-ready plan prototypes, providing a variety of options for each homeowner to implement on their unique site. Before implementation, we see the permit-ready ADU plan preparation as the phase where our multidisciplinary practice provides the most significant impact. In-house structural engineering allows us to focus on design development with an eye toward efficient, low-cost construction, which will be of fundamental value to the end user. RRM has extensive experience in affordable and production housing, which helps us focus on efficient, implementable solutions.

This leads us to the final component of the project: implementation. Getting the plans off the shelf and into the community is truly the end goal for a project like this. RRM’s experience on both sides of the counter will provide a solid basis for presenting information and how that information is perceived and used by private citizens. We work with staff to generate jurisdictionally customized cover sheets to aid both the applicant and staff in delivering an easy and smooth permitting process. Below, we have provided optional tasks that could assist in the community education and implementation portion of the program.

What follows is a more detailed breakdown, which we would apply to this project.

Item I.4
Packet Page 96
Item I.4
Packet Page 97
25 4
Pictured:

Fullerton Pre-Approved Building Plans for Accessory
Dwelling Units
Section Four:

Work Plan, Schedule and Cost
Proposal for
Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
Item I.4
Packet Page 98
26 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Scope of Services
Phase 1: Project Initiation
In this project’s initial phase, the team will engage in a due diligence process designed to inform the team and key City staff on the primary issues to be addressed and gather and review relevant data and background information.

Task 1.A: Initiation Meeting
The project team will meet with City staff to establish a mutual understanding of the key issues, further define the scope, project schedule, expectations, layout of significant project milestones, meeting times, deliverable targets, and review pertinent data. We will use this time to identify the review process and discuss issues relating to the implementation of a pre-approved ADU design solution.

At this time we will also look to staff top identify pertinent information relating to the project including ADU ordinances, design guidelines, previous ADU submissions, a survey of typical lots and configurations to guide ADU size and configurations. The meeting is assumed to be virtual.

Deliverables:
• One (1) meeting with City staff
Phase 2: ADU Design and Plan Review
The baseline generic ADU prototypes designed to fit on generic flat lots, include the following:
• One (1) Free-standing studio ADU estimated to be 300-500 sf in compliance with California Residential Code, not exceeding 16’ in height and designed to conform to a typical flat lot. • One (1) Free-standing 1-bedroom / 1-bathroom ADU estimated to be 500-700 sf in compliance with California Residential Code, not exceeding 16’ in height and designed to conform to a typical flat lot. • One (1) Free-standing 2-bedroom / 2-bathroom ADU estimated to be 650-800 sf in compliance with California Residential Code, not exceeding 16’ in height and designed to conform to a typical flat lot.

Each plan type will be designed to adapt to and include two alternate elevation styles to conform to the City’s architectural styles as identified as Craftsman/Ranch and Mediterranean. The style options will be expressed through material, colors, accents, and detailing with a minimum of structural differentiation.

Each of the three base plans may be provided with design options, including ADA adaptable and fully accessible options, storage options, additional bedroom or flex space options, and multiple entry locations to allow personalization and site flexibility. This approach allows for the base plans to serve as many times as the number of design.

Each plan will incorporate optional front porch designs.

Task 2.A: Schematic Design
RRM recognizes that residential design can be one of the purest manifestations of community character, and many people are passionate about homes. Therefore, RRM encourages a collaborative approach to working with staff to deliver designs that respond to the community’s unique character. Following the initial staff input in the task above, RRM will develop Schematic Plans. Floor plans will be shared with staff for input midway through the process.

Based on staff feedback on the preliminary design, RRM will refine the schematic design to an approximately 65% completion level for review by staff and any public outreach efforts. The submittal will be architecturespecific and for a non-specific generic site; no civil engineering or landscape architecture will be provided for review.

Item I.4
Packet Page 99
Work Plan, Schedule and Cost | Section 4 27
During this phase, staff will share progress with the community for feedback and will preform internal reviews.

RRM anticipates revisions as part of the schematic design process. At the end of this phase, all design work will be complete, and is ready for presentation and approval of policymakers prior to permit plan preparation.

Deliverables:
• PDF format plan sets
• Three (3) floor plans
• Elevations (4) sided of each plan in each of the two styles (24 color elevations total) • Three (3) style options of the front elevations
• (6) Color exterior perspective renderings
Task 2.B: Document Preparation and Plan Review
Our experience providing simple, cost-effective designs and plans complying with California Building Codes requirements provides a strong foundation for community customization. Our fully construction-ready plans meet all code requirements and will provide for Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) requirements. All unit elevations are customizable to allow for variations in exterior materials and door and window fenestration to express individual owners’ tastes and community character. This will be achieved by stating the requirements of each exterior wall's minimum shear wall panel. Most interior walls will not be used for bearing, allowing further flexibility for the end user. For construction cost, speed, and simplicity, designs are anticipated to utilize truss roof framing, but a stick frame option has been provided in the budget.

Our goal would be to express the design intent with a structural system that considers the most material and cost-efficient approach to provide a more implementable, affordable housing solution. This detailed review is typically only achievable with an in-house structural design team where all parties share a mutual goal.

Title 24 energy compliance will be designed for all 4 orientations. No mechanical and electrical engineering design is anticipated beyond line diagrams typical of simple Type V residential construction. Again, design efficiency will be a key mechanical and electrical design parameter. RRM is a leader in efficient, sustainable design. To this end, RRM can also provide an alternate specification to provide a higher level of sustainable design than the baseline code requirements provide.

We anticipate only one round of plan check revisions and re-submittal. RRM anticipates a single jurisdictioncoordinated review for all departments. The jurisdictions will be responsible for the coordination of plan reviews.

Plans to be produced according to the following criteria:

1. All designs shall fully comply with the 2025 California Residential Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, and Part 2.5., including the Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green Building, and Fire Codes.

2. All designs shall comply with the 2025 California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, and Part 2 for structure(s) or elements(s) exceeding the design limitations in the CRC or specifically directed by the CRC to use the CBC.

3. All designs shall comply with the individual City’s municipal and zoning codes.

4. Minimum Energy Compliance Design Criteria: State Title 24 Energy Compliance documentation in all orientations.
a. Climate Zones: 12
b. Exterior Wall Insulation: R-15
c. Attic Insulation: R-30
d. Designed for both heating and cooling: 92 AFUE (Heating); 15 SEER (cooling)

5. Foundation Design Criteria:

The foundation design is generally site-specific, although the building code does allow for code minimums and the waiving of site-specific soil geotechnical investigations. The foundation design is provided for building sites that do not exceed a slope of one vertical to three horizontal units. Foundation system to be Item I.4
Packet Page 100
28 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans slab on grade. Discussions with the building official will be required to refine the approach for varying soil types. The design will provide alternative details to address differing soil conditions as needed:
a. Soil Bearing Pressure: 1,500 PSF (without Geotechnical Report) b. Lateral Bearing Pressure: 100 PCF
c. Foundation Depth Below Ground Surface: 18 inches min.

6. Front porch options shall be provided on at least one elevation style of each plan type. Porch detailing shall include, at a minimum:
a. Ledger and attachment details
b. Porch framing member size, spacing, and connection details. c. Column size and isolated footing design, including connection details. d. Any soffit and finish trim details required to fulfill the design intent.

7. Fire Resistive Construction Details:
a. The proposed detached units should be anticipated to be located within four feet of a real or assumed property line on the rear or side elevation.
b. Therefore, for each of the proposed plan elevations, the rear and side elevations will be designed with options to comply with CRC Table R332.1 (1) Fire Resistance Protection/Rating of exterior Wall elements.

8. Wildlife Urban Interface details will be provided as alternate details when site locations are required.

Deliverables:
6 PLAN SETS - EACH SET WILL INCLUDE:
• PDF format plan set
• Editable jurisdictional specific cover sheet and intake form • Editable Site Plan template
• Floor plan
• Foundation plans - slab on grade only.
• Roof plan
• Roof Framing Plan - truss plan only, no truss calculations. (Stick framed roof design budget has been provided as an option. Please refer to fee schedule)
• Sections, as necessary, maximum of two (2) per unit
• External elevations: one (1) front, two (2) sides, and one (1) rear as plan typical elevations • Recommended external materials
• Architectural and structural details
• Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plans; limited to line diagram electrical and mechanical (no engineered design)
• T24 Energy calculations
• No fire sprinklers plans are to be provided other than designating the requirement for fire sprinklers as applicable
• CALGreen (Title 24/Part 11) requirements sheet
• One (1) plan review cycle is anticipated
• Digital delivery of (6) color exterior renderings suitable for marketing and publication • Digital delivery of (3) illustrative floor plan for marketing and publication Final Delivery Documents:
• 24 x 36 PDF file
Item I.4
Packet Page 101
Work Plan, Schedule and Cost | Section 4 29
Phase 3: Coordination and Finalization
Task 3.A: Project Management/Coordination
The foundation of RRM’s practice relies on expert and proactive project management. Successfully accomplishing each unique assignment within the needed timeframe and allocated budget is essential. RRM focuses on capturing a clear direction on final deliverables and end products at the beginning of a project, establishing a shared understanding of the project with the jurisdictions and all team members. This provides an essential project “road map.” RRM develops a critical path schedule, monitoring and updating it regularly throughout the process.

We regularly provide status reports of project progress and coordinate closely with the project manager and key consultant team members. RRM views close project team collaboration as a key mechanism to ensure issues are well-vetted and fully addressed because better projects result from multiple perspectives. In addition, all product deliverables are reviewed internally for quality control purposes before the plan review submittal.

RRM has found it helpful to establish mutually agreeable, timely turnaround review times in managing a schedule. One practical approach can be for the jurisdiction to provide one redlined, marked-up version of comments from its staff so that all comments are reconciled and expedite the revision process. Early consultation with affected agencies and stakeholders is vital for a smooth and efficient process. These approaches reduce potential surprises that can add costs, cause delays, and dilute consensus.

In addition, the performance of project managers is evaluated in several ways:
• Monthly review of compliance with project budgets by task by RRM management and principals. • Our Unanet project management and accounting software also allow project managers and principals to track daily time entries and task budgets.
• Ongoing oversight by the principal-in-charge regarding contract and schedule adherence as well as overall project progress.
• Periodically, report cards are provided to clients to solicit feedback on the project manager and overall project performance.
• Annually, project managers are evaluated on the quality of their performance. • Throughout the project process, client feedback is sought by both RRM project managers and contract personnel to ensure satisfaction and provide the opportunity for adjustment if needed.

We take project management seriously and are committed to delivering on time and on budget.

RRM may need to coordinate and meet with City staff, various departments, and interest groups in addition to those specifically outlined in this scope. This will include information teleconferences, meetings, research correspondence, status reports, record keeping, project coordination, electronic file management, preparation for meetings, and all other coordination during the project.

Deliverables:
• PDFs, project administration, and coordination as needed • Conference calls and emails as needed
• Print sets for plan check submittal and resubmittal
• Plan revisions as needed through review process
• Final Plan sets delivered in a digital format as stamped and signed approval record sets and water marked public sets for distribution
Item I.4
Packet Page 102
30 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans Work Program Assumptions
• Meeting notices: The City is responsible for printing and distributing physical meeting notices when needed. If requested, the costs of providing printing and/or distribution of meeting notices would be on a time and materials basis
• Meeting attendance: The project budget does not include attendance at public meetings. The costs of additional meeting attendance would be on time and materials. In addition, meetings are assumed to be conducted using a virtual format
• Draft documents: A draft of each document will be provided to staff and revised based on a single set of consolidated comments providing clear direction.
• Printing: This budget assumes the City will be responsible for printing and distributing documents • Environmental review. The scope of work requested does not include environmental documentation or clearance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. As such, environmental documentation and technical studies are not included in this work program. However, such documentation would be provided on a time and materials basis if requested.
• Ownership: Upon completion of the final plan review and delivery, the prototype plans will become the intellectual property of the city.
• Public Use: Upon final approval, an approved record set will be provided for county records as the Master Plan. Separate sets for public distribution will be provided with county logos and watermarked “APPROVED FOR USE IN THE CITY OF XXXXXX ONLY.”
• This proposal assumes the City will own and maintain the approved architect or engineer stamped originals, issue users unstamped copies, and require a hold harmless agreement to be signed by the end user. The wording suggested similar to ”By using these permit-ready accessory dwelling unit construction documents, the user agrees to release, hold harmless, and indemnify the City, its elected officials and employees, and the architect or engineer who prepared these construction documents from any claims, liabilities, suits, and demands on account of any injury, damage or loss to persons or property, including injury or death, or economic losses, arising out of the use of these construction documents.”
Item I.4
Packet Page 103
Project Timeline
Permit Ready ADU
Project Timeline
May 29, 2026
Contract Initiation
Task 1A: Initiation Meeting
Task 2.A: Schematic Design
Task 2.A: Public Comment and Jurisdictional Review
Task 2.A: Schematic Design Revisions
Task 2.A: Jurisdictions Council Approval and Resolution Task 2.B: Building Plan Development
Task 3.B: Building Department Review
Task 3.A: Project Management/Coordination
Meeting
Duration
Nov Dec Jan Feb

ADU PROTOTYPES
June July Aug Sept Oct
Item I.4
Packet Page 104
RRM
RANDY
RUSSOM
RRM

JESSICA

MEADOWS
RRM

KRISTINE

FERREIRA
RRM

ARCH STAFF
RRM

ENG STAFF
252 $ per hour 210 $ per hour 175 $ per hour 130 $ per hour 130 $ per hour PHASE 1: Project Kick Off and Research FEE
TYPE

ESTIMATED
FEE

1.A Initiation Meeting / Data Gathering T&M NTE $ 3,406 3 $756 1 $210 8 $1,400 8 $1,040 0 $0 Total: $ 3,406
PHASE 2: ADU Design and Plan Review FEE
TYPE

ESTIMATED
FEE

2.A Schematic Design T&M NTE $ 18,222 16 $4,032 3 $630 24 $4,200 72 $9,360 0 $0

2.B Document Preparation and Plan Review T&M NTE $ 40,106 18 $4,536 9 $1,890 32 $5,600 152 $19,760 64 $8,320 Value: 58,328 $
PHASE 3: Coordination and Finalization FEE
TYPE

ESTIMATED
FEE

3.A Project Management and Coordination T&M NTE $ 8,512 16 $4,032 8 $1,680 16 $2,800 0 $0 0 $0 Value: $ 8,512
$ 70,246
$ 1,500
$ 71,746

OPTIONAL TASKS FEE
TYPE

ESTIMATED
FEE

2.C Stick Framed Roof (Option) T&M NTE $ 5,124 2 $504 3 $630 2 $350 4 $520 24 $3,120 Value: $ 5,124
Project Manager
Subtotal
Estimated Project Total
Reimbursable Expenses (T24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE)
Fee Footnote
Estimated fees for tasks shown as “Time and Materials - Not to Exceed" (T&M/NTE) are provided for informational purposes only. Amounts billed for these tasks, which will reflect actual hours, will not be exceeded without prior approval by the client.

Reimbursable Expenses
Incidental expenses incurred by RRM Design Group or any subconsultant it may hire to perform services for this project are reimbursed by the client at actual cost plus 10% to cover its overhead and administrative expenses.

Adjustment to Hourly Billing Rates
Permit Ready Prototype AU
Cost Proposal
May 29, 2026 Principal Structural Engineer Engineering Production Staff
Architectural
Production Staff
Cost Proposal
Item I.4
Packet Page 105
33 Pictured: Escondido Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program Section Five:

Indemnification and Insurance
Requirements Response
Proposal For Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
5 Item I.4
Packet Page 106
34 Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda | Proposal for Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans

EXCEPTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO SAMPLE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS
Town of Moraga Sample Agreement – No Exceptions Taken
City of Orinda Sample Agreement – No Exceptions Taken
City of Lafayette – See exceptions noted below.

Page 4 ends

a. Commercial
(v) The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
“We are requesting an administrative exception regarding the required 2001 edition of the Additional Insured endorsement. Our carrier currently utilizes a more recent standard form which provides comparable coverage. Adhering strictly to the 2001 version would require a custom filing, resulting in additional costs and a two-week administrative delay. To avoid impacting the project commencement date, we ask that the City accept our standard equivalent endorsement.”

Page 5 ends

d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend

Page 6 ends

e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(ii) Except for Professional Liability, Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits.

Page 7 ends

g. Policy Provisions Required
(v) With respect to Additional Insured Coverage, The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability. Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.

Item I.4
Packet Page 107
1 25589.00000\45079651.1

CITY OF LAFAYETTE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE LAMORINDA PERMIT-READY

PROTOTYPE ADU PLANS
This Agreement is made and entered into as of June 16, 2026 by and between the City of Lafayette, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California, acting as lead agency for the project described herein, with its principal place of business located at 3675 Mt Diablo Blvd #210, Lafayette, CA 94549 (“City,” “Lafayette,” or “Lead Agency”), and RRM Design Group, a corporation with its principal place of business at 325 Davis Street San Leandro, CA 94577 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is acting as lead agency for a collaborative inter-jurisdictional project involving the City of Lafayette, the Town of Moraga, and the City of Orinda related to the preparation of preapproved Accessory Dwelling Unit prototype plans.

B. The City of Lafayette, the Town of Moraga, and the City of Orinda have jointly issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) seeking qualified residential design and/or design-build firms to prepare complete, permit-ready building plan sets for pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) to support the Senate District 7 (SD7) ADU Program.

