IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THIS MEETING: To protect our residents, officials, and staff, and in alignment with AB 361 and Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21, in which certain teleconference requirements of the Brown Act have been suspended, including the requirement to provide a physical location for members of the public to participate in the meeting, this meeting will be held by Teleconference.
BY
TELECONFERENCE
VIA
ZOOM WEBINAR
By PC:
MEETING URL:
https://tinyurl.com/ncusvn4h
MEETING ID: 924 9319 5201
By Telephone:
+1 669-900-9128
MEETING ID: 924 9319 5201
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 11.01.22
How to follow or participate in the meeting:
Members of the public may observe and participate in the meeting at the teleconference location highlighted above. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by following instructions below:
Send your e-mail to [email protected] by 3pm on the day of the meeting.
Those e-mails will be forwarded to the City Council. They will also be made a part of the public record and be available to view in the public review binder at Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way. In addition, they will be available electronically by 5pm on the day of the meeting by selecting the date of the meeting in this Box account link:https://cityoforinda.box.com/s/aqrelwbwv0wc37m5hkju2o8a0sta7bup Comments may also be submitted by e-mail during the meeting up until the closure of public comment period on the relevant agenda item. These will be read into the record by staff at their normal cadence and will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes. To be read into the record, e-mail must contain in the subject line “Public Forum – Not on the Agenda” or “Public Comment – Agenda Item #” with the relevant agenda item indicated.
To comment orally in real time during the meeting, you may use the Zoom “raise your hand” function on your computer screen or the *9 function on your phone.
City Council
Agenda Page 2 11.01.22
7:00 PM - REGULAR SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Darlene Gee, Nick Kosla, Amy Worth
Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.
D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. -Proclamation Declaring October 24 World Polio Day in the City of Orinda
D.2. Proclamation In Support of Human Rights in Iran
E. PUBLIC FORUM
The public forum provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of the City Council that is not on the agenda.
Additionally, a speaker has the option of addressing the Council on an item listed on the agenda, if the speaker will not be present when that agenda item is taken up. When an item is not listed on the agenda, State law prohibits Council discussion or action. Councilmembers may only “briefly respond” to statements made and questions posed. For example, State law allows Councilmembers to ask questions for clarification and provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. Additionally, consistent with the “Matters Initiated” rule contained in its Policies and Procedures Manual, the Council may also direct staff to report back and/or place a matter on a future agenda for discussion.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. October 11, 2022 - Regular Meeting
2. October 18, 2022 - Regular Meeting
F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:
City Council
Agenda Page 3 11.01.22
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of November 2, 2022 to December 1, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
G. PUBLIC HEARING
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Consideration of Revised Draft Housing Element & Overview Regarding Key Housing Laws
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, provide feedback, and direct staff to submit the revised draft Housing Element to HCD.
I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 7:00 PM.
Please visit the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org to view the City Council Calendar.
I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this special meeting agenda has been posted at least 24 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way. Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org. At least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, this agenda was also delivered to and received by each member of the City Council as well as each local newspaper, radio station and television station requesting written notice of special meetings.
I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this regular meeting agenda has been posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way.
Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org
~ Notice ~
City Council
Agenda Page 4 11.01.22
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders, which 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 challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at 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, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting. For information on the next regular or special City Council meeting, please call 925.253.4221 or visit the website at www.cityoforinda.org.
~ 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.
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING OCTOBER 24, 2022 AS WORLD POLIO DAY IN THE
CITY OF ORINDA
WHEREAS, Rotary is a global network of neighbors, friends, leaders, and problemsolvers who unite and take action to create lasting change in communities across the globe; and
WHEREAS, the Rotary motto, Service Above Self, inspires members to provide humanitarian service, follow high ethical standards, and promote goodwill and peace in the world; and
WHEREAS, Rotary in 1985 launched PolioPlus and in 1988 helped establish the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which today includes the World Health Organization, U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, UNICEF, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to immunize the children of the world against polio; and
WHEREAS, polio cases have dropped by 99.9 percent since 1988 and the world stands on the threshold of eradicating the disease; and
WHEREAS, to date, Rotary has contributed more than US$2.4 billion and countless volunteer hours to protecting nearly 3 billion children in 122 countries; and WHEREAS, Rotary is working to raise an additional $50 million per year, which will be leveraged for maximum impact by an additional $100 million annually from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and
WHEREAS, these efforts are providing much-needed operational support, medical staff, laboratory equipment, and educational materials for health workers and parents; and WHEREAS, in addition, Rotary has played a major role in decisions by donor governments to contribute more than $10 billion to the effort; and WHEREAS, there are over 1.4 million Rotary members in 46,000 clubs throughout the world that sponsor service projects to address such critical issues as poverty, disease, hunger, illiteracy, and the environment in their local communities and abroad; THEREFORE, I, Dennis Fay, Mayor of the City of Orinda do hereby proclaim October 24, 2022, as World Polio Day in the City of Orinda and encourage all citizens to join me and Rotary International in the fight for a polio-free world.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of November, 2022. ________________________________
Dennis Fay, Mayor
D.1
Packet Pg. 5
Communication: Proclamation Declaring October 24 World Polio Day in the City of Orinda (ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY)
PROCLAMATION
SUPPORTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN
WHEREAS, as the Mayor of Orinda, I strongly support human rights, women’s rights, and in solidarity with our Iranian community, both in Orinda and in Iran; and WHEREAS, Orinda celebrates our Iranian community and culture that adds to our Town’s rich diversity and culture; and
WHEREAS, Nasrin Sotoudeh, widely recognized as Iran’s Mandela is currently serving a 38-year sentence with 148 lashes (although currently on medical furlough). A distinguished lawyer and human rights activist, Sotoudeh has become a symbol of the Iranian people’s nonviolent struggle for justice, dignity and equality; and WHEREAS, Women in Iran are systematically subjected to an apartheid state with much harsher restrictions than men, as exemplified by the murder of Mahsa Aminni, along with other women protesting her death, by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s security forces; and WHEREAS, as the Mayor of Orinda, I firmly support the immediate release of Nasrin Stoudeh and all other political prisoners and prisoners of conscious in the Islamic Republic of Iran and condemn the brutal murder of Mahsa Amini and ask for the immediate cessation of human rights abuses against the Iranian people; and WHEREAS, as the Mayor of Orinda, I affirm my support of human rights in Iran, including equal rights for women, the LGBTQ+community, and minorities and the end of apartheid against women and targeted religious, nonreligious and cultural minorities; and WHEREAS, many individuals have been imprisoned, tortured and executed for being defenders of human rights by the Islamic Republic of Iran as many demonstrators are now being subjected to such treatment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that as the Mayor of Orinda, I strongly condemn the brutal murder of Mahsa Amini and ask for the immediate cessation of human rights abuses against the Iranian people.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of November, 2022.