C. The intent of the project is to establish a comprehensive, user-friendly library of permitready, pre-approved ADU designs that will be made available to the public free-of-charge, through the websites of the City of Lafayette, the Town of Moraga, and the City of Orinda to streamline permitting, reduce upfront design costs, and facilitate construction of ADUs within the Lamorinda area (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).

D. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

E. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms under which City will retain Consultant to provide professional services for the Project.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Incorporation of Recitals.

The recitals above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Definitions and Lead Agency Status.

For purposes of this Agreement, “Participating Jurisdictions” means the City of Lafayette, the Town of Moraga, and the City of Orinda. City is the sole contracting agency and is entering into this Agreement as Lead Agency for the Project. The Town of Moraga and the City of Orinda are not parties to this Agreement, shall have no obligation to pay Consultant, shall have no

Attachment D
Item I.4
Packet Page 108
2 25589.00000\45079651.1
authority to direct Consultant’s work, and shall have no rights or obligations under this Agreement, except as expressly provided in Sections 16, 17, and 31.

The Town of Moraga and the City of Orinda may participate in meetings, provide comments and input, and collaborate with City and Consultant regarding the Project. However, the Town of Moraga and the City of Orinda shall not independently authorize changes to Consultant’s scope of work, compensation, schedule, deliverables, or other contractual obligations unless approved or confirmed by City in writing. For purposes of Sections 16 and 17 only, “Covered Agencies” means the Participating Jurisdictions and their respective officials, officers, employees, agents, and authorized volunteers.

3. Services.

Consultant shall provide City, as Lead Agency, with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” City may make the deliverables available to the Participating Jurisdictions and the public in accordance with this Agreement. Consultant shall take direction only from City’s designated Project Manager or other representative authorized in writing by City. Consultant may coordinate with representatives of the Participating Jurisdictions as reasonably requested or authorized by City, but such coordination shall not constitute direction, approval, authorization of additional services, amendment of this Agreement, or waiver of any Agreement requirement unless confirmed in writing by City.

4. Professional Practices.

All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel identified in their proposal. Consultant warrants that Consultant is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant’s performance of this Agreement. Consultant further represents that no City employee will provide any services under this Agreement.

5. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 4(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Compensation under this Agreement includes completion of Items 1.A, 2.A, 2.B, and 3.A as identified in Exhibit “B”. Any optional tasks identified in Exhibit “B” shall be performed upon written authorization by the City.
b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $108,890.00. This amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as “Additional Services” and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

6. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following

Item I.4
Packet Page 109
3 25589.00000\45079651.1
manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement. a. Adjustments. No retroactive price adjustments will be considered and no price increases will be permitted during the first year of this Agreement, unless agreed to by City and Consultant in writing.

7. Term.

This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue through April 1, 2027, unless the Agreement is previously terminated as provided for herein (“Term”).

8. Maintenance of Records; Audits.
a. Records of Consultant’s services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of four (4) years from the Effective Date.
b. Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

9. Time of Performance.

Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”).

Consultant shall complete the services required under this Agreement in accordance with the schedule and milestone requirements set forth in the Activity Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.

10. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include a Force Majeure Event. For purposes of this Agreement, a Force Majeure Event shall mean an event that materially affects the Consultant’s performance and is one or more of the following: (1) Acts of God or other natural disasters occurring at the project site; (2) terrorism or other acts of a public enemy; (3) orders of governmental authorities (including, without limitation, unreasonable and unforeseeable delay in the issuance of permits or approvals by governmental authorities that are required for the services); and (4) pandemics, epidemics or quarantine restrictions. For purposes of this section, “orders of governmental authorities,” includes ordinances, emergency proclamations and orders, rules to protect the public health, welfare and safety. b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party

Item I.4
Packet Page 110
4 25589.00000\45079651.1
describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement. Delays shall not entitle Consultant to any additional compensation regardless of the Party responsible for the delay.

11. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.

12. Standard of Care.

Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

13. Conflicts of Interest.

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall at all times maintain a duty of loyalty and a fiduciary duty to the City and shall not accept payment from or employment with any person or entity which will constitute a conflict of interest with the City.

14. Assignment and Subconsultant.

Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

15. Independent Contractor.

Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided. Any personnel performing the work governed by this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance.

Item I.4
Packet Page 111
5 25589.00000\45079651.1

16. Insurance.

Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to City that Consultant has secured all insurance required under this section. For purposes of the additional insured, waiver of subrogation, primary and non-contributory, and related protection requirements expressly stated in this Section 16, the protected entities shall include the Covered Agencies. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
(9) Independent Consultants Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall name the Covered Agencies as additional insureds, including their respective officials, officers, employees, and agents using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the Covered Agencies as additional insureds. b. Automobile Liability

Item I.4
Packet Page 112
6 25589.00000\45079651.1
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall name the Covered Agencies, including their respective officials, officers, employees, agents, and authorized volunteers, as additional insureds.
(iv) Subject to written approval by City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the Covered Agencies as additional insureds, but not a self-insured retention. c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to City and in an amount indicated herein. This insurance shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend.

Consultant’s professional liability coverage shall apply to claims arising out of Consultant’s professional services performed under this Agreement, including claims asserted by or against any Covered Agency, to the extent such claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to Consultant’s negligent acts, errors, or omissions, recklessness, or willful misconduct in the performance of professional services under this Agreement.

Item I.4
Packet Page 113
7 25589.00000\45079651.1
e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Except for Professional Liability, defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits.
(iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by any Covered Agency shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.

Item I.4
Packet Page 114
8 25589.00000\45079651.1
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the Covered Agencies or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against the Covered Agencies, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. (v) With respect to Additional Insured Coverage, the limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability. Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the Covered Agencies and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project.

Item I.4
Packet Page 115
9 25589.00000\45079651.1
(iv) Neither the City, the Covered Agencies, nor any of their respective officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the Covered Agencies as additional insureds using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

17. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the Covered Agencies free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any alleged acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, or the Covered Agencies. Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. b. If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

18. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment

Item I.4
Packet Page 116
10 25589.00000\45079651.1
of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

19. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

20. Jurisdiction Material Requirements.

Consultant is hereby made aware of the City’s requirements regarding materials, as set forth in Exhibit A, which are deemed to be a part of this Agreement.

21. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

22. Termination or Abandonment.
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and

Item I.4
Packet Page 117
11 25589.00000\45079651.1
specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.

23. Attorneys’ Fees.

In the event that litigation is brought by any Party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing Party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the prevailing Party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. The costs, salary, and expenses of the City Attorney’s Office in enforcing this Agreement on behalf of the City shall be considered as “attorneys’ fees” for the purposes of this Agreement.

24. Responsibility for Errors.

Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City’s representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant’s professional services occurs, Consultant shall, at no cost to City provide all other services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of the City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction.

25. Prohibited Employment.

Consultant shall not employ any current employee of Participating Jurisdictions to perform the work under this Agreement while this Agreement is in effect.

26. Costs.

Each Party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein.

27. Documents.

Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City. City may use, reproduce, distribute, post, and

Item I.4
Packet Page 118
12 25589.00000\45079651.1
authorize use of the deliverables by the Participating Jurisdictions and the public for purposes of the Project, subject to the terms of this Agreement.

28. Organization.

Consultant shall assign Kristine Ferreira as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

29. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

30. Notice.

Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of Lafayette
3675 Mt Diablo Blvd #210
Lafayette, CA 94549
Attn: Madison Church, Assistant Planner
CONSULTANT:

RRM Design Group
325 Davis Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Attn: Randall Russom, Principal-in-Charge
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof. City shall be responsible for coordinating communications with the Participating Jurisdictions. Notices to or from Consultant under this Agreement shall be given only by or to City, unless City expressly directs otherwise in writing.

31. Third Party Rights.

Except for the limited rights expressly granted to the Covered Agencies under Sections 16 and 17, nothing in this Agreement is intended to confer, and nothing shall be construed to confer, any rights, remedies, or benefits upon any person or entity other than City and Consultant.

The Participating Jurisdictions that are not parties to this Agreement are intended third-party beneficiaries solely with respect to the insurance and indemnification protections expressly provided in Sections 16 and 17, and not with respect to any other provision of this Agreement.

Without limiting the foregoing, no homeowner, property owner, contractor, developer, tenant, member of the public, or other user of the prototype ADU plans shall be deemed a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.

32. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to

Item I.4
Packet Page 119
13 25589.00000\45079651.1
initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

33. Entire Agreement.

This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. Any separate memorandum of understanding or other agreement among the Participating Jurisdictions shall not modify Consultant’s rights or obligations under this Agreement unless Consultant and City expressly agree in writing to such modification. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

34. Severability.

The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

35. Successors and Assigns.

This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each Party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

36. Non-Waiver.

None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either Party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

37. Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

38. Headings.

Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain, or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.

39. Amendments.

Only a writing executed by City and Consultant or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement.

40. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants.

Item I.4
Packet Page 120
14 25589.00000\45079651.1
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

41. Prohibited Interests.

Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

42. Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one single Agreement.

43. Authority.

The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said Parties and that by doing so, the Parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement.

44. Electronic Signature.

Each Party acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement may be executed by electronic or digital signature, which shall be considered as an original signature for all purposes and shall have the same force and effect as an original signature. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Item I.4
Packet Page 121
15 25589.00000\45079651.1

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE

AND RRM DESIGN GROUP
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF LAFAYETTE RRM DESIGN GROUP
By: By:

Niroop K. Srivatsa
City Manager Its:

Printed Name:

Item I.4
Packet Page 122
16 25589.00000\45079651.1

EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
Consultant shall provide professional architectural, engineering, design, coordination, and related consulting services necessary to prepare permit-ready, pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (“PADU”) prototype plans and associated public-facing materials for use by City and, as authorized by City, the Participating Jurisdictions as part of the Project.

Services shall be performed in accordance with this Agreement, the RFP, Consultant’s proposal, applicable laws and regulations, and all directions reasonably provided by City as Lead Agency.

Consultant may coordinate with staff of the Participating Jurisdictions as reasonably requested or authorized by City, but Consultant shall take direction only from City unless otherwise authorized in writing by City.

Consultant shall furnish all labor, supervision, equipment, materials, software, consultants, coordination, and incidentals necessary to complete the services described herein. a. Permit-Ready Prototype Plans. Consultant shall prepare complete prototype ADU plan sets suitable for preliminary plan check review by the Contra Costa County Building Division and public distribution as pre-approved ADU prototype plans.

For purposes of this Agreement, “permit-ready” means a complete prototype construction document package prepared to a level sufficient for County plan check review and public use as a prototype ADU design, including all materials reasonably necessary for review and implementation.

Permit-ready prototype plan sets shall include, as applicable, prototype ADU designs in Craftsman/Ranch and Mediterranean architectural styles for the following unit configurations and approximate size ranges:
x Studio (approximately 300–500 square feet);
x One-bedroom, one-bathroom (approximately 500–700 square feet); and x Two-bedroom, two-bathroom (approximately 650–800 square feet).

Each prototype plan set shall include the following components, as applicable:
x Architectural plans;
x Structural plans and calculations;
x Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plans;
x Foundation details;
x Site adaptability considerations;
x Title 24 energy documentation;
x CALGreen documentation;
x Applicable fire/WUI compliance requirements;
x Solar readiness requirements;
x Applicable County review requirements;
x Accessibility and code compliance requirements;
x Specifications and schedules reasonably necessary for prototype plan review.

Item I.4
Packet Page 123
17 25589.00000\45079651.1
b. Cross-Jurisdiction Compatibility. Consultant shall prepare prototype ADU plans intended for use across the City of Lafayette, the Town of Moraga, and the City of Orinda to the maximum extent feasible.

Consultant shall:
x Minimize jurisdiction-specific variations unless required by applicable regulations; x Identify any conflicting or unique jurisdictional requirements early in the design process;
x Coordinate with Participating Jurisdiction staff as reasonably requested or authorized by City regarding standardization opportunities; x Design prototypes adaptable for use across multiple site conditions commonly found within the Lamorinda area.
c. Site Adaptability Standards. Consultant shall reasonably consider common local site and development constraints typical within the Lamorinda area, including:
x Variable lot orientations;
x Hillside conditions;
x Pier versus slab foundation conditions;
x Wildland Urban Interface (“WUI”) and fire-related requirements; x Solar readiness requirements;
x Typical setbacks and site limitations;
x Adaptability to varying parcel configurations where feasible.

The prototype plans are intended to serve as adaptable prototype designs and are not intended to eliminate the need for site-specific review. d. County Coordination. Consultant shall coordinate with both the Contra Costa County Building Division and Participating Jurisdiction staff as reasonably requested or authorized by City throughout the Project as reasonably necessary to facilitate review and acceptance of the prototype ADU plans.

Services shall include:
x Participation in coordination meetings if requested;
x Incorporation of County review comments;
x Preparation of necessary revisions to facilitate prototype/pre-approved ADU acceptance;
x Coordination with planning, building, and fire review staff as applicable; x Ongoing consultation with City and, as authorized by City, Participating Jurisdiction staff regarding code interpretation and review comments. e. Public Website and Distribution Materials. Consultant shall prepare publication-ready materials suitable for online public distribution through City’s website and, as authorized by City, the Participating Jurisdictions’ websites.

Deliverables shall include, at minimum:
x Downloadable PDF plan sets;
x Colored renderings and elevations;
x Graphics and visual materials;
x Summary sheets and plan descriptions;
x Thumbnail images;

Item I.4
Packet Page 124
18 25589.00000\45079651.1
x Public-facing informational materials;
x Consistent file naming conventions;
x Website-ready digital graphics and images.

Consultant shall provide materials in formats suitable for digital publication and long-term public access.
f. Public Meeting and Presentation Materials. Consultant shall prepare materials reasonably necessary to support public meetings and staff reports related to the Project.

Such materials may include:
x Colored elevations and renderings;
x Materials palettes;
x Presentation graphics;
x Digital agenda graphics;
x Illustrative exhibits explaining prototype features and design concepts. g. Deliverables and File Formats. Consultant shall provide all final deliverables in both PDF and editable native digital formats.

Deliverables shall include, where applicable:
x Native CAD and/or Revit files;
x Linked files and associated references;
x Fonts and templates necessary to utilize files;
x Editable rendering files;
x Calculations and supporting documentation;
x Renderings and graphics;
x Final PDF plan sets.

All deliverables shall become the property of the City upon payment in full, subject to the intellectual property provisions of this Agreement. City may use, reproduce, distribute, post, and authorize use of the deliverables by the Participating Jurisdictions and the public for purposes of the Project, subject to the terms of this Agreement. h. Disclaimer Language. Consultant shall prepare standard disclaimer language for inclusion with publicly distributed prototype plans.

Such disclaimer language shall clarify that:
x The plans are prototype plans only;
x Site-specific review and permitting remain required;
x Additional engineering or studies may be required;
x Permit approval is not guaranteed for every property; x Modifications may be necessary depending on site conditions; x Consultant is not responsible for unauthorized use, reuse, or modification of the plans.
i. Schedule and Milestones. Consultant shall perform services in accordance with the Project schedule established by City as Lead Agency and shall cooperate in meeting all program deadlines.

Item I.4
Packet Page 125
19 25589.00000\45079651.1
Consultant acknowledges that timely completion of deliverables is critical to compliance with funding and implementation requirements, including:
x Preparation of materials necessary for City/Town Council resolutions by September 30, 2026, including but not limited to schematic architectural plan sets; and
x Delivery of final website-ready prototype ADU plans and materials by March 24, 2027.

Consultant shall promptly notify City of any anticipated delays affecting Project milestones.

City shall be responsible for coordinating any necessary communications regarding such delays with the other Participating Jurisdictions.
j. Building Code and Regulatory Updates. Consultant shall notify City of any material ADU law or building code changes affecting the prototype plans during the Project term.

Consultant shall incorporate minor code corrections identified during the Project term without additional compensation.

Consultant shall, upon request by City, provide services related to future building codecycle updates, ADU law changes, or modifications to the prototype plan library pursuant to a separately negotiated scope of services and compensation approved by written amendment to this Agreement.

3. No Architect-Client Relationship.

Consultant’s services under this Agreement are provided solely to City, as Lead Agency, for purposes of the Project.. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create or be construed to create any contractual relationship, duty, or obligation between Consultant and any homeowner, property owner, contractor, developer, tenant, or other third party who may access, download, use, rely upon, or modify the prototype ADU plans or related materials.

Consultant shall have no responsibility or liability for site-specific implementation, construction, modifications, reuse, interpretation, or unauthorized use of the prototype plans by third parties or for projects completed without Consultant’s direct involvement and written authorization.

Item I.4
Packet Page 126
20 25589.00000\45079651.1

EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments
Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle. Consultant will include with each invoice a detailed progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task. Consultant will inform City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant. This is a time-and-materials contract.
[FEE SCHEDULE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Item I.4
Packet Page 127
5505$1'< 586620 550-(66,&$ 0($'2:6 550.5,67,1( )(55(,5$ 550$5&+67$)) 550(1*67$)) 550(/,=$%(7+ 2&$032 9,(5$ 5503/167$)) SHUKRXU SHUKRXU SHUKRXU SHUKRXU SHUKRXU SHUKRXU SHUKRXU 3+$6(
3URMHFW.LFN2IIDQG5HVHDUFK )(( 7<3( (67,0$7(' )((
$ ,QLWLDWLRQ0HHWLQJ'DWD*DWKHULQJ 7 017( 7RWDO

3+$6(
$'8'HVLJQDQG3ODQ5HYLHZ )(( 7<3( (67,0$7(' )((
$ 6FKHPDWLF'HVLJQ 7 017(
% 'RFXPHQW3UHSDUDWLRQDQG3ODQ5HYLHZ 7 017(

9DOXH

3+$6(
&RRUGLQDWLRQDQG)LQDOL]DWLRQ )(( 7<3( (67,0$7(' )((
$ 3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQWDQG&RRUGLQDWLRQ 7 017( 9DOXH

237,21$/7$6.6 )(( 7<3( (67,0$7(' )((
& 6WLFN)UDPHG5RRI
2SWLRQDOOSODQVVHWV
7 017( ' 6ORSSHG6LWH5DLVHGIORRU6WHPZDOO6WHSSHGIRRWLQJV RSWLRQDOOVHWV
7 017( ( $GGLRQDOWKSODQZLWKVW\OHRSLRQV
VHWVWRWDOZLWKVORSHGVLWHRSWLRQ
7 017(
$ 3URJUDP2YHUYLHZ%URFKXUH 7 017( % )UHTXHQWO\$VNHG4XHVWLRQV
)$4V
+DQGRXW 7 017( & :HEVLWH&RQWHQW2XWOLQH 7 017( ' ,QLWLDO&RQVLGHUDWLRQV+DQGRXW 7 017( ( $'8+DQGERRN 7 017(

) 3URJUDP3URFHVV+DQGRXW 7 017( 9DOXH

3ULQFLSDO3ODQQHU 3ODQQLQJ3URGXFWLRQ6WDII 3URMHFW0DQDJHU 6XEWRWDO
(VWLPDWHG3URMHFW7RWDO
5HLPEXUVDEOH([SHQVHV
7(1(5*<&203/,$1&(

)HH)RRWQRWH(VWLPDWHGIHHVIRUWDVNVVKRZQDV´7LPHDQG0DWHULDOV1RWWR([FHHG 7 017(
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

Item I.4
Packet Page 128
21 25589.00000\45079651.1

EXHIBIT C
Activity Schedule
[ACTIVITY SCHEDULE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Item I.4
Packet Page 129
Project Timeline
Permit Ready ADU3URMHFW7LPHOLQH0D\

Contract Initiation
Task 1A: Initiation Meeting
Task 2.A: Schematic Design
Task 2.A: Public Comment and Jurisdictional Review
Task 2.A
Schematic Design Revisions
Task 2.A
Jurisdictions Council Approval and Resolution
Task 2.B: Building Plan Development
Task 3.B: Building Department Review
Task 3.A: Project Management/Coordination
0HHWLQJ
'XUDWLRQ
Nov Dec Jan Feb

ADU PROTOTYPES
June July Aug Sept Oct

Item I.4
Packet Page 130
Lamorinda PADU Program
CITY COUNCIL SEP 15, 2026
Attachment E
Item I.4
Packet Page 131
Program Background & Goals
Joint partnership: A collaboration between the
City of Orinda, City of Lafayette, and Town of
Moraga pooling $150,000 in grant funding.

Funding: Supported by a $2.5 million grant from
the Senate District 7 ADU Accelerator Program.

Objective: Adopt a shared library of pre-approved
ADU plans available to residents at no cost.

Homeowner Benefits: Saves up to 10% on upfront
design fees, eliminates months of drafting time,
and streamlines local building permit review.

Item I.4
Packet Page 132
Timeline
May 2026
Consultant Selection:

Participating jurisdictions
(Orinda, Lafayette, Moraga)
issue a Request for Proposals
(RFP) and select RRM Design
Group to develop the
pre-approved plan sets.
11 Aug 2026
Planning Commission Review:

Advisory study session held for
the Orinda Planning
Commission to review the four
draft prototype designs.

Aug 2026
Community survey open for
Lamorinda residents to submit
feedback on prototype layouts
and preferred features until
Aug 31.

Aug - Sep 2026
Plan Refinements: RRM Design
Group updates and finalizes
the prototype plan sets based
on compiled commissioner
and public feedback.
15 Sep 2026
City Council Approval Hearing:

Staff presents the final PADU
plans and adoption resolution
to the Orinda City Council.
30 Sep 2026
State Grant Adoption
Deadline: Target deadline for
all participating jurisdictions to
formally adopt the PADU plans
by Council resolution to retain
grant funding.

Sep 2026 – Jan. 2027
Complete building plan sets
will undergo technical and
compliance reviews by local
Building Divisions and the
Moraga-Orinda Fire District
(MOFD).
3 Mar 2027
Target Program Go-Live:

Official public launch of the
shared Lamorinda PADU plan
library for residents.

Item I.4
Packet Page 133
Plan 1
Item I.4
Packet Page 134
Plan 2
Item I.4
Packet Page 135
Plan 3
Item I.4
Packet Page 136
Plan 4
Item I.4
Packet Page 137
Plan Set Comparison
Plan #1
(495 sq. ft.)
Plan #2
(496-601 sq. ft.)
Plan #3
(746 sq. ft.)
Plan #4
(796 sq. ft.)
Studio or 1-Bed / 1-Bath 1-Bed / 1-Bath 2-Bed / 2-Bath 2-Bed / 2-Bath • Features optional interior
walls and a door to enclose an
optional bedroom space.
• Option to add a skylight or
solatube.
• Includes an optional 5'-0" x
10'-6" covered front porch.
• Adaptable bathroom and
open living spaces.
• Base plan includes an
optional 16'-6" x 5'-6"
covered porch.
• Expandable: Porch may be
replaced with an extended
living area, increasing space
to 601 sq. ft.
• Keeps size strictly under the
750 sq. ft. impact fee threshold.
• Flexible layout allows the
second bedroom to easily
convert into an optional office.
• Optional 15'-2" x 5'-0" covered
porch.
• Maximizes the 800 sq. ft. state
streamlining limit.
• Symmetrical layout with a
bed/bath on each side of the
unit.
• Optional 17'-0" x 5'-0" covered
porch.

Item I.4
Packet Page 138
● The proposed action does not constitute a "Project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5). ● ADUs and JADUs approved ministerially are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects) of the CEQA guidelines and Section 21080, subdivision (b)(1) of the Public Resources Code. In addition, ADUs can be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines.

CEQA
Item I.4
Packet Page 139
Adopt Resolution 71-26 approving the Lamorinda Pre-Approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (PADU) prototype designs.

Recommendation
Item I.4
Packet Page 140
RRM Design Group will prepare complete building plan sets.They will include the following:

1. Floor plan

2. Foundation plans, including slab-on-grade and options for moderately sloped sites

3. Sections (1 – 2)

4. Exterior elevations

5. Roof plan

6. Renderings of exterior and interior features suitable for publication

7. Material schedules for each of the three architectural styles

8. Electrical

9. Schematic Mechanical

10. All other Preapproved Accessory Dwelling Unit Submittal Checklist requirements of the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department
The consultant will coordinate with the participating jurisdictions, fire districts, and the Contra Costa County Building Division to address applicable building and permitting requirements.

Next steps
Item I.4
Packet Page 141
Questions
Item I.4
Packet Page 142

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Administration
Meeting Date: September 15, 2026
SUBJECT:

Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 73-26 in Support of Measure W EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider supporting Measure W, a parcel tax for Acalanes Union High School District.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 73-26 In Support of Measure W for the November 2026 Election

BACKGROUND:

The Governing Board of the Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD) has placed a parcel tax measure on the November 3, 2026 General Election:

MEASURE W BALLOT QUESTION: “Shall the measure supporting high-quality education in local high schools by: attracting/retaining highly qualified teachers; continuing advanced academic programs in science, technology, engineering, math, and arts that prepare students for success in college and careers; maintaining manageable class sizes with Acalanes Union High School District levying a $168 parcel tax for eight years, with senior exemptions, citizens’ oversight and independent audits, providing $6,000,000 annually in local school funding that cannot be taken by the State, be adopted?”
DISCUSSION:

The Yes for Quality High Schools - Yes on W 2026 Campaign has asked that the City Council of the City of Orinda adopt a resolution to support the measure.

Measure W must be supported by two-thirds of the voters who cast a ballot on it.

Educational information regarding the ballot measure can be found on the Acalanes Union High School District’s website.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Item I.5
Packet Page 143
None.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 73-26 In Support of Measure W for the November 3, 2026 Election Prepared, Submitted and Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item I.5
Packet Page 144
1 RESOLUTION 73-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE W FOR THE NOVEMBER 2026 ELECTION
WHEREAS, the Acalanes Union High School District is among the highest performing high school districts in the State of California based on student test scores; and
WHEREAS, many students from Orinda Union School District continue their high school education at Acalanes Union School District, notably at Miramonte High School in Orinda; and
WHEREAS, the District, with Acalanes High School, Campolindo High School, Las Lomas High School, Miramonte High School, and the Acalanes Center for Independent Study (ACIS), is one of the top-ranked high school districts in the State, and has been able to offer its students an outstanding educational opportunity for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Acalanes Union High School District upholds a tradition of academic excellence, contributing to the quality of life and property values in Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Moraga, and Orinda.

WHEREAS, one of the keys to developing and maintaining such an outstanding educational environment within the District has been the financial support provided by property-owners in the District; and
WHEREAS, the State of California only funds a basic education and does not allocate enough money to the District to sustain the teachers, course offerings and programs needed for a quality education; and
WHEREAS, since 1991 local voters have repeatedly supported parcel taxes to provide locally controlled funding to protect the quality of education at local high schools; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that local parcel tax funding has not increased in 16 years even though the costs of providing a high-quality education increase every year; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the Acalanes Union High School District has concluded that the District needs to enhance local parcel tax funding that the State cannot take away; and
WHEREAS, the proposed measure to enhance local parcel tax funding requires strict taxpayer protections, including an independent oversight committee and mandatory audits to ensure funds are spent as promised; and Item I.5
Packet Page 145
2 WHEREAS, under no circumstances shall any of the proceeds of the education parcel tax be used for District office administrators’ salaries and benefits.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby support Measure W for the November 2026 Election.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Orinda, California on September 15, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

___________________________
Brandyn Iverson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Joelle Fockler, City Clerk
Item I.5
Packet Page 146

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Department: Planning
Meeting Date: September 15, 2026
SUBJECT:

Downtown Precise Plan Work Session
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will hold a work session on the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP), rescinded by Resolution 47-24. The DPP was intended to serve as the City’s comprehensive visioning document for the future of Downtown Orinda. As part of its Resolution rescinding the DPP, the City Council directed Staff to ensure that any DPP revisions suggested prior to potential readoption comply with state housing laws, reflect any changes to local, regional, and state policies, and reflect wildfire evacuation concerns.

Additionally, Staff is including in this work session a discussion regarding a development pool concept per the City Council’s “Matters Initiated” in March 2025. Staff will review the concept of a development pool to gauge City Council interest in including this as part of revisions made prior to potential readoption of the DPP. Staff is also including in this work session a discussion of feedback from Caltrans on the infeasibility of the Orinda BART station as a future housing site.

Lastly, this work session includes a discussion regarding potential updates to ConnectOrinda to align capital improvement projects with the updated Downtown Precise Plan and any proposed development or housing pool.

RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND:

The Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) was adopted on January 31, 2023, as part of the broader Plan Orinda project, which also included the 6th Cycle Housing Element and Safety Element (Weblink A). The DPP was intended to serve as the City’s comprehensive visioning document for Downtown Orinda, establishing a cohesive framework for longrange growth and revitalization. As a non-regulatory policy statement, the DPP was Item K.1
Packet Page 147
developed to guide public and private decision-making without directly amending the General Plan or zoning code.

Following the adoption of Plan Orinda, the City was named as the respondent in a lawsuit filed by Orindans for Safe Emergency Evacuation (OSEE) challenging the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On October 9, 2024, to comply with the Court’s ruling, the City Council took action to set aside its approval of the Downtown Precise Plan, adopting Resolution 47-24 (Weblink B).

On March 18, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 14-25, which provided specific direction regarding the future of the Downtown Plan (Weblink C). The City Council directed Staff to pursue potential revisions prior to any readoption of the DPP, and to ensure that any DPP revisions comply with state housing laws, reflect any changes to local, regional, and state policies, and also reflect wildfire evacuation concerns.

DISCUSSION:

The DPP is a non-regulatory document that served a variety of purposes, including the establishment of a vision and guiding principles for the Downtown area, concepts for the role of San Pablo Creek in that vision and it addressed the utility and infrastructure needs for development to ensure that all aspects of future growth are well planned.

The General Plan provides high-level policy goals, the Orinda Municipal Code provides specific regulatory mechanisms, and the objective design standards applicable to the Downtown Core and Downtown General zoning districts cover the development of buildings with a residential component. If re-adopted, the DPP would not change the zoning of any property, and it would not grant entitlements or approve specific projects.

Instead, it would serve as a foundation for policy to guide future discretionary decisions (such as General Plan/zoning amendments or program implementation) and potentially public investments (such as streetscape projects).

In Resolution 14-25, the City Council directed that the DPP should not simply be readopted "as-is," but should be revised to reflect the evolved regulatory landscape since its original 2023 adoption. Staff review of the document focused on satisfying the specific directives provided by the City Council, which include ensuring compliance with State housing laws, alignment with policy, and inclusion of appropriate wildfire evacuation considerations. Additional administrative changes have been made to the document for consistency with existing conditions and ongoing efforts in the Downtown. The full scope of changes is included as Attachment A, and specific changes are referenced below.

Staff additionally evaluated the City Council’s request under Matters Initiated to look at the establishment of a “Housing Pool” to maintain a cohesive approach to upzoning into the new Downtown Core (DCOR) and Downtown General (DG) zoning districts. Staff believes that a proposed “Housing Pool” could be helpful with preparing the community for a future Housing Element cycle in light of the loss of the BART Station parking lot as an option for future housing, as discussed below.

Item K.1
Packet Page 148
Furthermore, Staff proposes updating the ConnectOrinda plan, which would ensure its public improvement projects more effectively support and integrate with broader Downtown development. Staff also considered the creek chapter of the DPP and recommends its inclusion in any readopted plan without major changes.

Finally, Staff provides an overview of initial LADRIS evacuation modeling that compares evacuation under the current Downtown zoning at full buildout with evacuation under a fully rezoned Downtown scenario. This overview is intended to provide an understanding of how partial or even full rezoning would impact evacuation timelines for the City.

Following is a discussion of each of these categories:

1. Compliance with State Housing Laws & Policy Alignment The original DPP was drafted prior to the certification of the 6th Cycle Housing Element and the subsequent adoption of the DCOR and DG zoning districts and associated General Plan land use designation changes. A re-adopted DPP would need to be updated to align its language and maps with these changes, and to ensure the Vision & Guiding Principles chapter does not contradict the codified densities and objective standards.

State laws (2023 – present) that have a potential to impact housing development in the Downtown include:
• Parking deregulation near transit (AB 2097)
• Updated Density Bonus Law (AB 1287)
• Streamlined approvals (SB 423 [updated SB 35])
• Housing Accountability Act expansion (AB 1633)
• Commercial zoning flexibility (SB 6)
• Ministerial approval on commercial land (AB 2011)
Proposed DPP amendments:
a. Make administrative changes to the Introduction and Existing Conditions chapters to ensure the new zones and their relationship to older zones are appropriately reflected, and that the 2025 General Plan changes are reflected. Sections include:
o 1.4 - Plan Programs (See proposed changes in Attachment A, page 1-2) o 2.4.2 - Land-Use Element (See proposed changes in Attachment A, page 5)
o 2.4.6 – Zoning Regulations (See proposed changes in Attachment A, pages 8-9, and throughout the rest of the document)
b. Update Goal 3.1 now that the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Residential Housing in the Downtown Core and Downtown General Zoning Districts have been established, to focus on implementation of these regulations. (See proposed changes in Attachment A, pages 18-19)
Item K.1
Packet Page 149
c. Introduce a subsection (under section 2.4 – Adopted Policies, Regulations, & Plans) that identifies and discusses state housing laws that affect the Downtown. (See proposed addition of subsection 2.4.9 in Attachment A, pages 12-13)

2. Wildfire Evacuation and Safety
Based on prior City Council feedback, any process to re-adopt the DPP should provide an opportunity to evaluate the proposed Downtown policies through the lens of wildfire evacuation and emergency preparedness.

Proposed DPP amendments:
a. Improve subsection 2.4.7 – Fire safety to provide an overview of updated conditions and policies applicable to the Downtown. (See proposed changes in Attachment A, pages 9 - 11)
b. Incorporate the use of evacuation modeling through new policy in the Vision & Guiding Principles chapter. Currently, Staff uses Ladris to review and better understand evacuation scenarios for emergency planning and response. (See proposed changes in Attachment A, pages 26-27 [Policies 9.1.3 and 9.2.3])

3. Proposed "Housing Pool" Mechanism
While the Housing Element rezoned specific Downtown sites to meet State housing requirements, Staff is aware that owners of other Downtown properties have also expressed interest in redevelopment opportunities that may include housing. In the absence of a broader framework, such proposals would likely be considered through individual General Plan Amendment and rezoning processes, rather than through a coordinated approach to Downtown land use planning.

Furthermore, two primary factors suggest a need for a more flexible approach to additional housing in the Downtown:
a. Diminishing housing capacity buffers and "No Net Loss" implications The previously established buffer for low-income housing capacity has been reduced due to site-specific developments in 2023. First, the Caltrans Gateway site was not accepted by HCD to meet Orinda’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 587 lower-income housing units due to complications inherent in the decertification process, resulting in a total surplus buffer (after rezoning) of 5 units. Following the Housing Element’s certification in February 2023, approval of the Paymun project at 31 Orinda Way without a residential component triggered a "no net loss" scenario that resulted in reallocating units from another residential site that were eligible for housing capacity at the lower income levels. This resulted in the loss of Orinda’s surplus buffer for these income categories. If additional sites currently slated for low-income capacity are developed without a housing component, the City will be required to replace those lost units through the State’s “no-net-loss” process.