Dennis Fay, Mayor
D.2
Packet Pg. 6
Communication: Proclamation In Support of Human Rights in Iran (ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY) AGENDA TITLE: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. October 11, 2022 - Regular Meeting
2. October 18, 2022 - Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022
B. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022
Respectfully Submitted by:
Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
F.1
Packet Pg. 7
Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 13 10.11.22
October 11, 2022
CITY OF ORINDA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Note: Written communications received from the public prior to the start of this meeting can be viewed at: http://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2100 .They are also kept in the City Clerk’s Office as part of the public record and available upon request. 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING– BY TELECONFERENCE
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:
Mayor Fay called the Regular Meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Amy Worth
Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Nick Kosla
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Councilmember Gee.
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mayor Fay moved Item K, Matters Initiated to be heard after Item C, Adoption of Agenda.
MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller moved and seconded by Councilmember Gee to adopt the agenda, as amended. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.
K. MATTERS INITIATED
Mayor Fay requested bringing forward to the next meeting Amy Worth’s 24 years of service on the City Council and additional years as a volunteer in the community and region. He asked to agendize an item which would be a naming opportunity at the Orinda Library for Amy Worth.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
Nancy Ross Madnick, President of the Friends of the Orinda Library, said they would love the opportunity to name the Rotunda Area inside the Orinda Library for Amy Worth, recognizing her long-standing support of the Friends of the Orinda Library.
Councilmember Worth said she is deeply honored and recognized her long-time involvement with the Friends of the Library.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 13 10.11.22
MOTION by Mayor Fay moved and seconded by Councilmember Gee to agendize a naming opportunity at the Orinda Library for Councilmember Amy Worth. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.
D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY – None.
E. PUBLIC FORUM
There were no speakers.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fay asked and confirmed there were no speakers or requests for removal of items.
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. September 20, 2022 - Closed Session Meeting
2. September 27, 2022 - Regular Meeting
F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of October 12, 2022 to November 11, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
F.3. Adoption of Amendments to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Filers
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution No. 48-22 amending the City’s Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Filers and the repeal of Resolution No. 55-20
F.4. Authorize Contract Amendment No. 1 with NV5, Inc. for Design Services for Community Center Solar plus Battery Backup and ReRoofing project #4141 & #4164.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Contract Amendment No. 1 (between the City of Orinda and NV5, Inc.) to increase the contract limit by an additional $16,800 to a new total contract amount of $85,500; and appropriate funding thereof from the City Capital Projects Fund (Fund #700).
F.5. Accept contract with Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric for the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Project No. 4128
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 13 10.11.22
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 47-22, "Acceptance of Work for the Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Project No. 4128 by Gruendl Inc. DBA Ray's Electric of Oakland, California" and authorize the City Clerk to sign and file the Notice of Completion with the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder.
F.6. Increase Contingency for Construction Contract with Valentine Corporation for the Lavenida Culvert Repair Project (Project No. 4148), and Appropriate Funding.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve an increase in the contingency for construction contract with Valentine Corporation by $80,000 and appropriate funding of $80,000 from the Road/Drainage Stabilization Fund (#704) for such purpose.
F.7. Approve Traffic Orders for Parking Restrictions at Various Locations in Orinda
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt Resolutions 49-22, 50-22, and 51-22 establishing various parking regulations on Meadow Park Court, Sleepy Hollow Lane, and Manzanita Drive respectively.
MOTION by Councilmember Worth moved and seconded by Councilmember Gee to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.1.2, F.2, F.3, F.4, F.5, F.6, and F.7. Said motion carried by (4-0) roll call vote.
G. PUBLIC HEARING
G.1. Wilder Annual Review
Recommendation:
Conduct a continued public hearing for staff to report on discussions with representatives of OG Property Owners, LLC (“OGLLC”) regarding its noncompliance with the terms of the Second Amendment and Restatement of the Development and Pre-Annexation Agreement for Gateway Valley (“DA”) and related approvals, including the 2009 Reimbursement Agreement, the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”) Plan of Control, and the 2008 Subdivision Improvement Agreement, all as amended. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 54-22 finding that OGLLC still is not in good faith compliance with the DA and related approvals, directing OGLLC to immediately bring its performance into good faith compliance with the DA and to appear before the City Council at a continued public hearing on November 15, 2022.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 13 10.11.22
City Attorney Osa Wolff announced the procedures for what is the third public hearing for this matter. Assistant City Attorney Fran Layton has been providing the staff summary at the two previous meetings and this evening the City Manager will provide the staff report and recommendation to adopt Resolution 54-22 finding OGLLC is still out of compliance and continue the matter to a hearing on November 15, 2022.
The City Council will follow the same procedure as the last hearing regarding Development Agreement (DA) non-compliance. She displayed and reviewed the various items relating to process. She then asked Councilmembers to disclose any ex-parte communications, and there were none.
City Manager David Biggs gave the staff overview of the matter, described meetings held with the developer to identify solutions, consulting with regional agencies involved and said they have created a list of items the developers are working through to come to resolution and close out the project in a manner that ensures the Wilder community and regional agencies receive what is required. He suggested taking public comments and adopting the resolution, and staff will return on November 15th with a more comprehensive report as to whether staff has been able to come to an agreement as to how to close out the project. Representatives from the developer present include Bruce Yamamoto and Michael Olsen, who are available to answer questions.
Mayor Fay asked for questions from Councilmembers of staff, and there were none. He then called on representatives of OGLLC to present.
Michael Olsen, OGLLC, stated they enjoyed the meeting last week, believes they have made progress, and will meet weekly on remaining items until the list is completed. Their next meeting is on Thursday and they will work in good faith and continue to report back on progress.
Mike Moller, Brookside Land Company, added that the outside counsel for the City was very concerned about City fees that were delinquent and a check was sent yesterday to address outstanding invoices with the City. He otherwise deferred to Bruce Yamamoto.
Bruce Yamamoto clarified this amount is about $20,000 of the outstanding invoices. They also commit to paying $10,000 a month until they are fully caught up. Other than that, they will continue to work on the list of outstanding items, keep the City well-informed, and believes it has been helpful to engage with City staff on a weekly basis.
Mr. Moller said lastly they very much appreciated the time and effort of the City Manager and staff. The Council has a fine staff and the candor and comprehension of the City Manager of all issues was impressive to them.
Councilmember Worth thanked the development team for being here tonight and working with staff to address issues. She referred to the clean-up around the staging area, stating they were using this as a place to stage soils and other materials. Issues were raised today regarding the final clearing to ensure all elements are removed.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 13 10.11.22
Mr. Yamamoto said he met with a grading contractor to relocate his equipment. The Fire Department does not have the staffing to remove the vegetation on the hillsides so they will plan to chip all of this and clean up the entire area. They have also informed the contractors that this staging area is no longer for staging materials so they are in the process of scheduling that cleanup which will be done within two weeks. He confirmed the 4 large drums will also be removed, as well. The equipment stored there is for grading and development operations so it is not builder equipment, and they still have a problem with illegal dumping which they still must address.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.
Mr. Olsen waived any rebuttal period.
City Attorney Wolff stated the request from staff is for the City Council to deliberate on and recommend adoption of Resolution 54-22.
Vice Mayor Miller asked and confirmed with the City Attorney that the opinion has not changed since the agenda packet and resolution were produced. Legal counsel still recommends finding that OGLLC has not brought their performance into good faith compliance yet and that they have not cured the events of default yet.
MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller moved, and seconded by Councilmember Gee, to adopt Resolution No. 54-22, finding that OGLLC still is not in good faith compliance with the DA and related approvals, directing OGLLC to immediately bring its performance into good faith compliance with the DA and to appear before the City Council at a continued public hearing on November 15, 2022. Said motion carried by (4-0) roll call vote.
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Consider whether to proceed with a Proposal from Professor Dr. John Radke, Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, University of California, Berkeley, to undertake “A Strategic Wildfire Planning Process for Orinda: Transitioning from Basic, through Adaptive, to Transformative Wildfire Resilience in Orinda, CA.”
Recommendation:
SSTOC Recommendation: The Commission recommends the City Council to enter into a contract with Dr. Radke along the lines of the proposal submitted at a cost of $598,196.
Staff Recommendation: Do not proceed with the proposal using Measure R or City funds. Alternatively, consider pursuing grant funds if identified and made available to possibly proceed with the proposal and consider using Measure R funds for any required local match.
City Manager Biggs gave the staff report and overview of the item brought forward from the SSTOC regarding potential efforts to do additional modeling regarding fire vulnerability and the condition vegetation in Orinda from Dr. John Radke.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 13 10.11.22
SSTOC Chair Jud Hammon said the full proposal was provided in the agenda packet along with the minutes from the SSTOC’s decisions and discussions regarding the proposal. Dr. Radke is available to answer any detailed questions and he read the first sentence of Dr. Radke’s proposal regarding the need for a strategic wildfire planning process, stating there is considerable work to be done before meeting goals.
He then described Dr. Radke’s reputation in the wildfire field, said his proposal is wellthought out and the research project should provide considerably more detailed analysis of the City’s wildfire risk than is presently available. He then described differences between this proposal and MOFD’s computer model, and said a majority of SSTOC members agree with the need for the Council to approve funding the proposal.
Also, the staff report includes an email from Dr. Radke replying to a set of questions from Mayor Fay. Mayor Fay had asked if it would be possible for Dr. Radke and his team to scale the proposal down to a smaller geographic area and, if so, what such a pilot program would cost. He said the SSTOC was not informed about these communications and does not have any comment on the alternate approach.
City Manager Biggs gave a brief background of the efforts to date and noted the staff report indicates that staff does believe the project could have some benefit but it is not typical for a City to fund what he would characterize as research and development. Staff believes there is sufficient modeling to guide in these efforts, questioned the cost, and spoke about grants available which could fund a variety of fire-related activities. Staff applied for a grant that would require a 25% match or $150,000 for the total $600,000 effort. There is significant supporting documentation in the staff report and he was available for questions.
Councilmember Worth asked for an estimate of the annual or on-going costs for this program moving forward after the research is done.