Item K.1
Packet Page 150
b. Infeasibility of the Orinda BART Station for Future Housing Cycles To address long-term capacity needs, in 2024 the City was awarded a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) technical assistance grant to pursue a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Caltrans and BART regarding future development at the Orinda BART station. In July 2026, Staff received official confirmation that Caltrans has no intention of releasing the land for housing development.

This is largely because the Orinda BART Station site is strictly bound by overarching state and federal safety regulations. As the site is located entirely within the active median of State Route 24, freeway right-of-way rules reserve the land exclusively for transportation functions. Caltrans determined that introducing permanent housing into this controlled-access environment would create fundamental conflicts with highway safety, emergency response, and structural integrity. Furthermore, releasing the parcel would trigger significant logistical and engineering complications, including negative impacts on highway maintenance, interchange capacity, and future corridor preservation, alongside extensive noise abatement and environmental review obligations. Ultimately, Caltrans concluded that the site is operationally unsuitable for residential use, noting there is no precedent in California or elsewhere for developing housing within an active freeway median. See Attachment B for the July 14, 2026, memo from LeSar Development Consultants, which provides an overview of the challenges involved with this site.

Staff and the community have considered the BART station site as a critical potential resource for meeting the 7th Cycle RHNA, but this avenue is no longer a viable option. In response to this determination, the City is seeking MTC’s approval to redirect the MTC grant funding to enable consultants to conduct preliminary research on alternative sites suitable for the 7th cycle. This development further highlights the need for adaptive local policies to accommodate required growth.

Housing Pool Concept
In light of the considerations outlined above, Staff proposes that the City consider establishing a pool of additional residential units within the DPP area, coupled with a Community Benefits Program. The Housing Pool concept would provide a framework for accommodating property owner interest in redevelopment while maintaining a defined level of local oversight over additional residential growth.

Under this approach, eligible property owners could pursue rezoning to the DCOR or DG zoning districts through a streamlined process, subject to the applicable development standards of those districts. The program would establish a fixed maximum number of additional residential units available within the DPP area—for example, 200 units—and would require participating projects to provide an identified community benefit in exchange for access to the streamlined process.

Item K.1
Packet Page 151
Establishing a defined unit cap would provide flexibility to respond to redevelopment interest while allowing the City to manage the cumulative amount of additional residential development within Downtown. The Community Benefits Program would also provide a mechanism for future development to contribute toward identified community priorities.

To align this additional density with the City’s vision, access to the Housing Pool could be contingent upon participation in a Community Benefits Program. Modeled after programs in cities like Dublin and Santa Monica, this requirement ensures that voluntary increases in density result in tangible public improvements.

Development projects utilizing the pool would be required to provide benefits selected from a menu of options that implement the ConnectOrinda plan. Examples include:
• Civic space development (plazas or parklets).
• Enhanced streetscape improvements beyond standard frontage requirements. • Completion of specific ConnectOrinda active transportation projects (e.g., creek access, pedestrian alleyways, county connection shuttles or bike connectivity).

Establishing a Housing Pool would require determining an appropriate unit cap, establishing eligibility timeframes for participation, and identifying administrative tools to track remaining pool capacity and ensure the delivery of agreed-upon infrastructure.

4. Update ConnectOrinda
With the implementation of the Housing Element rezonings and the potential introduction of the Housing Pool, Staff recommends evaluating ConnectOrinda, which is now nearly seven years old, and updating it to reflect current and projected Downtown needs (Weblink D). An update would ensure that the vision for the Downtown public realm remains aligned with the City's current and future capital improvement projects.

As discussed above, the Housing Pool could rely on a Community Benefits Program to justify the streamlined rezoning of non-Housing Element sites. ConnectOrinda could serve as the primary "menu" for these benefits. With an updated approach to the public realm, the City could ensure that developer contributions fund specific, Council-approved projects that complete the Downtown network (for instance, funding a specific segment of a possible creek trail or a pedestrian thoroughfare identified in the plan).

To support implementation of these improvements, Staff also recommends evaluating and refining the draft “Civic Space Standards” subchapter of the Downtown Objective Design Standards for potential incorporation into ConnectOrinda policies (ODS; Weblink E). This section was included in the January 2023 draft ODS document (pages 62–67) but was removed prior to adoption when the public realm standards were separated from the Downtown ODS.

The draft Civic Space Standards address the design and development of public spaces such as plazas, paseos, and pocket parks. With further review and refinement, these Item K.1
Packet Page 152
standards could provide a clear and consistent framework for public realm improvements associated with Downtown development and future ConnectOrinda projects.

Finally, the streetscape projects originally outlined within ConnectOrinda could be reevaluated through the lens of wildfire evacuation. One 2019 concept, for example, involves bulb-outs/curb extensions, which may need to be carefully refined to ensure they do not constrain critical evacuation capacity.

5. Retain the San Pablo Creek chapter
No major amendments are proposed for the San Pablo Creek chapter, which Staff feels appropriately encapsulates the community’s vision for the creek. Minor amendments or additions should reflect the updated activities since the original adoption of the DPP, including relevant approvals at 11 and 31 Orinda Way, and updated efforts by the Friends of Orinda Creeks, to include creekside trail improvements. Staff would coordinate with the Friends to make these changes.

6. Evacuation modeling
To assist the City Council in evaluating the potential impacts of Downtown rezoning on public safety, Staff conducted a series of simulated evacuation scenarios comparing a baseline of conditions (which include the current buildout of Orinda and project a conceptual full buildout of the 31 rezoned Housing Element sites) against a scenario that adds a full housing buildout for all additional Downtown Commercial and Downtown Office sites as though they were fully rezoned and redeveloped. These simulations were powered by the City's evacuation modeling software. While Staff has proposed considering a Housing Pool with lower housing unit counts than a full rezoning would allow, the projected full rezoning scenario was used to establish a maximum end of the range. Allowing a capacity for fewer units would impact evacuation less than the demonstrated maximum below.

The underlying assumptions for the projected increase in vehicles under the full rezoning scenario were based upon a maximum capacity build-out of 887 additional residential units distributed across 49 specific parcels in the Downtown area (parcels not already rezoned through the Housing Element). The simulations focused on North Orinda and South Orinda evacuation routes to measure how this added density might affect clearance times. Each scenario was simulated five times, and the results were averaged.

The data indicates that while additional housing density increases the total number of vehicles, the impact on the typical evacuee's trip time is minimal across both routes:
• North Orinda Evacuation: Under full rezoning, the simulations showed minimal impact on overall efficiency. Despite the influx of vehicles associated with the potential 887 units, the average total clearance time saw a slight increase of just 2 minutes (1h 36m to 1h 38m). Most notably, the median trip time remained highly stable, rising by an average of only 1 minute. While the worst-case trip time (the Item K.1
Packet Page 153
longest time a vehicle spent in traffic during the simulation) increased by 6 minutes, the median data suggests the typical resident evacuation experience would remain largely unchanged.
• South Orinda Evacuation: The south side of Orinda also demonstrated that increased density does not inherently correlate to widespread delays for this area.

Under the full rezoning scenario, the average total clearance time showed a statistical decrease of one minute (1h 27m to 1h 26m). Furthermore, the median trip time remained completely stable at 17 minutes, and the worst-case trip time decreased by two minutes. It is important to note that adding vehicles through full rezoning should not technically result in a reduction of evacuation times; however, the key takeaway across these limited scenarios is that there is no significant increase in clearance or trip times. This negligible impact is likely primarily because the added vehicles originate in close proximity to Highway 24, allowing them to ingress onto the evacuation route without creating a major cascading bottleneck for the broader region.

Table 1: Comparative Data Summary
Scenario City
Region
Assumed
Total Vehicles
Avg.

Clearance
Time
(min)
Median
Trip
Time
(min)
WorstCase Trip
Time (min)
A (Baseline) North 5,371 1h 36m 29m 59m
B (Full
Rezoning)
North 5,765 (+394) 1h 38m
(+2m)
30m
(+1m)
1h 5m (+6m)
C (Baseline) South 4,034 1h 27m 17m 1h 5m
D (Full
Rezoning)
South 4,289 (+255) 1h 26m
(-1m)
17m (0m) 1h 3m (-2m)
Note: Emphasizing the median trip times demonstrates that full rezoning does not meaningfully alter the evacuation reality for the average resident. The localized fluctuations in worst-case and total clearance times indicate that proximity to major arterial routes, rather than total volume alone, drives the efficiency of the tail-end of the evacuation.

Item K.1
Packet Page 154
Figure 1: Scenarios A & B: North Orinda Downtown evacuation in LADRIS Figure 2: Scenarios C & D: South Orinda and Theater District evacuation in LADRIS While the simulations evaluated a maximum build-out of 887 units, the proposed Housing Pool would likely restrict growth to a smaller number of units. Because the full rezoning scenario demonstrated stability in median trip times and total evacuation times across both scenarios, Staff anticipates that a capped, partial rezoning approach would yield evacuation metrics that would be closer to baseline conditions. The preliminary evaluation Item K.1
Packet Page 155
suggests the Housing Pool mechanism can successfully accommodate targeted Downtown development without significantly altering the community's current evacuation capacity, though further evaluation would be performed on any proposed Housing Pool or rezoning scenario.

NEXT STEPS:

Based on feedback from this work session, Staff anticipate making a full set of changes within the Downtown Precise Plan in depth along with any associated actions based on the Council’s direction provided during this study session. Staff would then draft an updated Downtown Precise Plan for future City Council review.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no material fiscal impact associated with receiving this report and providing direction.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

1. Wildfire Resilience and Emergency Preparedness
a) Continue evacuation planning, preparation, and training (tabletop and simulated exercises) with local and regional partners, including MOFD, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, Contra Costa OES, Town of Moraga, City of Lafayette, School Districts, EBMUD, PG&E, and EBRPD.
f) Use emerging technologies to guide strategic investments in fuel mitigation and evacuation efforts.

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

3. Downtown Development and Beautification
a) Facilitate the development of high-quality mixed-use projects. b) Evaluate existing conditions and its impact on business growth and seek to create certainty in City process for prospective business owners. c) Engage with Downtown property owners to understand their barriers, goals and needs, and work to encourage development, reuse and tenanting of vacant and under-utilized properties.
d) Revisit Connect Orinda, explore new ideas to create vitality within the public right of way, and report on the most effective strategies for economic development.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Proposed redline changes to the Downtown Precise Plan B. Memo from LeSar Development Consultants
C. Staff Presentation
WEBLINKS:

A. Rescinded Downtown Precise Plan
B. City Council Resolution 47-24 (Setting aside certification of the EIR and DPP) Item K.1
Packet Page 156
C. City Council Resolution 14-25 (Directing potential changes prior to any readoption of the DPP)
D. ConnectOrinda
E. Draft Civic Space Standards from the January 31, 2023 Draft Objective Design Standards
Prepared by: Darin Hughes, Associate Planner
Respectfully Submitted by,
Lashun Cross, Planning Director
Approved By:

Linda Smith, City Manager
Item K.1
Packet Page 157
1 Proposed redline changes to the Downtown Precise Plan

1.1 Plan Overview
What is the Downtown Precise Plan?
The Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) documents the City of Orinda’s long-range planning priorities for Downtown Orinda. The plan establishes comprehensive guidance for downtown growth management and development decision-making by offering a cohesive downtown vision that will be implemented through future development, policymaking, and programs.

As a statement of policy in the form of text, maps, and graphics, the DPP will be used to guide public and private actions that shape Downtown Orinda. The DPP provides decision makers with information and an outcome-driven framework for making informed decisions affecting the long-range social, economic, and physical growth of the downtown. It also serves as a resource regarding the conditions of Downtown Orinda as well as the policies and regulations in place at the time of the plan’s adoption.

The DPP document is non-regulatory and does not itself affect the General Plan or zoning. The content herein will be used to guide future General Plan and zoning text and map amendments.

The As a result of the DPP and the Plan Orinda process, the draft Objective Design Standards appendix of the DPP will ultimately become adopted as Chapter 6 following the amendments to create development standards that will Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Residential Housing in the Downtown Core and Downtown General Zoning Districts regulate and support mixed-use and residential development for properties in the Theatre and Village districts.

Focus of the DPP
The DPP performs the following functions:
● Provides a backdrop of existing conditions to serve as a baseline for future understanding of progress;
● Establishes a Vision Statement and Guiding Principles to describe the community’s intent for the future of Downtown Orinda;
● Coordinates efforts around land use policy in the Downtown Commercial and Downtown Office zoning districts;
● Establishes a framework to stimulate and manage Downtown housing production in coordination with the 6th Cycle Housing Element;
● Establishes a framework for private and public implementation programs; Attachment A Item K.1
Packet Page 158
2 ● Details the history of and guides revitalization efforts for the daylighted portion of San Pablo Creek; and
● Projects the potential impacts of and mitigation strategies for DPP-supported development and provides mitigation strategies for those impacts.; and ● Recommends urban design standards to meet overall development goals and objectives (to be adopted in the future as Objective Design Standards).

Where the DPP applies
The DPP applies to a 146.3-acre Project Area as outlined in Figure 1–1. It focuses particularly on 77 parcels totaling approximately 50 acres within the Downtown Commercial, and Downtown Core, Downtown Office, and Downtown General zones in the Theatre District and Village District. It does not include the Orinda BART station.

1.4 Plan Programs
Adoption ofAdopting the DPP is just the beginning first step; ensuring its lasting impact on Downtown development will require active, ongoing stewardship by the City and the community.of the work directly related to the plan. Accountability for ensuring the Plan’s impact on Downtown development and implementation programs will be an ongoing process. The following programs are recommended by Staff as the next steps in the lifecycle of the DPP:

1. Consider appropriate amendments to the General Plan to reflect the vision and guiding principles of the DPP including, but not limited to, the amendments in Table 1–A on the following page.

2. Amend the Orinda Municipal Code to codify the draft Objective Design Standards (ODS) included as Appendix A of the DPP. At the same time, amend the General Plan land use map and the Land Use Element to reflect the draft Objective Design Standards.

3. Amend the Orinda Municipal Code to codify the proposed allowable residential uses, minimum retail requirements and other land use requirements as outlined in the Draft Objective Design Standards.

4.1. Continue public outreach to Orinda residents, downtown property owners, prospective owners, and businesses regarding the content and goals of the DPP and the status of the necessary municipal code and General Plan amendments.

5.2. Assess development proposals within the scope of the DPP utilizing the goals and policies of the Vision & Guiding Principles chapter to evaluate and consider consistency with the community’s vision for Downtown.

Item K.1
Packet Page 159
3 6.3. Provide periodic progress updates at public meetings summarizing DPP-related development.

Item K.1
Packet Page 160
4 Eliminate the following table from page 13, as it has already been implemented:

2.3 Project Area

2.3.1 Population characteristics
The 146.3-acre Project Area for the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) does not include the Orinda BART station, which is anticipated to be analyzed as part of a future planning effort. The City’s General Plan (1987) includes the following land-use classifications for downtown:

1. Downtown – Business and Professional Offices;

2. Downtown – Community Business;

3. Downtown – Core

2.4. Downtown – General

3.5. Public and Semi-Public; and

4.6. Residential: Multi-family.

Item K.1
Packet Page 161
5 The focus of the DPP is the Business and Professional Offices, and Community Business, Core, and General land-use classifications, which correspond to the Downtown Office (DO), and Downtown Commercial (DC), Downtown Core (DCOR), and Downtown General (DG) Zoning Districts, respectively. Together, the parcels within the DPP’s focus area comprise a total of approximately 50 acres.

2.4 Adopted Policies, Regulations, & Plans
Both the existing Orinda General Plan and the existing Orinda Zoning Ordinance support mixeduse development in downtown. Mixed use (upper-floor residential over ground-floor retail or office uses) is explicitly allowed by the Zoning Ordinance in the DC District. The DPP will continue the planning efforts for downtown to determine the type, extent, and density of housing that would be appropriate in the Project Area. Concurrently, the DPP will also explore the types of zoning standards that could facilitate such development.

2.4.1 General Plan
Orinda’s General Plan: 1987-2007 is the first general plan to have been developed within the community of Orinda after its incorporation in 1985. The General Plan was adopted to give local citizens primary control over land-use planning and community development to preserve Orinda’s semi-rural character. The General Plan contains policies and objectives that serve as the foundation for regulations that govern Orinda’s development. These development regulations are implemented through the Orinda Municipal Code (OMC).

Orinda’s General Plan has three primary functions:

1. To document agreement between the Orinda Planning Commission and the Orinda City Council concerning long-range development policies.

2. To provide a basis for judging whether specific private development proposals and public projects are in harmony with the policies.

3. To allow other public agencies and private developers to design projects that are consistent with City policies.

Orinda’s General Plan consists of state-mandated elements organized into four sections:

1. Land Use and Circulation (includes Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Parks, Schools, and Utilities elements);

2. Housing;

3. Environmental Resources Management; and

4. Conservation, Safety, and Noise.

As the consensus “blueprint” for future development in Orinda, the General Plan was intended to cover the 20-year period from 1987-2007. Since its adoption in 1987, Orinda’s General Plan has undergone minor revisions and the state-required updates to the Housing Element. While Item K.1
Packet Page 162
6 the spirit and intent of the General Plan may continue to resonate with the community, some of its policies may not fully reflect and respond to today’s needs.

2.4.2 Land-Use Element
As noted earlier, the focus of the DPP is will be the Business and Professional Offices and Community Business land-use classificationson parcels categorized within the General Plan under the following land use classifications:

1. Downtown – Business and Professional Offices: Types of offices to be permitted at specific zones are to be determined by ordinance.

2. Downtown – Core: This classification reflects the uses and development allowed within the Downtown – Community Business land use category, while additionally allowing mixed-use, multifamily residential development. The minimum residential density is 20 units per acre and the maximum densities range from 30 to 35 units per acre, as determined by zoning.

3. Downtown – Community Business: This includes retail stores and services needed frequently by residents, a very limited amount of personal service offices, and small specialty retail stores. Retail services are defined as businesses primarily serving the local needs. Types of establishments to be permitted are to be determined by ordinance.

4. Downtown – General: This classification reflects the uses and development allowed within the Downtown – Business and Professional Offices land use categories, while additionally allowing mixed-use, multifamily residential development. The minimum residential density is 20 units per acre and the maximum density is 25 units per acre. . The General Plan states that development in the Business and Professional Office land-use designation should take on the “village character” and provide “office suites suitable for office uses supporting local community residents and business, rather than regional offices.” Similarly, the General Plan states that retail stores and services in the Community Business land-use designation should primarily be locally-serving.The General Plan’s guiding policies for Downtown Orinda emphasize preserving the area's distinctive "village character" while prioritizing locally-serving retail on ground floors over regional commercial centers or large office complexes. To maintain this local scale and mitigate traffic impacts, the City’s policies call for strict boundaries between commercial/mixed-use and purely residential zones, limiting development at the BART station to parking infrastructure, and directing high-traffic businesses to arterial streets. Additionally, the policies support the integration of high-density, mixed-use multifamily housing within the Core and General designations to help meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without compromising the downtown's traditional aesthetic.

The General Plan provides a framework of implementing policies for the Downtown that establish objective design standards for mixed-use/residential development in Downtown landuse categories, mandate comprehensive landscaping, and enforce a general height limit of 45 feet to favor small-scale architecture. These policies are designed to ensure that ground-level spaces remain predominantly retail-oriented and pedestrian-friendly. Furthermore, the plan addresses downtown circulation and parking challenges through strategies such as developing Item K.1
Packet Page 163
7 time-limit parking ordinances, exploring parking assessment districts, and evaluating targeted infrastructure improvements, including consolidating driveways on Orinda Way and enhancing public access along San Pablo Creek. Together, these measures aim to balance commercial vitality and residential growth with safe, efficient traffic and parking management.

For the complete text and further details, please refer to the City of Orinda General Plan 2.0:

Chapter 2 - Land Use and Circulation.

2.4.3 Safety Element
California requires that all local governments update their Safety Element in conjunction with a Housing Element update in order to address the risk of fire for land classified within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity zones. The current Safety Element was adopted in January 2023 alongside the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

2.4.4 Housing Element
Beginning 1969, California requires that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California Government Code Section 65580 declares that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance. The code acknowledges that cooperation is required across all levels of government to adequately address housing needs. To accomplish the appropriate provision of housing, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for housing development, considering economic, environmental, and fiscal factors.

Orinda, like other local jurisdictions, is required to update its Housing Element every eight years to move towards meeting the state’s total and affordable housing goals. The Housing Element includes goals, policies and programs to direct decision-making around housing. The current 6th Cycle Housing Element plans for the period of 2023 to 2031 and was adopted by the City Council on January 31, 2023.

RHNA. One vital driving force behind the Housing Element is the need to meet or exceed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). For the Bay Area, including Orinda, the RHNA is allocated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development via the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG allocates housing production goals for cities and counties based on their projected share of the region’s household growth, the state of the local housing market and vacancies, the jurisdiction’s housing replacement needs, among other criteria.

The RHNA is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the housing element’s statutory planning period. For the 6th Cycle Housing Element, Orinda is required to plan for 1,359 units during the 2023-2031 planning period at certain densities, 587 units of which must be affordable to lower-income (extremely low, very low-, and low-income) households, 215 must be affordable to moderate-income households, and 557 for above-moderate income households. To meet Item K.1
Packet Page 164
8 these needs, the City, through the DPP, will require increased residential densities in the Downtown Commercial and Downtown Office zoning districts to accommodate 342 units.

2.4.5 Downtown Policies
Orinda’s City Council has set the future of Downtown Orinda as a high priority. As such, the community will have an opportunity, through the DPP process, to revisit the existing General Plan policies in the interest of updating the downtown development standards. Furthermore, as a small, mature, “semi-rural” community straddling a major transportation corridor, it is likely that Orinda will need to respond to the State’s pressure for change.

Table 2–B highlights some of the more pertinent existing downtown policies, some of which may be implemented or furthered through the DPP, and others which may warrant amendment or replacement in conjunction with adoption of the DPP. The Housing Element policies can only be changed in conjunction with the next cycle Housing Element (i.e., in 2023). Please refer to this report’s appendices for a more thorough list of the existing General Plan policies pertaining to Downtown.

2.4.6 Zoning regulations
Intent
The City’s zoning regulations, Orinda Municipal Code (OMC) Title 17, were adopted in 1999 with miscellaneous amendments approved since that time. Downtown is covered by OMC Chapter 17.8, which includes the following statement of intent:

A. Create every opportunity for the downtown area to function as a vital, thriving yet traditional Main Street area, serving local needs and providing for specialty retail activities, consistent with the general plan;
B. Create a vibrant community center by encouraging a variety of businesses which will create pedestrian interaction and pedestrian-scale activities. Emphasize uses which involve pedestrian spaces, including outdoor dining, garden settings, walkways and seating areas;
C. Encourage areas of distinctive character by identifying preferred uses and development standards unique to these locations;
D. Regulate development so as to achieve a vibrant community center over time. All development, including incremental development, small building additions or increases in intensity of existing land uses, shall be consistent with this goal; E. Establish incentives, such as additional building height, higher floor area or broader range of permitted uses to help achieve a vibrant community center; F. Discourage and eventually terminate nonconforming office uses in retail spaces; G. Establish development standards which define desired character, but which allow and encourage flexibility in how this character is to be achieved, including standards involving building heights, setbacks, site planning, building bulk/mass, landscaping, parking, lighting and architecture, as presented in the downtown design guidelines; H. Protect adjoining residential areas from inappropriate or disruptive commercial or office activities;
Item K.1
Packet Page 165
9 I. Encourage parking solutions which will serve long-term needs and will minimize the adverse effects of parking, traffic and circulation on the function and viability of downtown;
J. Encourage activities and development which will showcase the creek, where possible, for low-intensity pedestrian-oriented activities and strolling; K. Provide for multifamily housing, including affordable housing, in downtown areas, consistent with the housing element of the general plan.

Overview of Downtown Zoning Districts The regulatory framework for Downtown Orinda is governed by four active zoning districts: the legacy Downtown Commercial (DC) and Downtown Office (DO) districts, alongside the newly established Downtown Core (DCOR) and Downtown General (DG) districts. While the DC and DO districts provide the historical baseline for commercial and office uses, the DCOR and DG districts were established to modernize the downtown area, support required housing densities, and apply the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Residential Housing. All four zones currently remain in effect to govern the physical form, character, and uses of downtown development. [Keep existing DC and DO sections exactly as they are]
Downtown Core (DCOR) District The purpose of the Downtown Core (DCOR) districts is to generally provide sites for community-serving retail, restaurant, and personal services on the ground floor, and multifamily residential and other uses on upper floors. Development standards are intended to enhance the "village character" of the downtown. The Downtown Core is divided into two distinct districts—DCOR-30 and DCOR-55—which are differentiated only by their permitted residential densities.

DCOR Uses All uses permitted in the Downtown Commercial (DC) district are also permitted in the Downtown Core districts, subject to the same regulations (e.g., Space Type I, II, and III regulations). In addition, multifamily residential uses are permitted by right in the DCOR districts.

Such residential uses are permitted only in Type II and Type III spaces. Up to 30% of the linear building façade containing Type I spaces may include uses ancillary to multifamily residential uses, including access, common areas, and amenity spaces, but residential uses are not otherwise permitted in Type I spaces.

Residential uses in the Downtown Core districts are subject to the following densities:
● DCOR-30: Requires a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum density of 30 units per acre.
● DCOR-55: Requires a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum density of 55 units per acre.

All other uses not specifically permitted in this zoning district are prohibited.

DCOR Standards For developments with no residential uses, the property development standards are the same as those specified for the DC District. For developments with residential Item K.1
Packet Page 166
10 uses, property development standards are specified in the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Residential Housing in the Downtown Core and Downtown General Zoning Districts.

Multifamily residential must be developed in a vertical mixed-use configuration, except in the following cases:

1. When existing development that will be retained on the same site contains Type I Space and the proposed development is located on the site such that no space within the proposed development is a Type I Space, development may alternatively use a horizontal mixed-use configuration.

2. When the site proposed for development does not contain Type I space, development may alternatively use a horizontal mixed-use configuration or a multifamily residentialonly configuration.

Downtown General (DG) District The specific purpose of the Downtown General (DG) district is to provide sites for professional uses that offer services primarily to the needs of Orinda residents, visitors, and businesses at appropriate locations, and to allow for multifamily residential development consistent with the general plan and subject to development standards that ensure consistency with adjoining land uses.

DG Uses All uses permitted in the Downtown Office (DO) district are also permitted in the Downtown General district, subject to the same regulations. In addition, multifamily residential is permitted by right. Multifamily residential development proposed within the Downtown General district must meet a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum density of 25 units per acre. All other uses not specifically permitted in this zoning district are prohibited.

DG Standards For developments with no residential uses, the property development standards are the same as those specified for the DO District. For developments with residential uses, property development standards are specified within the Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Residential Housing in the Downtown Core and Downtown General Zoning Districts.

2.4.7 Fire safety
Pursuant to the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) Ordinance 25-03, adopted in 2025, the majority of the downtown areas are now classified within Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) encompasses nearly all of the Village District along both sides of Orinda Way, while the Theatre District generally falls within the High and Moderate zones. Furthermore, the entirety of the MoragaOrinda Fire Protection District, including the complete Downtown Precise Plan Project Area, is legally designated as a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area.

Neither the Fire Hazard Severity Zone nor WUI designations prohibit development; however, both designations trigger heightened fire-resistant building code standards, strict vegetation management, and specific water supply and emergency access requirements for new structures. In 2026, MOFD adopted ordinance 26-02 to adopt the 2025 California WildlandItem K.1 Packet Page 167
11 Urban Interface Code. To further increase fire preparedness, fire fighing response capabilities, and improve the ability for residents to evacuate, this ordinance expands the provisions of two chapters that increase requirements for emergency vehicle access, water flow capacity, and building standards to cover the entirety of the jurisdiction, including portions of the Downtown outside the designated Fire Hazard Severity ZonesIn 2009, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) designated the Contra Costa County lands (unincorporated area) east of the Project Area and city limits as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Also, in 2009, via Ordinance 2009-01, the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) designated the area just east of the Village District, between Camino Pablo and the city limits as a VHFHSZ. MOFD’s designation also included a portion of the Orinda BART Station.

On June 17, 2020, MOFD adopted Ordinance 20-02, which designated most of Orinda, including a significant portion of the Project Area, as a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUI). Neither the VHFHSZ nor WUI designations prohibit development; however, both designations trigger heightened fire-resistant building code standards for new structures.

The primary evacuation route for any fire near or in Orinda is Highway 24. As such, Camino Pablo, Moraga Way, and Highway 24 onramps within the Project Area serve as fundamental components of any evacuation. According to the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD), Camino Pablo to State Route (SR) 24 is the primary wildfire evacuation route through Downtown Orinda.

In the event of an evacuation, all lanes of Camino Pablo north of SR 24 would be unidirectional in a southerly direction and all lanes of Camino Pablo south of SR 24 would be unidirectional in a northerly direction.

More information on fire safety in Orinda may be found in the 2023 Safety Element of the General Plan. Figure 2–11 shows the wildfire evacuation route as well as the VHFHSZ and WUI designations in relation to the Project Area.

Item K.1
Packet Page 168
12 Replace Figure 2-11 with the updated figure below:

2.4.8 Streetscape plans
Over the course of its history, the City has embarked on a few planning efforts to improve Orinda’s downtown streetscape, including the 2000 Orinda Way Streetscape Master Plan and the 1998 Crossroads Beautification Plan. A portion of the Orinda Way plan was completed in 2001, with the help of grant funds, as part of the “Heart of Orinda” project. In addition to these streetscape plans, in 2011, the City adopted a Bicycle, Trails and Walkways Master Plan which includes some discussion of the downtown area. In 2026, the City initiated an update to this plan to prioritize multi-modal safety throughout the City.

Adopted on November 19, 2019, the Downtown Orinda Streetscape Master Plan— ConnectOrinda—is the City’s latest planning effort pertaining to downtown streetscape improvements. ConnectOrinda was the summation of a year-long community process to identify streetscape and transportation projects that beautify, improve travel through, and preserve the Item K.1
Packet Page 169
13 uniqueness of downtown for people traveling by all modes. The goal of ConnectOrinda was to identify projects with broad community support, particularly those that can be delivered in the next five years.

Its main objectives were to:
● Connect the two sides of downtown for all users.
● Support future pedestrian access along San Pablo Creek. ● Preserve Orinda’s unique sense of place.
● Beautify Downtown Orinda.
● Build consensus for the final plan through robust community engagement. ● Produce grant-eligible projects.

In addition to recommending near-term projects and streetscape design guidelines, ConnectOrinda investigated, albeit at a high level, eight long-term transportation infrastructure improvements to make walking and bicycling between the Village District, the Theatre District, and to the BART station area safer, more convenient, and more inviting. ConnectOrinda calls for a comprehensive transportation study to understand how all modes of transportation serve downtown, including BART. This study would consider the needs of all modes of transportation and recommend improvements that would create a desired balance between each for transportation efficiency. In this way, ConnectOrinda is an important component of the DPP.

2.4.9 State Housing Legislation
The regulatory landscape for Downtown Orinda is heavily influenced by California state housing legislation passed from 2023 onward. These state mandates directly expand development opportunities, modify local approval pathways, and restrict local authority to enforce specific development parameters within each of the downtown districts. State laws with a potential to impact housing development in the downtown include:
● Parking Deregulation Near Transit (AB 2097): This law prohibits the City from imposing minimum parking requirements on residential, commercial, or other development projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Because the Orinda BART Station is centrally located, the entirety of the Theatre District and the vast majority of the Village District fall completely within this one-half mile radius. Policy 7.3.5 (DPP page 91) anticipates and accounts for this shift by explicitly calling for the consideration of alternatives to traditional parking minimums and the adoption of alternative parking-related ordinances.p
● Updated Density Bonus Law (AB 1287): To encourage the creation of missing-middle housing alongside low-income units, this legislation introduces a "Middle-Income Bonus." This provision allows housing developers to "stack" a secondary density bonus on top of the standard 50% State Density Bonus. If a project maximizes the standard bonus by providing the required percentage of Very Low- or Low-income units and Item K.1
Packet Page 170
14 additionally allocates a specific portion of units for moderate-income households, it can achieve a total combined density bonus of up to 100%. Furthermore, projects within onehalf mile of the BART station that achieve these maximum bonuses qualify for an additional concession: a three-story or 33-foot height increase over established local maximums. Under this framework, a developer on a downtown site could theoretically propose a project that doubles the residential density originally allowed by the DPP—for example, jumping from 35 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 70+ du/ac—provided they meet the requisite affordable housing thresholds.
● Streamlined Ministerial Approvals (SB 423): Serving as an update and expansion to the sunsetting provisions of SB 35, this law broadens the ministerial (streamlined) approval process for multifamily housing. Even when a jurisdiction maintains a certified Housing Element, if the City falls behind on its proportional progress toward its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals—as evaluated annually by the state via the Annual Progress Report—developers can invoke this law. Doing so transitions the project review into a non-discretionary, ministerial pipeline, effectively bypassing traditional public Design Review hearings.
● Housing Accountability Act Expansion (AB 1633): This legislation closes a loophole under the Housing Accountability Act by targeting the use of local environmental review processes to delay infill housing. Specifically, it classifies a local agency's refusal to grant a valid California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption, or the administrative requirement of unnecessary, repetitive environmental studies for a qualifying project, as a legal "disapproval" of the housing development. This places strict legal liability on local jurisdictions for stalling projects that legally qualify for environmental clearance.
● Commercial Zoning Flexibility (SB 6): Also known as the Middle Class Housing Act, this law permits residential development on properties currently designated and zoned for retail, parking, or office uses without requiring the developer to seek a formal rezoning or General Plan amendment from the City. To utilize this pathway, projects must meet specific density requirements matching local multifamily standards and commit to utilizing a prevailing wage construction workforce. This means residential uses can be legally proposed on existing commercial sites across the downtown thoroughfares even if the underlying zoning does not explicitly permit residential activities.
● Ministerial Approval on Commercial Land (AB 2011): Enacted as the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act, this law creates a "by-right," ministerial approval pathway for qualifying mixed-income and 100% affordable multifamily projects on commercially zoned land. Projects that satisfy precise affordability criteria and high-road labor standards are entirely exempt from CEQA review and local discretionary approval processes. Similar to SB 6, this legislation enables housing configurations to be introduced on existing commercial parcels throughout the downtown districts independent of local zoning prohibitions.