Dr. Radke said the data could become part of a link to the City’s webpage and people could interact with it and update their data if they wanted to continue to do that or the university could hold the database on its servers.
Councilmember Worth asked what kind of staffing would be needed to provide public support once the program is up and running.
Dr. Radke said it would be self-explanatory like someone going on Google. The City could also create new fire models each year with the database, and it would not take much to burn the new fire model by simply putting in weather conditions, temperature, and an updated database of people modifying it every year.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 13 10.11.22
Councilmember Worth said she is familiar with CCRM, especially in some of the transportation issues and worked with one of the university’s founders on the Bay Bridge years ago. It seems that the State of California’s Cal Fire should be funding research as a tool for wildfire disaster prevention across the entire state.
Dr. Radke said yes, the State should be funding research at this resolution at this scale and scope with communities, but it is easier for the State to write out checks to communities for them to do what they want in making their communities safe. He then spoke about residents losing their fire insurance, flawed research from Cal Fire, and their current strategy for fighting wildfires.
Councilmember Worth said she appreciates the explanation on what the science is behind this and the process of getting the data and asked Dr. Radke to speak about how to get residents to remove vegetation and how update of the database will occur.
Dr. Radke said inspectors cannot cover it all. In this system, they can tell exactly what needs to be trimmed, what needs to be removed, and the approach is the carrot. He believes residents will participate and spoke then of the oil industry and how having this data influenced them to use the system to protect their infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Miller referred to the State issuing checks versus research, and asked what monies are coming to the local communities for wildfire work.
Dr. Radke stated MOFD was awarded $6.3 million fire prevention grant monies and Chief Winnacker had a fire break built on the north side of Orinda which the money went towards. However, he believes there are other ways to spend this money which involves residents understanding the science, removing fuels on their properties and replacing it with safe vegetation. He then described 15 meter resolution photography, higher resolution that will enable detection of plant and tree size, heights, crowd sourcing, and the use of graduate students to conduct ground truthing which will be used to train the model.
Vice Mayor Miller referred to concerns about residents who are losing their insurance or are at threat.
Dr. Radke said he lost his insurance and got another insurance policy but must pay more.
He spoke about Cal Fire’s poor modeling which lumps everyone into the same category, and the need to increase the spatial resolution which would result in the majority of Orinda not losing their insurance.
Vice Mayor Miller asked about targeted mitigation and how it would be done through this research work.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 13 10.11.22
Dr. Radke said every square meter of the town will be assessed. If some areas are at high risk because of vegetation, concentration, terrain, and up growth of a vertical ladder, they can show this will burn very hot. Collectively the neighborhood can get together and say this is what needs to be done. They can remove vegetation virtually by using a chainsaw, and then rerunning a model to see how much they have reduced the intensity.
Vice Mayor Miller asked if the City and MOFD would do the neighborhood outreach to talk about what they can do to reduce fire risk.
Dr. Radke said they would use Firewise and Orinda’s website to engage with people which is being done already, so Orinda is way ahead of most communities.
Councilmember Gee referred to the database and asked what happens when they are done with the initial research and asked how security aspects are built into it.
Dr. Radke said the university’s server is very secure. People can interact with it and each individual homeowner would get an account, password, and log-in. The City could also house the data in the form of a computer at City offices.
Councilmember Gee asked if this has ever been done with another community.
Dr. Radke said they did bits and pieces with other communities but have never pulled it altogether.
Mayor Fay referred to the correlation between this modeling and insurance and he asked what evidence could be provided that the insurance companies care about the modeling and that they will then use it to better refine how they deal with cancellation or retention of insurance policies in Orinda.
Dr. Radke said insurance companies should adopt this model, but they are not interested in the research for fire insurance which he believes is a gross injustice. He believes this model will work and they can go to the State, say this needs to be done in every community, and insurance companies will come to the table.
Mayor Fay referred to the underlying objective to make Orinda more wildfire safe and he asked how this research would stimulate reluctant property owners to get them motivated.
Dr. Radke said today the incentive is theoretical and no one has ever done it. This will show people exactly what is on their properties, how intensely it will burn, what they should remove and/or replant, and be able to rerun the model on their property virtually to see how many BTUS have been reduced.
Mayor Fay said when he and Dr. Radke met, he described the modeling proposal and cited a number which was one-fourth of the number now being proposed. He asked what has changed.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 13 10.11.22
Dr. Radke said he was not sure at that time of the true cost and was unaware of tuition and medical insurance costs for graduate students which is very expensive.
Vice Mayor Miller referred to the grant possibility mentioned by the City Manager.
City Manager Biggs said the City applied for a grant which was due October 7th and he included the information in the packet. It states they cannot do GIS or database work unless it is strictly related to fuel reduction, which this would be. They also do not do research and development, but they characterized the work as a more practical approach.
If successful, it requires a 25% local match of about $150,000. They have also been doing some outreach to Cal Fire to understand how they would view this and funding it at the local level, but there has not yet been a response.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
Kathy Finch said several residents have lost their fire insurance, said she was not in favor of Measure R and really wanted dedicated funds for fire prevention and not work on roads, which are in pretty good condition. Homes are people’s largest assets and she was thrilled that a database would allow her to figure out exactly what needs to be done to her property, and she urged the Council to vote in favor of Dr. Radke’s plan.
Sunil Rajaraman referred to the models and asked how many data points is the model trained after now, and asked if the model is only trained on Orinda data or asked if other city’s data is also being used.
Dr. Radke said the AI model would be trained on millions of pixels but only in Orinda to understand its vegetation. He added that they have been discussing using a vector machine to grab polygons or chunks of vegetation and possibly training on that so they might do both.