Item K.1
Packet Page 171
15 2.6.2 Parking
Street parking in and around downtown is free (no meters) and time-restricted anywhere from 1 to 4 hours, the exception being some residential areas near downtown with no time restrictions.

In addition to increasing enforcement of on-street parking hours, the City has two parking permit programs:

1. The Brookwood Road Residential Parking Permit Program (started in 2018); and

2. The Altarinda Road Pilot Employee Parking Permit Program (2019).

Both programs are intended to address BART commuter overflow parking into the downtown and single-family residential neighborhoods as well as the limited availability of parking for downtown employees.

The Orinda BART Station has 1,302 parking spaces, all of which are surface parking spaces.

Prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic, BART estimated that parking at the Orinda BART fills at 7:30 a.m. during weekdays. At the time of the DPP’s adoption, BART ridership from the Orinda BART Station had more than doubled from the lowest ridership numbers at the height of the pandemic; however, weekday parking at the BART station is still well below capacity.Post-pandemic BART ridership has continued to climb year-over-year, however, in June, 2026, Orinda station weekday entries reported by BART were at 54% of the 2019 weekday entries for the same month. The BART parking lots have begun to see increased utilization, with City staff estimating the parking lots at 80% capacity mid-week in April 2026; these numbers fall drastically on Fridays, when it is more common for empoyers to offer work-from-home days or alternative schedules that eliminate some Fridays as work days altogether.

To accommodate various modes of travel, BART converted a small amount of vehicle parking to motorcycle and motorized scooter parking in 2020. As trends unfold, BART may consider converting more vehicle parking to motorcycle and motorized scooter parking. Additionally, 36 BikeLink bike lockers located at the station provide secure, on-demand bike parking at the station.

Between the Theatre District, the Village District, and BART, there are 3,232 vehicle parking spaces downtown. Off-street parking tends to be readily available on both sides of downtown.

A 2018 parking utilization study conducted for the ConnectOrinda Briefing Booklet found both on-street and off-street parking in the Village District to be less than 85-percent during peak hours (85-percent parking utilization is a threshold commonly used as a maximum for ideal parking efficiency, transportation system efficiency, and parking availability). The Theatre District off-street parking utilization was also found to be below 85-percent; however, on-street parking utilization exceeded 85-percent around peak lunch hours and in the early afternoon (the parking occupancy study did not count occupancy after 5 p.m.).

Item K.1
Packet Page 172
16 Further investigation into parking conditions may also be warranted in the future within the framework of understanding long-term changing transportation patterns post COVID 19 pandemic. In 2026, the City kicked off a parking study funded by a $300,000 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)-funded grant to investigate current parking conditions and policies in the Downtown, and assess potential strategies and policies that could be suitable for implementation. The grant is coordinated with BART representatives to identify opportunities for shared resources around the BART station parking lots. The study will result in drafted policy updates to be recommended for consideration and adoption.

Chapter 3: Vision & Guiding Principles

DOWNTOWN VISION
Downtown Orinda is a vibrant, welcoming, and accessible destination that is home to a variety of restaurants, specialty businesses, and diverse housing options that serve the Orinda community; celebrates Orinda's history and semi-rural heritage while supporting new, highquality development that breathes life and beauty into the downtown; espouses community stewardship of the natural environment; promotes lively, interconnected entertainment spaces to celebrate the arts and bring people together through events and performances; fosters responsible growth by supporting a dynamic employment center environment and managing safe, multimodal transportation; and upholds the dignity and safety of all who use the downtown.

Above, the Downtown Vision Statement describes what our community hopes the downtown will become in the long-run. It visualizes a future in which the common goals and aspirations of Orindans have been successfully pursued. The vision statement helps decision-makers direct future policy and development that supports achievement of the vision.

This chapter is arranged around a hierarchy of guiding principles, goals, and policies:

Guiding Principles are the essential areas of current action and future improvement that direct our community's focus and efforts toward achieving its overarching vision. Each guiding principle for dDowntown Orinda is accompanied by a more specific long-range vision of how the community might take shape around the principle if it is diligently acted upon.

Goals are more focused objectives that support the achievement of the guiding principles.

Within the DPP framework, a goal is the community's aspiration for a specific future condition.

Each guiding principle is supported by two to four specific goals.

Policies are specific statements of the City's approach and commitment to a particular goal. If Whereas each goal is considered to be an objective the community hopes to achieve within the downtown, the its specific supporting policies are the specific ways in which the City will work to achieve the goal.

Item K.1
Packet Page 173
17 The ensuing pages are organized into nine ten guiding principles and their subordinant goals and policies.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1: Revitalize the Downtown Economy
VISION
A strong sense of cooperation and mutual support exists between the members of the business community, downtown property owners, and the City. The needs of cherished long-time businesses are reflected in downtown decision-making, enabling their resilience and continued service within the community. Newer businesses find support and resources for starting up operations in Orinda. The business environment is well-networked through downtown business and professional organizations.

GOAL 1.1: Foster a healthy business environment through careful planning, guided private development, and public investment.
● POLICY 1.1.1 Support reinvestment and encourage business growth and retention. ● POLICY 1.1.2 Promote an environment for small business resiliency. Encourage the creative inclusion of small and micro-retail in larger development sites that create a diverse range of economically accessible commercial space options for business owners.
● POLICY 1.1.3 Study evolving market demand and maintain a critical assessment of Orinda's entrepreneurial ecosystem in order to guide public and private investment and allocate resources accordingly.
● POLICY 1.1.4 As resources allow, explore innovative business-friendly initiatives and programs enacted by peer cities and towns.

GOAL 1.2: Improve business startup processes and small business access to resources, supportive infrastructure, and business networking opportunities. ● POLICY 1.2.1 Explore opportunities to streamline business startup processes. ● POLICY 1.2.2 Seek innovative strategies to improve the local public digital infrastructure, including cell, fiber, and wi-fi networks. ● POLICY 1.2.3 Enhance the City's coordination with the business community and downtown property owners throughout the public engagement process for proposed downtown development standards and projects.
● POLICY 1.2.4 Educate the community on available grant funding opportunities and small business resource programs.
● POLICY 1.2.5 Support the development of downtown groups and networking activities for professionals and entrepreneurs.
● POLICY 1.2.6 Cooperate with the Orinda Chamber of Commerce. Expand partnerships between the City and community organizations in order to provide events and seminars benefitting business connections.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 2: Enable and Attract a Diversity of Land Uses VISION
Item K.1
Packet Page 174
18 Orinda houses a diverse mix of independent businesses that exemplify Orinda's small-town character. Orindans travel downtown to shop at specialty grocery shops stores in a lively market hall and dine at a variety of high-quality restaurants, while guests to Orinda can stay in a charming boutique hotel surrounded by shops and restaurants. Community-serving local establishments provide a myriad of options that serve the daily needs of residents and visitors, and include affordable and accessible options for all income levels. Downtown housing has been incorporated into mixed-use projects to better support local establishments. Downtown housing supports families, seniors, and young professionals from a variety of backgrounds who help foster a sense of community downtown and contribute to a lively and engaging atmosphere.

GOAL 2.1: Increase land use diversity that supports the needs of Orinda's residents and businesses, as well as attracts visitors from the Lamorinda region. ● POLICY 2.1.1 Encourage eclectic retail and entertainment establishments to locate downtown and consider regulations that support such uses. ● POLICY 2.1.2 Consider regulations that would allow development of coworking, business incubator, and flexible live/work spaces that accommodate the needs of a burgeoning work-from-home population.
● POLICY 2.1.3 Explore regulations that would allow innovative uses of space beyond retail, such as small-scale manufacturing and other creative spaces. ● POLICY 2.1.4 Discourage ground-floor uses that detract from pedestrian-oriented activity.
● POLICY 2.1.5 Encourage a variety of local dining opportunities including a greater variety and higher quality of restaurants and outdoor dining. ● POLICY 2.1.6 Work to attract a specialty grocery store or market hall that energizes the retail sector and enhances the downtown shopping environment. ● POLICY 2.1.7 Explore regulations that would allow and attract a boutique-scale hotel or Main Street style inn that increases the capacity for locally-serving hospitality.

GOAL 2.2: Meet some of the community's housing needs downtown per pursuant to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation set by the Association of Bay Area Governments. ● POLICY 2.2.1 Consider revisions to the general plan and zoning designations applicable to downtown properties to support the capacity for new housing. ● POLICY 2.2.2 Consider revisions to the general plan and zoning designations applicable to downtown properties to support the capacity for new housing. ● POLICY 2.2.13 Explore regulations that would encourage residential mixed-use development that incorporates neighborhood-serving retail and commercial uses on the ground floor.
● POLICY 2.2.24 Work to encourage housing density at a level that is compatible with locally-serving land uses, while maintaining an accessible downtown for all of Orinda. ● POLICY 2.2.35 Focus on the production of an expanded variety of quality housing choices that are inclusive of all ages and income levels.

Item K.1
Packet Page 175
19 ● POLICY 2.2.46 Pursue the goals of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Review and ensure consistency between the Downtown Precise Plan policies and future Housing Element cycles.
● POLICY 2.2.57 Focus on vacant and/or underutilized sites as possible locations for residential redevelopment. In particular, consider the western edge of the Village District near the San Pablo Creek, where the downsloping properties may better accommodate increased building heights away from the street.
● POLICY 2.2.8 Check for consistency with all elements of the City's General Plan (e.g., Land Use Element, Open Space Element, Circulation Element, Conservation Element, Noise Element) and consider proposed changes as appropriate, prior to implementing the policies proposed in this DPP.

GOAL 2.3: Plan for potential housing, office, and/or retail development adjacent to downtown areas.
● POLICY 2.3.1 Coordinate with Caltrans and BART for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) at the Orinda BART station. Use BART's published materials along with its adopted policies and performance metrics to develop a precise plan and objective design standards that would guide TOD at this station's parking areas. ● POLICY 2.3.2 Consider objective design standards to facilitate high quality, contextuallysensitive multifamily residential development in conjunction with rezoning to meet Housing Element obligations.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 3: Pursue New Development That Enhances the Appearance of Downtown
VISION
Downtown Orinda has developed into a network of buildings old and new, eclectic but cohesive, organic yet well-ordered. Newer, community-oriented architecture and sensitive site design compliment older iconic buildings through cohesive architectural styles and appropriate detailing. A variety of downtown residential buildings provide a permanent sense of community through the neighborhood-oriented placemaking that has been incorporated into their design.

Although downtown Orinda has filled in and scaled up in places, the new downtown fabric retains a sense of village charm through attractive, main street-style development.

GOAL 3.1: Pursue Uphold the oObjective dDesign sStandards that guide the development of appropriately-scaled, contextually compatible buildings that strengthen and enhance the downtown's village character.
● POLICY 3.1.1 Explore regulations that would require new developmentApply the Objective Design Standards to incorporate require engaging elements where buildings are located along public sidewalks. These elements might include shopfronts, porches, stoops, and public terraces that strengthen connections between the public realm and downtown buildings. Where uses are inconsistent with an active pedestrian realm, such Item K.1
Packet Page 176
20 as with parking garages, regulations should require developments to include streetfronting, pedestrian-oriented uses that conceal the conflicting use. ● POLICY 3.1.2 Strive to adopt regulations that would gradually transition from smaller buildings nearEnsure that new development respects its surroundings by upholding the transition standards codified in the Objective Design Standards, which graduate scale from residential neighborhoods to larger, more centralized buildings. Foster partnerships with developers early in the application process to ahieve projects that provide contectually-appropriate character. Buildings should be scaled in respect to their surroundings and support a moderate intensity of neighborhood and community-serving uses. Projects with larger development footprints should integrate with the existing developed environment and provide a varied character.
● POLICY 3.1.3 Set Enforce the height limits established in the Objective Design Standards tothat maintain a desirable development scale while contributing to the revitalization of downtown Orinda. When projects legally qualify for height increases or waivers under the State Density Bonus Law, work proactively with applicants to employ architectural techniques such as varied rooflines, strategic material changes, and articulated facades that soften the perceived height and harmonize with the downtown’s built and natural environments.Building heights for each area should be objective and written to require buildings to harmonize with the built and natural environments while reducing constraints on / ensuring the viability of redevelopment. ● POLICY 3.1.4 Explore regulations that would reduce building setbacks from the sidewalk. Implement the setback configurations defined in the Objective Design Standards to bring active ground-floor uses closer to the sidewalk. Pair these standards with widened sidewalks and public realm improvements where possible to promote pedestrian comfort and an engaging main street environment.Combined with widening sidewalks where possible, this would be intended to promote pedestrian comfort and active engagement with a main street environment.
● POLICY 3.1.5 Uphold the upper-story step-back requirements of the Objective Design StandardsPursue objective regulations that would require development to step back at upper stories to reduce the perceived mass of buildings at the street level, blend the roofline of taller buildings with lower buildings, and create light and view corridors between structures. Where developers seek waivers from step-back requirements to accommodate affordable housing density, strongly encourage alternative massing and articulation strategies that still fulfill the community's vision for a human-scaled downtown.
● POLICY 3.1.6 Utilize the Objective Design Standards to successfully integrateConsider objective regulations that would promote vertical mixed-use buildings, particularly at major intersections, that include ground-floor commercial, retail, and entertainment spaces that contribute to an active sidewalk. Emphasize early design consultation with applicants to ensure that achieving required residential densities does not compromise the vitality of the active sidewalk.In areas of lower intensity, focus on objective regulations that would allow horizontal mixed use that locates commercial, services, and housing within short distances of each other.

Item K.1
Packet Page 177
21 GOAL 3.2: Foster a supportive environment for responsible downtown development. ● POLICY 3.2.1 Offer development incentives (e.g., density bonuses) consistent with State Law to encourage appropriate development.
● POLICY 3.2.2 Approach development decisions with pragmatism and with a clear understanding of trade-offs.
● POLICY 3.2.3 Research possible incentives and streamlined processes for combining small lots into larger sites suitable for redevelopment. ● POLICY 3.2.4 Seek partnerships with and supportive policies for quality developers of commercial, mixed-use, and affordable housing developments. ● POLICY 3.2.5 Consider and implement a "Housing Pool" accompanied by a Community Benefits Program to accommodate and streamline desirable residential development interest on properties that retain legacy Downtown Commercial (DC) and Downtown Office (DO) zoning. This mechanism will permit a streamlined process to rezone properties into the Downtown Core (DCOR) and Downtown General (DG) districts, up to a fixed capacity cap, in exchange for the provision of tangible public improvements.

Target an appropriate unit cap, eligibility timeframes, and administrative tools to manage capacity and ensure the delivery of agreed-upon infrastructure.

GOAL 3.3: Reduce blight and activate underutilized properties. ● POLICY 3.3.1 Encourage infill development or redevelopment of blighted and vacant properties.
● POLICY 3.3.2 Support initiatives that reduce or better activate existing deep setbacks.

GOAL 3.4: Pursue Public Works projects that beautify and enhance the sense of place downtown.
● POLICY 3.4.1 As resources allow, implement the recommendations and actions of ConnectOrinda for maintaining the public realm.
● POLICY 3.4.2 As resources allow, implement the recommendations and actions of ConnectOrinda for establishing community gateway markers, appropriate pedestrian lighting, fire-safe landscaping, and street furnishings, and public parklets. ● POLICY 3.4.3 Consider public/private partnerships to address the constraints imposed by the PG&E easement and transmission towers with no net financial cost to the City.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 4: Facilitate Historical Preservation and Celebrate Orinda's Semi-Rural Heritage
VISION
Property and business owners have partnered with each other and the City to establish an attractive and meaningful downtown that supports and celebrates Orinda's sense of community life. The iconic Orinda Theatre continues to stand proudly as a testament to Orinda's historical charm and community resilience. Other buildings of historical significance have also been restored and maintained, enhancing the village atmosphere of the local shops and restaurants that draw residents of Orinda and the greater Lamorinda region into downtown Orinda.

Previously vacant or underutilized properties, such as the former Phair's building, have been Item K.1
Packet Page 178
22 commemorated as historic points of local civic pride that reinforce the village character of newer development. A myriad of art pieces and attractive historic markers tell the story of Orinda's history and reinforce a sense of community pride and heritage.

GOAL 4.1: Support the preservation, rehabilitation, commemoration, and maintenance of historical properties.
● POLICY 4.1.1 Consider the preservation and/or commemoration of buildings and features that reflect the historical village character of the downtown. ● POLICY 4.1.2 Work to streamline the permitting process and reduce regulatory barriers for property owners performing routine maintenance and upgrades on older downtown buildings.
● POLICY 4.1.3 Implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a facade improvement program to streamline facade beautification for Explore streamlined regulations for entrance and façade remodeling on downtown buildings that will contribute to the pedestrian environment and the historic character of downtown. ● POLICY 4.1.4 Research and pursue grants and programs that assist property owners with historic preservation efforts.
● POLICY 4.1.5 Consider regulatory updates to extend the life cycle of existing downtown building stock through adaptive reuse.

GOAL 4.2: Document and represent the history of the City. ● POLICY 4.2.1 Seek opportunities to expand upon the historic marker program throughout downtown, as well as other methods that commemorate Orinda's heritage as a semi-rural village community.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 5: Establish Downtown As an Active Center for Arts and Events
VISION
Downtown Orinda has become a center for arts and culture that provides aesthetic and interactive cultural and recreational activities that represent its diverse population. Artists have access to a bounty of forums to express themselves and the values of Orinda. Residents now enjoy music, dining, recreation, and entertainment through a widened variety of inviting, mixeduse public spaces. In the Village District, food truck nights have culminated in a small culinary festival, while in the Theatre District residents and visitors flock to experience Orinda's charming art and culture street fairs. Orinda's successful public programming has been leveraged to bring life and activity to the community's commercial and retail spheres. The friendly atmosphere of the downtown encourages community engagement and active participation in downtown events.

GOAL 5.1: Animate existing and future public and private spaces through a comprehensive downtown arts program.
● POLICY 5.1.1 As resources allow, implement the ConnectOrinda recommendations and guidelines pertaining to public art.

Item K.1
Packet Page 179
23 ● POLICY 5.1.2 As resources allow, provide opportunities and forums for artists to display and perform their work. Consider implementation of a public performance ordinance or program that compliments and culturally enriches downtown uses. ● POLICY 5.1.3 Consider a public art requirement for development projects. ● POLICY 5.1.4 Consider design and implementation of a public art master strategic plan that guides and coordinates the efforts of downtown art organizations, committees, programs, and initiatives.

GOAL 5.2: Express and enhance Orinda's social and cultural character by promoting downtown as a diverse center with daytime, evening, and nighttime activities. ● POLICY 5.2.1 Pursue cultural activities and opportunities for diverse ethnic, age, and social groups in the downtown, which could include live performances, noon-time concerts, and evening and weekend activities.
● POLICY 5.2.2 Seek creative design strategies that enhance existing public open spaces as flexible mixed-use spaces. Focus on amenities such as furniture, lighting, and art that can help articulate spaces that are frequently used to host events, such as the farmers market and food truck nights.
● POLICY 5.2.3 Pursue new multi-use, accessible public and private spaces that can act as public gathering places and support a dynamic range of cultural events and recreational activities.
● POLICY 5.2.4 Coordinate with Theatre District business and property owners regarding street festivals, art fairs, and other events that can spotlight the Theatre District. Work with Theatre Square owners in particular to broaden the scope of currently-offered public event programming.

GOAL 5.3: Encourage a variety of health and fitness activities throughout the downtown.
● POLICY 5.3.1 Coordinate with local health professionals and community members regarding health fairs, healthy-cooking demonstrations, and physical activity opportunities.
● POLICY 5.3.2 Coordinate Parks & Recreation Department, local fitness facilities, and downtown businesses efforts to conduct outdoor activities during warmer times of the year. Encourage private or consider public development of outdoor exercise equipment to support such activities.
● POLICY 5.3.3 As resources allow, consider art, signs, and markers that create walking and running trails throughout and around the commercial district. ● POLICY 5.3.4 Encourage play areas for children throughout downtown areas in order to support the family-friendly atmosphere.
● POLICY 5.3.5 Consider updating the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1989).

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 6: Restore, Enhance, and Provide Access to the Natural Environment
VISION
Item K.1
Packet Page 180
24 The San Pablo Creek has become a prominent feature of the downtown with a scenic greenway promenade and boardwalk that offer natural vistas. Nearby, restaurant patios overlook the San Pablo Creek, creating a warm, active atmosphere that draws in families and visitors. The creek is connected to the rest of downtown through a series of green pedestrian passages, pocket parklets, and pocket plazas that enhance the feeling of an open downtown immersed in nature.

Orinda's natural beauty is celebrated through the preserved views to its rolling hills and maintenance of its mature native trees. Residents and visitors use pedestrian-friendly pathways to access the trails, parks, and natural scenery in which downtown Orinda is nestled.

GOAL 6.1: Embrace San Pablo Creek.
● POLICY 6.1.1 As resources allow, pursue a San Pablo Creek trail along the eastern bank that is ADA accessible. Study development options for including a bridge that crosses the creek and a boardwalk that follows the western bank. ● POLICY 6.1.2 Strive for a unique brand and identity for San Pablo Creek. This might be done by marking the portals of day-lit portions with archways, sculptures, or gateway signage. Use of painted symbols or artful markers could be used at public locations to reveal the "invisible creek" where it passes below. Decorative bridge railings could be installed to celebrate the creek.
● POLICY 6.1.3 Look for opportunities to incorporate features that provide comfort and vantage points for visitors (e.g., viewing platforms with interpretive signage and seating near the Santa Maria Way/Camino Pablo intersection). Seating and low-level lighting could be used along the creek to create comfortable resting locations at public access points.
● POLICY 6.1.4 Pursue connections between the creek, the Community Center, and the de Laveaga Trail.
● POLICY 6.1.5 Coordinate with private landowners to encourage creek-fronting façades or restaurant vistas, and a contiguous creek greenway that provides public amenities and comfortable pedestrian access along the creek.
● POLICY 6.1.6 Consider bike/scooter parking needs at one or more creek trailhead locations.
● POLICY 6.1.7 Study options to decrease noise at the creek from vehicles traveling on Camino Pablo.

GOAL 6.2: Foster a connection with nature by enhancing the downtown's natural resources.
● POLICY 6.2.1 Pursue a variety of outdoor spaces, particularly public gathering spaces, that blend with the natural environment of Orinda by incorporating native landscaping. ● POLICY 6.2.2 Work with property owners and businesses to contribute to and maintain landscaping throughout downtown, both in the private and public domains. ● POLICY 6.2.3 Seek additional strategies to fund, maintain, and update existing parks and trails through and adjacent to the downtown through partnerships and grant funding opportunities with state, federal, and non-governmental organizations.

Item K.1
Packet Page 181
25 ● POLICY 6.2.4 Consider pursuing designation as an International Dark Sky Community, or the adoption of dark sky-friendly lighting policies per International Dark-Sky Association guidelines. Dark sky policies seek to minimize light pollution and increase visual access to night skies.

GOAL 6.3: Maintain a sense of openness and visual access to the hills to the west. ● POLICY 6.3.1 As resources allow, enhance the existing open space in the downtown, including the community park and library plaza area, with open-air restaurant seating, public seating, and other amenities that provide for view corridors towards Orinda's hills and natural scenery.
● POLICY 6.3.2 Encourage a compact downtown to conserve open space and the natural environment throughout other parts of the City.
● POLICY 6.3.3 Encourage redevelopment of underutilized space with pocket parks, pocket plazas, and pedestrian passages that offer scenic open spaces capable of softening, rather than emphasizing, adjacent development.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 7: Facilitate Safe, Convenient, and Balanced Transportation
VISION
Orinda's downtown has been transformed into a "walker's paradise," where the abundance of local establishments and services are well-connected by comfortable, active sidewalks, high visibility crosswalks that provide safe passage between pedestrian curb extensions, and popular pedestrian passages. It's now comfortable to cross Camino Pablo to reach the de Laveaga Trailhead via a high visibility crosswalk after rounding the San Pablo Creek boardwalk. Former surface lots that once dominated the Village District have been replaced with a network of pocket parks, plazas, and pathways that better articulate a sense of place and enable comfortable access to the shops and restaurants here. Shared public parking structures fronted with shops have enhanced the Theatre and Village Districts, transforming each into "park once" districts that maintain Orinda residents and visitors' easy access to downtown. Artfully designed bike racks and dedicated scooter spaces dot the downtown, connected by comfortable bike lanes that encourage families to spend an afternoon visiting the two sides of the downtown by bicycle, or allowing downtown workers to make a quick bike trip for lunch at their favorite spot across downtown.

GOAL 7.1: Focus on safe and convenient pedestrian access to, from, and within the downtown.
● POLICY 7.1.1 Design pedestrian areas throughout the downtown in accordance with the ConnectOrinda plan.
● POLICY 7.1.2 As resources allow, provide adequate sidewalk space on heavily traveled pedestrian corridors (i.e., Camino Pablo, Orinda Way, Moraga Way), especially between BART, the Village, and the Theatre District.
● POLICY 7.1.3 Minimize the conflict between pedestrian and vehicular traffic at intersections as well as midblock.

Item K.1
Packet Page 182
26 ● POLICY 7.1.4 Encourage private development to expand the pedestrian network throughout downtown parcels, considering their publicly accessible outdoor areas as an extension of the pedestrian environment wherever possible.

GOAL 7.2: Evaluate alternative transportation strategies that connect visitors and residents to and within the downtown.
● POLICY 7.2.1 Conduct traffic studies as appropriate to inform transit decisions to serve new demand as a result of an increased concentration of downtown businesses and housing.
● POLICY 7.2.2 Continue to study and pursue options that increase the transportation options between the Village, the Theatre District, and BART in a way that minimizes reliance on personal vehicles to travel between downtown locations. ● POLICY 7.2.3 Establish a comprehensive public bike and scooter parking strategy in accordance with the ConnectOrinda plan.
● POLICY 7.2.4 Encourage new development that includes bicycle and scooter infrastructure to support ridership.

GOAL 7.3: Provide adequate vehicular access and parking opportunities for customers, employees, and residents that reduces the current visual impact of surface parking. ● POLICY 7.3.1 Consider objective regulations that would discourage suburban-style development where surface parking is the dominant feature. ● POLICY 7.3.2 Look for opportunities to create adequate parking facilities to support land use policies for the downtown and protect adjacent neighborhoods from parking spillover.
● POLICY 7.3.3 Assess traffic conditions and pursue street improvement projects as needed to provide adequate vehicular access to, from, and within the downtown. ● POLICY 7.3.4 Minimize parking and loading entrances to reduce conflict with pedestrians.
● POLICY 7.3.5 Seek alternatives to parking minimums to facilitate development that maintains sufficient parking downtown. Consider an ordinance for shared parking requirements and/or a parking variance in-lieu ordinance for downtown residential development per the objectives of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Periodically assess the commercial retail in-lieu parking ordinance fees to ensure the financial feasibility of coordinating alternative parking.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 8: Foster a Welcoming and Inclusive Community VISION
Downtown Orinda is a welcoming, accessible, and supportive community built upon the experiences of people whose age, ancestry, citizenship, color, disability, financial socioeconomic status, gender, gender identity or expression, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion or religious beliefs, sex, and sexual orientation will never be a barrier to an individual's voice in guiding the character and participating in the community of downtown Orinda. The processes that shape downtown and the arts that tell its story will actively seek the Item K.1
Packet Page 183
27 participation and representation of community members from historically marginalized backgrounds. Downtown Orinda offers resources, activities, and support for the individual, the family, and the community of people from all walks of life.

GOAL 8.1: Build a sense of community trust through open and inclusive planning processes.
● POLICY 8.1.1 Strive for a robust community engagement process that is welcoming to input from people of all backgrounds. The public participation process should offer diverse and flexible methods of participation, which can reduce barriers to participation. ● POLICY 8.1.2 Foster relationships with key leaders and local organizations that expands public participation efforts.

GOAL 8.2: Pursue an accessible downtown that supports the needs of diverse populations.
● POLICY 8.2.1 Pursue regulations that would promote downtown housing that is economically accessible to diverse demographic groups and income levels. ● POLICY 8.2.2 Evaluate regulatory options to promote a mix of accessible housing and healthcare options that would support seniors and disabled community members. ● POLICY 8.2.3 Consider regulations intended to attract and support childcare facilities that increase flexible use of the downtown for Orinda's families.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 9: Ensure a Safe and Resilient Downtown Environment
VISION
New development and density has continued to provide the safety and security afforded to Orinda residents, visitors, and buildings downtown.

GOAL 9.1: Protect downtown buildings and their occupants from natural hazards (i.e., fire, flood, and earthquake).
● POLICY 9.1.1 Coordinate with MOFD on appropriate development conditions for fire prevention and wildfire resilience.
● POLICY 9.1.2 Coordinate with the Contra Costa County Building Department on evolving building standards related to the ability of new and existing buildings to withstand a major seismic event.
● POLICY 9.1.3 Educate and train downtown businesses, organizations, and residents on emergency response and evacuation procedures. Utilize the Orinda Ready website resources, including the LADRIS Evacuation Modeler, to educate the public on evacuation preparedness and procedures.

Item K.1
Packet Page 184
28 GOAL 9.2: Focus on occupant and visitor safety in the context of new projects, renovation projects, and increased densities in the downtown. ● POLICY 9.2.1 Investigate whether power grid enhancements are capable of providing backup generation for critical services during Public Safety Power Shutoff outages. ● POLICY 9.2.2 Evaluate whether downtown development and density is commensurate with the service capabilities of MOFD and the Orinda Police Department. ● POLICY 9.2.3 Evaluate proposed development projects that increase intensity of use with the LADRIS Evacuation Modeler to ensure the impacts of the proposed development are fully understood, accounted for in City emergency operations, and accompanied by appropriate mitigations through the Plan Orinda Mitigation Measures and Reportig Program.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE 10: Pursue a Sustainable and Resilient Future VISION
The City of Orinda is cognizant of the evolving threat of climate change and the urgent need to reduce, mitigate, and reverse the impacts of human activity on the environment as well as to plan for climate change adaption and community resilience. Through Bay Area initiatives, Orinda coordinates with county and city governments to fulfill its role in ensuring that the natural environment and the people who live here are protected from climate change hazards.

Development is sensitive to these needs and incorporates effective mitigation and adaption strategies that minimize the impact of the built environment on Bay Area ecosystem services, while transportation strategies reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions.

GOAL 10.1: Develop a comprehensive strategy for creating an environmentally sustainable and resilient downtown.
● POLICY 10.1.1 Ensure inter-departmental coordination on sustainability actions and resource access.
● POLICY 10.1.2 Ensure that environmental sustainability and resiliency is considered holistically in public investment decisions.
● POLICY 10.1.3 Ensure that property owners, developers, and tenants have the opportunity to maximize environmental sustainability and resilience. Leverage the City's role in guiding development to provide advice, direction, and encouragement to new development to maximize its environmental sustainability and resilience. ● POLICY 10.1.4 Encourage downtown businesses to participate in the Contra Costa County Green Business Program. Seek and promote strategies and resources for businesses and property owners to invest in efficiency upgrades through green technologies and techniques.

GOAL 10.2: Minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
● POLICY 10.2.1 Explore partnerships that would allow and attract shared micromobility services, such as bike and scooter shares, within the downtown. Encourage property Item K.1
Packet Page 185
29 and business owners to consider incorporating infrastructure supportive of these services in development and redevelopment projects.
● POLICY 10.2.3 Consider a Zero-Emission Vehicle Rollout Plan to guide the gradual transition of the City's vehicles to a zero emission vehicle fleet. Zero-emission vehicles, which include electric and hydrogen vehicles, do not result in harmful emissions during operation, which reduces negative impacts to local air quality and contributes to reduced greenhouse gas levels.
● POLICY 10.2.4 Encourage and support the inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations in new or reconfigured parking solutions, to include both private and City-owned parking lots/structures.
● POLICY 10.2.2 Research and promote actions, activities, incentive programs, and resources that can encourage residents and downtown visitors to make energyconscious decisions.

GOAL 10.3: Improve climate resiliency through the design of new development projects. ● POLICY 10.3.1 Encourage new development and redevelopment projects to include green infrastructure and green building elements that minimize the built environment's impact upon the natural environment, connect wildlife habitats, promote biodiversity, sequester carbon emissions, and absorb rainwater. These techniques may include green walls, green roofs, bioswales, native landscaping, pocket parks, and improvements to the native tree canopy.
● POLICY 10.3.2 Work with MOFD to confirm new development uses approved alternative methods of emergency access that preserve existing street trees, which provide natural carbon sequestration and absorb rainwater, where feasible.

Item K.1
Packet Page 186
LeSar Development Consultants | 845 15th Street, Suite 103 | San Diego | CA 92101 | 619.236.0612 | lesardevelopment.com To: Lashun Cross, Director of Planning, City of Orinda
Christine Thomson, Principal Planner, City of Orinda
Darin Hughes, Associate Planner, City of Orinda
CC: Mark Shorett, Principal Planner, Metropolitan Transportation Commission & Association of Bay Area Governments
John Carlston, District 4 Office Chief, Right of Way Appraisal, Excess Land, Caltrans Susan Poliwka, Station Planning, BART Planning & Development From: Hilary Carter, Senior Associate, LeSar Development Consultants Date: July 14, 2026
Re: Deliverable 2.2 Memo summarizing regulatory/legal framework relevant to Affordable Housing Development on Caltrans-Owned Sites and the Orinda BART Station Context
This memorandum summarizes the constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and administrative framework governing the potential for Housing Development at the majority of Caltrans-owned sites and identifies the legal changes that would be required to enable Transit-Oriented Development at the Orinda BART Station specifically. Although statewide housing policy—most notably Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-06-19—directs state agencies to identify excess state-owned land suitable for affordable housing, many Caltrans sites present a distinct set of legal barriers. Constitutional restrictions on Caltrans-owned land, together with Caltrans' own procedures for identifying and disposing of excess property, fundamentally restrict residential development at many of these sites. This memorandum first examines those barriers as they apply generally to Caltrans-owned property, and then turns to how they apply—and, in certain respects, do not apply—at the Orinda BART Station specifically.

Findings and Analysis
Executive Order N-06-19 and the Statewide Housing Initiative In 2019, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-06-19 requiring state agencies to inventory state-owned properties that could support affordable housing production.1 Responding to this directive, the Department of General Services (DGS) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) coordinated a statewide review of public landholdings, while Caltrans examined its excess land portfolio to determine which parcels might qualify for housing under the Executive Order. 1 California Executive Order N-06-19
Attachment B
Item K.1
Packet Page 187
| 2
However, Caltrans’ participation in this statewide initiative is constrained by the unique constitutional and statutory rules that apply specifically to its land. As described below, these rules exclude most Caltrans sites from consideration under the Executive Order’s excess-sites framework because under Article XIX, Caltrans is legally barred from reusing many excess sites for housing.