Mr. Rajaraman said he is looking at TP 3 and stable fusion as the model and how they would want a model to look like at some point. He asked how deep and reliable is this model.
Dr. Radke said the model he did a couple of years ago looked at the height of vegetation.
The fire models are fictitious because they are guessing, so he used about 7 independent variables, 4 out of NATE data, and was able to get about 93% to 94% accuracy.
Mr. Rajaraman asked why wouldn’t he open source the model.
Dr. Radke said it is published but that deep learning model looked at vegetation height which they do not need to look at in Orinda because LIDAR was flown in 2018 which was used to validate their model for Orinda.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 13 10.11.22
City Clerk Smith read an email from Richard Nelson: “I want to support strongly approval of the Radke proposal for fire risk monitoring in Orinda. I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Please read this comment into the record. If the City is serious about reducing fire risk in our community, we need the best fire risk model we can and one that is ours for Orindans to use to better understand and reduce the risk of wildfire. The Radke proposal meets these needs. The MOFD model does not and importantly, the Radke proposal would give us a way to monitor fire risk in our community over time, enabling us to assess whether our efforts are successful.
As you know, I have been a strong supporter of good roads in our community and was a member of the CIOC throughout its 10-year lifetime. That effort was a great success. Let’s work together to make reducing fire risk another great success in our community. We have resources to maintain our roads in their excellent condition and find ways to reduce fire risk.”
Vice Mayor Miller said this is the first time there has been a research proposal before the Council. She spoke of the City’s significant efforts as compared to other cities, cited the amount of money involved here and deliverables, and thinks there is an open question about insurance rates, whether the research will reduce rates, and/or increase opportunities for insurance. As far as fire safety, this is really an effort which is a step removed from the actual work from the City’s Chipper Program or with educational materials the City is sending out directly, and funding something that only may lead to the ability to better take those steps. As an untested deliverable, there is not certainty in that which gives her pause.
She thinks the grant opportunity gives the City another data point as to whether this is something they should be doing. She voiced hesitancy due to this not being something that cities generally do and a step removed. Here, it is going to be carried out by UC Berkeley but with a deliverable that the City then needs to put in action.
Councilmember Gee said she greatly appreciates the efforts of the SSTOC and has a lot of respect for Dr. Radke’s expertise and research team, but she is not supportive of moving forward with this proposal not because she does not see value in the research, but she honestly does not think it will result in actionable items that residents will undertake. She and the Mayor have had multiple conversations with Chief Winnacker through their work on the subcommittee and he has never indicated that he feels this mapping would be particularly important to his priorities for wildfire prevention. She agrees that if there was grant funding for this this would be a different story, and possibly if they had to spend $150,000 she might reconsider, but does not see the actionable value of it.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 13 10.11.22
She also wants to be clear to residents that she very much wants to spend dollars on fire prevention, particularly now but does not see this mapping as being the best place to spend that. They know for a fact that the value of the North Orinda Fire Break has absolutely no money for maintenance and she would rather spend $600,000 to maintain that fire break than to create mapping that requires everyone to deal with their own backyard which, honestly, she does not see happening.
She thinks the SSTOC and the City have done a great job of taking step by step efforts, creating building blocks, and noted the CIOCs plans took years to develop so in some ways, the City is further ahead on creating their fire prevention plan than they were in the many years it took them to figure out how to do the roads and drains.
Councilmember Worth thanked Dr. Radke for being here tonight and answering questions in an insightful way. She thinks California is far ahead in the issue of the larger scheme of wildfires, which the university is working on. The biggest concern she has is taking it from data information to implementation. and she described the many existing resources the City has with wildfire preparedness, mitigation, risk reduction, a top Fire Chief, a clear ordinance, volunteer Fire Ambassadors, and in-person Fire District inspectors.
Mayor Fay said he is intrigued by Dr. Radke’s proposal but like other Councilmembers, he was unsure as to where this gets them to where they need to be which is a more firesafe Orinda. He agreed with the City having a plan which is multi-dimensioned and emphasized the time it took for the CIOC to get to where they were.
Council and staff discussion ensued regarding whether a motion was needed, and Councilmember Worth recommended waiting to see if the State is interested in funding local research effort, and then the City can decide how to proceed.
Council discussion ensued regarding the Council’s interest in providing a local match if the City is awarded the grant, clarification that the grant is a National Forest Service grant under Community Wildfire Defense, with a Cal Fire component, achieving compliance as the number one focus, and Mayor Fay confirmed with the City Manager that the Council can meet again and further discuss matching funds if the State awards the grant.
There was Council consensus to take no action.
H.2. Approve Measure R Fire Fuels Reduction Incentive Pilot Program Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution No. 53-22 Approving the Measure R Fire Fuels Reduction Incentive Pilot Program
City Manager Biggs gave the staff report regarding the SSTOC’s recommendation to approve Measure R Fire Fuels Reduction Incentive Pilot Program, which was conceptually approved by the Council on August 16, 2022. He said Senior Management Analyst Micki Cronin has worked with SSTOC members to refine this.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 13 10.11.22
Senior Management Analyst Micki Cronin said the program is entitled Measure R Fire Fuels Reduction Incentive Pilot Program. She provided an overview of the program which includes $400,000 previously allocated, with requiring the property be on public streets, designated as an evacuation route, and there is a list of those streets provided in the packet. Additionally, they are asking the property be a member of a Firewise community or the resident has had a recent fire adapted community assessment by MOFD or they have received notice from MOFD that the property is not in compliance and they are looking for an educational component with that.
If approved, staff suggests the program start November 1st and run through August 31, 2023, be on a first come, first served basis for one time only, for a one-to-one match for reimbursement up to $599 where reimbursement would only be awarded after the work is completed, with an application and photos of before and after provided, and for the work to be done no more than 90 days prior to the request.
Councilmember Gee asked if Ms. Cronin will provide administration on this or if the new Education and Outreach individual will.
Mr. Biggs said it will be Ms. Cronin to start as the new person will not start until after November 1st. Both individuals will be cross trained, and he thinks the administration of the grants themselves will stay with Ms. Cronin. He also recognized the City Attorney’s work on the matter.
Councilmember Worth said the best problem is that this program gets oversubscribed and if they find at some time the program has been fully subscribed, she asked and confirmed staff will track the usage and will have the option to bring it back to the Council for consideration of additional funding.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.
Councilmembers voiced appreciation of the work of the SSTOC and staff, and voiced support of adoption of the Resolution approving the pilot program.
MOTION by Councilmember Worth moved and seconded by Councilmember Gee to adopt Resolution No. 53-22 Approving the Measure R Fire Fuels Reduction Incentive Pilot Program. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.
H.3. City Council Meeting Schedule for 2023
Recommendation:
Review and Adopt City Council Meeting Schedule for 2023 City Clerk Smith stated staff brings a calendar each year to the Council proposing meeting dates, and she recommended making any changes and adopt the City Council Meeting Schedule for 2023.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 13 of 13 10.11.22
Vice Mayor Miller confirmed staff has checked for the Jewish holiday dates.
MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller moved and seconded by Councilmember Gee to adopt the City Council Meeting Schedule for 2023. Said motion carried by unanimous (4-0) roll call vote.
I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Councilmember Worth reported on her attendance representing the City at the Annual League of California Cities Conference in Long Beach.
Vice Mayor Miller announced it was wonderful for the Czech Festival to return for the first time since 2019. The City celebrated its sister city, Tabor, Czech Republic, and it was a special occasion. Czech schools have also opened and educating students about their Czech heritage.
Mayor Fay added that the General Consult from the Czech Republic who is headquartered in Los Angeles visited to attend. He and Mr. Biggs represented the City at the Sister City events in Tabor last month which was a great visit, which he described. He encouraged future Mayors to attend.
J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – Mr. Biggs gave the following report:
He described his attendance at the Day of Czech Culture. He asked people to mark their calendar for Sunday, December 4th where he will host a small reception to acknowledge Councilmember Amy Worth as she departs from the Council after 24 years and 5 terms as Mayor. The reception will be in the upper plaza of the Library and more information will come out. They will also be recognizing out-going Councilmembers and new Councilmembers on December 13th.
October 27th will be the last Food Truck event for the City this year. The City will provide information on the new incentive program, and the Fire District has a small home hardening grant targeted at putting in ember-resistant vents.
MOFD is encouraging people to take advantage of the Fire-Adapted Ambassador home evaluation or assessment.
Lastly, an Emergency Preparedness and Wildfire Prevention Fair in the Community Center will be scheduled in the spring.
L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 10 10.18.22
October 18, 2022
CITY OF ORINDA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Note: Written communications received from the public prior to the start of this meeting can be viewed at: http://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2101.They are also kept in the City Clerk’s Office as part of the public record and available upon request. 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING– BY TELECONFERENCE
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:
Mayor Fay called the Regular Meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Nick Kosla, Amy Worth Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Councilmember Gee.
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Kosla moved and seconded by Councilmember Gee to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.
D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Introduction of Visiting Tabor Student Sofie Flaskova Slavka Ruzicka introduced visiting Tabor student Sofie Flaskova who arrived on August 2, 2022. An article in the Orinda News captured the essence of this young lady who is doing very well at school.
Bobbie Landers stated the Council has been so welcoming to their students. Sofie is their 21st student and she recognized and thanked all 21 host families. Sofie is learning to surf, is on the cheerleading squad and tennis team which led to a championship, and she is having a great time in Orinda.
Sofie Flaskova called in via her phone and said she is enjoying her time here, found that surfing is great and said last weekend she also visited Lake Tahoe. She is getting to know the Bay Area, has improved greatly at school, has learned many things from her experience, and is happy to have this opportunity.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 10 10.18.22
Councilmembers welcomed Sofie, recognized the importance of the Sister City relationship with Tabor and making memorable connections with students, recognized the Superintendent of the School District and host families, and hoped Sofie has a wonderful time in Orinda.
Cara Hoxie welcomed Sofie to Orinda and said she previously hosted an exchange student from Tabor. She fondly remembers when she, Councilmembers Worth, and Vice Mayor Miller traveled to Tabor for meetings and met with former students. They have a deep connection to the Sister City exchange program and she extended her heartfelt welcome.
Bobbie Landers lastly announced that the Orinda Tabor Sister City Foundation will have a Gingerbread House Contest in early December, and they will also be looking at next year’s student.
D.2. Proclamation Recognizing October 23-31, 2022 as Red Ribbon Week Mayor Fay read portions of the Proclamation into the record, recognizing October 23-31, 2022 as Red Ribbon Week.
Micah Bee, Program Coordinator, and Patricia Briston, President of the Pride and Purpose Project, thanked the Council for recognizing Red Ribbon Week, and Ms. Briston provided an overview of a drug free lifestyle and her student life.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
Cara Hoxie, Orinda Union School District, Board of Trustees, thanked the City for taking this opportunity to approve the Proclamation for Red Ribbon Week, stating it is very important to support our youth and be drug-free. She also thanked the Council for banning flavored tobacco which has been an issue in the community.
Mayor Fay and Councilmembers spoke on the importance of Red Ribbon Week and recognized the students who work with their peers to send the message of not using drugs.
E. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY – None.