Article XIX Constitutional Restrictions
Article XIX of the California Constitution2 imposes the most significant barrier to housing at many Caltrans-owned sites. The vast majority of Caltrans-owned properties were acquired with fuel-tax revenues dedicated exclusively to highway, street, and transportation purposes. Land purchased with these funds is constitutionally restricted to transportation uses and may not be repurposed for non-transportation activities, including housing. The Constitution allows only four narrow exceptions for transferring fuel-tax-funded land outside the transportation domain (state parks, fish and wildlife habitat, wildlife conservation, and agricultural preservation), and housing is not among them. As a result, neither the Legislature nor Caltrans can authorize residential development on Article XIX–restricted land through ordinary legislation or administrative action. Any such change would require a constitutional amendment, which would need to reach the ballot either through a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature (an Assembly or Senate Constitutional Amendment) or through a voter-initiative petition, and would then need to be ratified by a simple majority of voters statewide. Article XIX is the primary reason that so few Caltrans-owned sites are part of the Department of General Services Excess Sites program - at the time of this memo, only two Caltrans-owned sites are part of the program34 Notably, Article XIX does not apply to the Orinda BART Station site. The site — part of the Route 24 corridor — was acquired via quit-claim deed from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary Department in December 1981, rather than with fuel-tax revenue, which places it outside Article XIX’s scope. The same is not true of most other Caltrans-owned sites, which were acquired with fuel-tax revenue and remain subject to Article XIX — the very restriction that excludes them from viable candidacy for Excess Sites declaration and affordable housing development.

Freeway Right-of-Way and Controlled-Access Restrictions The Orinda BART station’s location within the median of State Route 24 places it inside an active controlled-access freeway right-of-way. Caltrans’ access-control and engineering standards limit the use of such rights-of-way to transportation operations, safety functions, and mass-transportation facilities specifically authorized by statute. Because freeway medians are integral components of the controlled-access system, they cannot host permanent, occupiable structures such as housing, which would conflict with access control, emergency response, and fundamental design and safety requirements.

This regulatory framework is established through Caltrans’ Declaration of Controlled Access Highway, the legal instrument that defines where entry, crossings, and occupancy are permitted within a freeway corridor.5 Once adopted, the declaration governs all land within the right-of-way—including medians—and bars 2 Article XIX Motor Vehicle Revenues Section of the California Constitution 3 DGS State Excess Sites - Affordable Housing Opportunities Map Viewer 4 Sinarath Pheng, Affordable Housing Implementation Manager at Caltrans, in discussion with the author, Online Teams Meeting, March 4, 2026.
5 Article 4 24-14 Declaration as Controlled Access Highway Chapter 24 Item K.1
Packet Page 188
| 3
non-transportation uses that compromise controlled-access integrity. In the case of State Route 24, the declaration dictates the permissible uses of the median where the site is situated.

Caltrans’ Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) Chapter 246, which addresses Freeway Agreements, reinforces this structure by specifying that freeway rights-of-way are reserved exclusively for transportation purposes and facilities necessary for the operation and maintenance of the highway. Permanent habitation, public access unconnected to highway operations, and other occupiable uses are categorically incompatible with controlled-access facilities. Because the site sits entirely within such a median, these restrictions apply fully to the site.

The statutory authority that allows BART to occupy this location—Streets and Highways Code §104.127—permits Caltrans to make portions of highway right-of-way available to public agencies solely for mass-transportation facilities. BART’s presence in the median is therefore limited to a transportation use and occurs through a leased airspace parcel, a defined volume within Caltrans’ right-of-way that may only be used for transportation-related purposes.

Caltrans’ Airspace Program, which governs such arrangements, imposes additional operational and safety restrictions.8 Recent updates further prohibit new permanent buildings on airspace parcels located under, over, or adjacent to highway structures, reflecting safety, fire-access, and structural-integrity concerns inherent to freeway environments.9 Housing, which consists of permanent occupiable structures requiring utilities, egress, and emergency access, is fundamentally incompatible with these constraints.

A federal layer of regulation applies as well. Because State Route 24 is a federally assisted freeway, any proposed non-highway use of its right-of-way requires review and approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).10 FHWA policy generally permits only transportation-related uses within interstate and freeway rights-of-way and does not authorize residential uses, which introduce non-transportation occupancy, require incompatible access points, and create significant safety and design conflicts.

Caltrans Excess Land Policy (Right of Way Manual Chapter 16) The Caltrans Excess Land Policy governs the procedures by which Caltrans identifies, processes, and disposes of real property that is no longer needed for highway or operational purposes. To be designated as “excess land,” a parcel must be formally determined and certified as not required for present or reasonably foreseeable rightsof-way, safety, maintenance, or other operational needs of the Department.11 Chapter 16 of the Right of Way Manual is an internal administrative policy that establishes this procedural framework; it does not confer independent authority to dispose of land or expand the permissible uses of Caltrans-owned property.

Critically, Chapter 16 operates entirely within—and is legally subordinate to—the constitutional constraints imposed by Article XIX. For parcels acquired with gas-tax revenues, Article XIX governs whether land is legally eligible for reuse at all. Chapter 16 becomes relevant only after Caltrans has determined that a parcel is excess and that its disposition would be consistent with Article XIX and other controlling law. As a result, Chapter 16 6 PDPM Chapter 24
7 California Code, Streets and Highways Code - SHC § 104.12 8 Caltrans Airspace and Telecommunications Licensing
9 2023 Caltrans Airspace Lease Program Changes
10 Code of Federal Regulations 710.405 -- ROW use agreements. 11 Caltrans Chapter 16 Excess Land Policy
Item K.1
Packet Page 189
| 4
does not override Article XIX restrictions and cannot authorize the repurposing of constitutionally restricted land for non-transportation uses.

Currently, the Chapter 16 Excess Land Policy allows only limited forms of excess site disposition, generally aligned with the same narrow “public purpose” categories permitted under Article XIX (such as public parks).

Caltrans’ legal department is evaluating whether affordable housing could be recognized as a qualifying “public purpose” for excess land, though any such determination would apply only to parcels that are already legally disposable.

The Orinda BART Station site does not meet Chapter 16’s threshold for excess-land status, but Article XIX is not the reason why. The site sits within an active freeway median and remains required for ongoing highway and operational functions, including safety, maintenance, access control, and the long-term operation of State Route 24, so it cannot be certified as excess. Caltrans has since confirmed this determination in writing specific to this parcel: on June 9, 2026, District 4’s Division of Design (Contra Costa Branch), following review by the District 4 Executive Team, issued a non-concurrence on the proposal to relinquish the Route 24 right-of-way at the station’s parking lots12, citing seven independent grounds: degraded maintenance and operational access; the likely need for costly soundwalls to meet noise-abatement requirements; degraded interchange capacity absent a full reconfiguration; the need for a formal Vehicle Miles Traveled analysis and CEQA/NEPA review; conflict with corridor preservation for future highway operations; the safety risks of the access-control break the development would require; and the absence of any precedent for housing within a California freeway median.

Even setting the excess-land threshold aside, the site’s location within a controlled-access median, together with Caltrans’ Airspace Program restrictions, PDPM Chapter 24, and FHWA’s federal right-of-way rules, would independently continue to bar housing there.

These barriers are statutory, regulatory, and administrative rather than constitutional, meaning, unlike Article XIX, they do not require a constitutional amendment to change. Streets and Highways Code §104.12 is an ordinary statute that the Legislature could amend by simple majority vote in both houses, signed by the Governor.

PDPM Chapter 24 and the Airspace Program restrictions, including the 2023 prohibition on permanent buildings near highway structures, are Caltrans’ own internal policies, which the agency could revise through its own administrative process, or which the Legislature could direct it to revise by statute. FHWA’s right-of-way rules are federal regulations that would require federal notice-and-comment rulemaking, or Congressional action, to change—outside the reach of any state legislative effort. In short, all of these barriers require procedural changes rather than constitutional (in the case of Article XIX), but we do not recommend pursuing any of these changes for the Orinda site, or for other actively used Caltrans sites more broadly, because they exist to protect freeway safety, emergency access, and structural integrity within an active median, not because of bureaucratic hurdles.

This distinction is addressed further in the Legislative Goals section below.

Legislative Goals
The Orinda BART Station parcel—including the station structure and the adjacent parking areas—sits entirely within the active traveled way and median of State Route 24. No portion of the site falls outside the zones required for controlled-access safety, emergency response, and structural integrity. Given that reality, LeSar does not believe a legislative or regulatory path exists that would responsibly enable housing on this parcel. The restrictions discussed above—Caltrans’ Airspace Program limitations, PDPM Chapter 24, Streets and Highways 12 Email from John Carlston, District Office Chief, Right of Way Appraisal, Excess Land and Property Management Services, Caltrans District 4, to Hilary Carter (June 9, 2026) (on file with author).

Item K.1
Packet Page 190
| 5
Code §104.12, and FHWA’s controlled-access rules—reflect legitimate freeway safety and engineering requirements, and we do not recommend legislation that would set them aside to accommodate housing within an active highway median. Caltrans District 4’s own June 2026 non-concurrence determination, discussed above, confirms that this is a substantive engineering and safety judgment rather than administrative reluctance:

Design’s review identified concrete operational, noise, capacity, and environmental-review consequences specific to this parcel, not a generalized policy objection that legislation could readily overcome.

This conclusion is independent of Article XIX. Even though Article XIX does not restrict this parcel, the site’s location within an active, fully utilized median makes it operationally unsuitable for housing under any legislative scenario that preserves highway safety standards. If the City of Orinda wishes to pursue affordable housing near the Orinda BART Station, that effort would need to focus on parcels outside the active Caltrans right-of-way, rather than on the station parcel itself.

Separately, amending Article XIX would require a substantial, sustained effort. Unlike an ordinary statute, this is not something the Legislature or Caltrans can accomplish on its own: it would require either a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature or a voter-initiative petition to place the amendment on the ballot, followed by approval from a majority of voters statewide. Because Article XIX is the primary reason so few Caltrans parcels qualify for the DGS Excess Sites program, amending it to permit gas-tax-funded excess land to be repurposed for affordable housing would expand the pool of parcels eligible for excess-land declarations statewide. This would not change the outcome at Orinda, since the site’s barrier is its active use within a freeway median rather than Article XIX.

Conclusion
The Orinda BART Station site is not subject to Article XIX’s constitutional restrictions, but its location within the active traveled way and median of State Route 24 makes it unsuitable for housing under existing law, and we do not believe a legislative or regulatory fix exists that would responsibly override the freeway safety and engineering standards discussed above. Any interest in affordable housing near the Orinda BART Station should therefore focus on parcels outside the active Caltrans right-of-way. Separately, amending Article XIX—discussed above—would remain the most consequential long-term avenue for unlocking other Caltrans-owned sites statewide.

Item K.1
Packet Page 191
Downtown Precise Plan Work Session
CITY COUNCIL SEP 15, 2026
Attachment C
Item K.1
Packet Page 192
Overview
• Downtown Precise Plan (DPP)
background
• Proposed DPP amendments
• Orinda BART Station update
• Proposed "Housing Pool"
• Updating ConnectOrinda
• LADRIS Evacuation Modeling
Item K.1
Packet Page 193
• Original Adoption: January 31, 2023, alongside the 6th Cycle Housing and Safety Elements.
• Core Purpose: Served as the City’s comprehensive visioning document for downtown revitalization.
• Non-Regulatory: Functions as a policy framework to guide future decisions, rather than a regulatory mandate.
• Scope: Does not rezone property, grant entitlements, or approve specific projects.

Background
Item K.1
Packet Page 194
• Rescission: Set aside in October 2024 (Resolution 24-47) to remediate the EIR following litigation.
• Council Direction: March 2025 resolution directed Staff to revise the plan rather than re-adopt it "as-is".
• Housing Mandates: Revisions must reflect and ensure compliance with current state housing laws.
• Policy & Safety: Must reflect updated local/state policies and address wildfire evacuation concerns.

Background
Item K.1
Packet Page 195
Proposed amendments: State housing laws
• Make administrative changes to the Introduction and Existing Conditions chapters to ensure the new zones and their
relationship to older zones are appropriately reflected, and that the 2025 General Plan changes are reflected.
• Update Goal 3.1 to focus on ODS implementation rather than creation
• Identify and discuss state housing laws that affect the Downtown.

Item K.1
Packet Page 196
Proposed amendments: State housing laws
State laws (2023 – present) that have a potential to impact housing development in the Downtown include:
• Parking deregulation near transit (AB 2097)
• Updated Density Bonus Law (AB 1287)
• Streamlined approvals (SB 423 [updated SB 35])
• Housing Accountability Act expansion (AB 1633)
• Commercial zoning flexibility (SB 6)
• Ministerial approval on commercial land (AB 2011)
Item K.1
Packet Page 197
Proposed amendments: Wildfire evacuation &
safety
• Update the fire safety
policies applicable to the
Downtown
• Incorporate using LADRIS
Item K.1
Packet Page 198
Proposed amendments: Keep the San Pablo
Creek chapter
• Keep intact, though update the efforts made to-date by the Friends of Orinda Creeks
• Staff would work with FOC to help characterize these efforts Item K.1
Packet Page 199
Housing Pool proposal
• Property owners of non-upzoned Downtown sites have demonstrated interest in developing housing.
• A flexible, overarching approach could accommodate additional housing in the Downtown while maintaining City control.
• Future development of housing at BART is currently not possible. • Serve as a buffer for no-net-loss impacts.

Item K.1
Packet Page 200
Diminishing Housing Capacity & “No Net Loss”
The previously established buffer for low-income housing capacity has been drastically reduced:
• The Caltrans Gateway site was not accepted by HCD for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), leaving a surplus buffer for lower-income categories of only 5 units. • The approval of the Paymun project at 31 Orinda Way without a residential component triggered "no net loss" rules, resulting in the loss of the remaining surplus buffer for lower-income categories.
• Future Risk: Developing additional low-income capacity sites without housing would force the City to navigate further no-net-loss challenges.

Item K.1
Packet Page 201
Orinda BART Station site update
• 2023: Housing Element certified with actions to be taken regarding prepping the BART Station parking lots for future housing development.
• 2024: Staff secured an MTC grant to pursue a Memorandum of Understanding for housing at the BART station.
• July 2026: Caltrans officially confirmed it will not release the land for housing development.
• The site is in an active freeway median; state and federal highway safety regulations make residential use operationally unsuitable.
• MTC grant funding is being redirected to research alternative sites for the 7th Cycle RHNA.

Item K.1
Packet Page 202
Proposed "Housing Pool" mechanism
Establish a "Housing Pool" within the DPP area to balance development interest with strategic growth control.
• Fixed Capacity: Allows streamlined upzoning into DCOR and DG districts up to a fixed capacity cap (e.g., 200 units).
• Community Benefits Program: Access to the pool would be contingent upon providing tangible public improvements.
• ConnectOrinda Integration: Benefits could be selected from a menu implementing the ConnectOrinda plan, such as civic spaces, enhanced streetscapes, or active transportation projects.

Item K.1
Packet Page 203
LADRIS Evacuation analysis
North Orinda & Village District
Item K.1
Packet Page 204
LADRIS Evacuation analysis
South Orinda & Theater District
Item K.1
Packet Page 205
LADRIS Evacuation analysis
Scenario City Region Assumed Total
Vehicles
Avg.

Clearance
Time (min)
Median Trip
Time (min)
Worst-Case
Trip Time (min)
A (Baseline) North 5,371 1h 36m 29m 59m
B (Full
Rezoning)
North 5,765 (+394) 1h 38m
(+2m)
30m
(+1m)
1h 5m (+6m)
C (Baseline) South 4,034 1h 27m 17m 1h 5m
D (Full
Rezoning)
South 4,289 (+255) 1h 26m
(-1m)
17m (0m) 1h 3m (-2m)
Item K.1
Packet Page 206
Update ConnectOrinda
The 2019 ConnectOrinda document has the
following main objectives:
• Connect the two sides of downtown for all
users
• Support future pedestrian access along
San Pablo Creek
• Preserve Orinda's unique sense of place
• Produce grant-eligible projects that can be
funded
• Beautify downtown Orinda
Item K.1
Packet Page 207
Update ConnectOrinda
Item K.1
Packet Page 208
Update ConnectOrinda
• Document is seven years old
• Could be used as a primary menu for developer contributions tied to the proposed Housing Pool
• Revise and integrate the 2023 draft "Civic Space Standards" of the original ODS to establish clear, enforceable baselines for developing public spaces like plazas and pocket parks.
• Re-evaluate original 2019 streetscape concepts to ensure they do not constrain critical evacuation capacity.

Item K.1
Packet Page 209
Provide direction to Staff regarding the proposed scope of work:
● Downtown Precise Plan amendments
● Reopening ConnectOrinda for
amendments
● The possibility for a Housing Pool
Recommendation
Item K.1
Packet Page 210
● Based on feedback from this study session, Staff anticipates making a full set of changes within the Downtown Precise Plan in depth along with any associated actions based on the Council’s direction provided during this study session.
● Staff would then draft an updated Downtown Precise Plan and associated policy (e.g., Housing Pool) for future City Council review.

Next steps
Item K.1
Packet Page 211

QUESTIONS
Item K.1
Packet Page 212

Orinda City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

Orinda City Council
September 15, 2026