F. PUBLIC FORUM
City Clerk Smith reported receipt of one public comment from Steve Cohn earlier which is on the City’s website, and there were no speakers.
G. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fay asked and confirmed there were no speakers or requests for removal of items.
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 10 10.18.22
Approve City Council Minutes:
1. October 4, 2022 - Closed Session Meeting
2. October 11, 2022 - Closed Session Meeting
F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of October 19, 2022 to November 18, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
MOTION by Councilmember Kosla moved and seconded by Councilmember Worth to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.1.2, and F.2. Said motion carried by (5-0) roll call vote.
G. PUBLIC HEARING – None.
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Resolution Honoring Retiring Long Serving Council Member Amy Worth by Naming the Orinda Library Rotunda in Her Honor Recommendation:
Adopt City Council Resolution 52-22 in order to honor Council Member Amy Worth for her 24 years of service by naming the Orinda Library Rotunda in her honor.
City Manager David Biggs said at the last Council under Matters Initiated the Council agreed to agendize discussion about naming the Orinda Library Rotunda after Councilmember Worth who is five-time Mayor of the City and having served 24 years on the City Council. Staff has prepared a resolution pursuant to the City’s adopted naming policy and recommended the Council adopt Resolution 52-22 to honor Councilmember Worth’s 24 years of service.
Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.
Shelley Hubner said she and her husband, Robert lent their support to the resolution honoring retiring Councilmember Amy Worth. They have known and admired Councilmember Worth throughout her entire tenure of dedicated service to the City for over 50 years. Amy is always among the step up, lead, mentor, problem-solve, and enhance life in our community. They cannot check out a library book, drive through the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel or hop on BART without acknowledging Amy’s extraordinary role in securing and strengthening these vital services for Orinda and the broader Bay Area.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 10 10.18.22
She also noted it is virtually impossible to appear in public with Amy without encountering a barrage of well-wishers, thanking her for her countless public service contributions.
Orinda is a far better place for having had Amy as its five-time Mayor and longest tenured six term Councilmember. They are confident that her commitment to community service will continue for decades to come. For these and numerous other reasons, they strongly urge the Council to approve this resolution to name the Orinda Library Rotunda in her honor.
Mimi Wilson said she has been interacting with the Council for as long as Amy has and she has watched her collect numerous trophies, plaques and wonderful accolades. In short of renaming the fourth bore as the Amy Worth Fourth Bore, she thinks naming the Orinda Library Rotunda for her is wonderful and perfect. She urged the Council to adopt the resolution and wished the naming could be shorter and suggested “Amy’s Place” or “Let’s Meet at Amy’s Rotunda.” She congratulated her for her many years of service.
Laura Abrams said she was fortunate enough to serve with Amy for 8 years on the City Council. Short of naming the Bay Bridge after her which would be more appropriate given her commitment to transportation issues. She is thrilled to ask the Council to approve naming the Rotunda after Amy. She thinks it is a wonderful idea to recognize her perseverance and dedication to the community and incredibly long years of service. She is delightful as a good friend and public official and she is looking forward to her celebration in December.
Nancy Ross-Madnick said on behalf of the Friends of the Orinda Library she would wholeheartedly lend their support for naming the Rotunda area in the Library for Councilmember Worth. She also suggested that they do not have to use the word “rotunda” and could use “entryway, entrance, lobby, vestibule” or any other word she might like. Whatever it is called, they are 100% in support.
Julie Pierce said unfortunately she is not on camera or the Council would be able to see behind her a “Yes on Measure L” campaign sign she found in her closet today and it brought back wonderful memories. Many Councilmembers remember it as something that brought everyone together for libraries, and she and Amy had the honor of leading that campaign. Unfortunately, they lost but they won a countywide program that works for everyone.
She also thinks this is somewhat historic for the County because it got them to a place where they now have much better City/County relations than ever before. Along with many other things Amy did, that was only two years into her tenure, but she was on the Library Advisory Committee for a very long time before that so the naming of the Rotunda after her is perfect. She congratulated Amy and said she cannot wait to celebrate and for her to be retired so they can see more of each other.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 10 10.18.22
Karen Mitchcock said even though she represents District 4, she brings the best wishes of the entire Board of Supervisors. She also has known Amy for a long time working on library issues. She has been fortunate to work on other regional issues, and she is the epitome of the public official and public servant. She serves her community, the region, and thinks everyone needs ego to be in public office but Amy is someone she looks up to and try to model her behavior after. She watches her at various meetings. She has always got the most cogent comment to make and she makes those comments whether they are in the majority or minority in a very professional and courteous manner.
She is also looking forward to her retirement because she also is retiring, and is also looking forward to the December 4th event. This is a wonderful recognition of the many years of public service in elected office and prior to that, working for libraries which are an institution they hold very dear in their hearts. Each library is unique and she thanked Orinda’s role in making their Pleasant Hill Library the wonderful place it is.
Alex Evans said Amy Worth is too young to retire and he asked to make sure this is in the minutes. He thinks everyone knows Amy has a bit of a reputation as someone who shows up a little bit late sometimes but as someone who has accompanied her to political and government meetings and events, he can assure the Council that she made up for that by being the last to leave. He thanked Tom, Betsy, Annie, and Kate who were so generous and shared Amy with Orinda, with the Bay Area, with the State of California and our country. He thanked Amy for her service and while he reiterated she is too young to retire, she deserves this great honor and he urged the Council to adopt this resolution.
Cara Hoxie said she whole-heartedly supports the resolution to name the Orinda Library Rotunda in honor of Amy. She has lived in Orinda her whole life, has known Amy for much of it, have had the privilege of working with Amy. She is an excellent leader and said her service to the community is unparalleled. The Library seems like an appropriate place to honor Amy given the work they have done together bringing the school district and City together, their work on school bus transportation, and said it all ends up with the Library which is where students go and she loves the idea of naming the library in her honor. She looks forward having a lot of time to spend together and do fun things, and she appreciates all Amy has done for Orinda.
Latika Malkani said on behalf of the Orinda Association which lends its complete support to this resolution. On behalf of the OA, she expressed tremendous gratitude to Councilmember Worth for her many years of engaged and dedicated service to the City of Orinda. The OA is about volunteerism and Councilmember Worth exemplifies volunteerism at its best. She thanked her for thoroughly engaging in the many meetings that most will attend in their lives and for participating in the many annual events in the community, and her support of the Seniors Around Town program that does so much in Orinda. She quoted one of her boardmembers statements who said it best, “Amy is one of my favorites—thoughtful, collaborative, approachable, measured in her responses, and extremely knowledgeable when she leads an initiative.” Beyond that, she would add caring by engaging, and she thanked her and voiced support of the resolution.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 10 10.18.22
Sue Severson said she could not pass up the opportunity to add her thanks and appreciation to Amy for her many years of service. Unfortunately, she will be out of town for the December 4th celebration but it is so appropriate that Amy would be honored by this resolution to name the Library Rotunda. Beyond Amy’s love of her family, she thinks the Library comes in at a close second. She thanked her for everything she has done and she cannot wait until she is retired so they can share more time together with their grandsons.
Jim Spering thanked Mayor Fay and members of the City Council. He is a Solano County Supervisor and he has had the honor to work with Amy on MTC for all the years she has been there. He did not know of any other individual that has a more positive impact on the Bay Area than Amy Worth, and thinks naming the Library Rotunda is very appropriate.
Amy’s work on land use and transportation is legendary in the Bay Area. She has found the balance between their rural and urbanized areas, identified those needs are much different, and that one size does not fit all. He thanked Amy for all the great things she has done in the Bay Area and the help she has given everyone over the years. When looking at the work done for maintaining local streets and roads, public transit, bridges, transportation infrastructure, Amy has done it all. He thanked her and was also trying to figure out a way to erect a statue in Solano County. He lastly commented that the City has a great City Manager who he has worked with in Hercules so the Council made a good choice.
Councilmember Worth thanked Supervisor Spering and said she could not have accomplished what she has done regionally without his support, partnership, and mentorship.
City Clerk Smith read an email into the record from Nick Waranoff: “I have closely followed the City Council and other civic issues concerning Orinda for many years. Amy and I worked together for a considerable period of time addressing issues such as AB 1487 which created the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and trying to bring affordable housing to Orinda. We had a falling out and she stopped talking to me totally. It would be tempting to take this opportunity to criticize her, but I am speaking today not to bury her but to praise her for one of her most significant but least known accomplishments, a recent one.
Most of you have heard of TOD which is Transit-Oriented Development. By contrast, I doubt that any of you have heard of TOC. This is a new policy of the MTC on which Amy sits. The official press release describes the TOC policy as replacing the TOD policy. The TOC policy applies to locations within a half mile of our BART station; in other words, to all of our downtown on both sides of the freeway. The gist of the new policy is to condition transportation funding controlled by MTC upon cities meeting specified density requirements. In other words, insufficient density means no funding.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 10 10.18.22
For a City like ours with money an on-going issue, this new policy could have very serious ramifications. The required densities are broken into four tiers depending on a number of factors. The higher the tier the more density is required to get the funding. Orinda was initially placed in Tier 3 due to its BART station. That would have required a minimum density downtown of 50 du/acre, but Amy, working quieting behind the scenes, was able to persuade MTC staff and then, the full Commission, to drop Orinda from Tier 3 to Tier
4. Tier 4 only requires 25 du/acre. Amy’s proposal was hotly contested by the usual build, build, build NIMBY but her view prevailed.
As a result, the amount of density that will be required downtown in order to get transportation funding from MTC is lower than otherwise would be required and is within the range currently being considered. This goes a long way towards preserving Orinda’s village character downtown. I have told Amy privately and tell all of you today publicly that the results she achieved should rank as one of her greatest and proudest accomplishments. Amy, my sincere best wishes for the future.” Vice Mayor Miller said she thinks the public has expressed why Councilmember Gee initiated this item before the Council because Councilmember Worth has done such extraordinary things for this community and has served as a mentor to her. The Council is being asked to look at the purpose and whether the naming opportunity would fit the policy, which she described and said she thinks everyone can agree that Councilmember Worth has more than tripled her efforts in achieving criteria. She has led the City to significant things and this is a wonderful opportunity.
Regarding whether something can be done in creating the naming opportunity like “Amy’s Place” and she asked whether the Council can leave it whomever would be working on this to work with the Friends of the Library and the City Manager to determine the logistics of the Rotunda naming.
City Attorney Wolff said she is looking at packet page 14 which is the draft resolution, and the “Now, Therefore…” clause which says in bold the name being recommended. She thinks if the Council removes this bold language and just said “Council does hereby name the Orinda Library Rotunda in Amy’s honor” this would leave flexibility for staff to work together with the Friends to arrive at the wording for the signage.
Mayor Fay suggested when adopting the resolution to include these suggested changes, and Councilmembers agreed.
City Manager Biggs mentioned that this decision should be made in short order by this week because staff must place the order for installation in time for the unveiling. He thinks it would also be important to delegate this to two Councilmembers to work with the Friends to make the final decision.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 10 10.18.22
Vice Mayor Miller said she believes the word “library” does not need to be included and she suggested “The Amy Worth Rotunda” with “Amy’s Place” in quotes underneath in italics or something like this be done. They are also fortunate that the President of the Friends of the Orinda Library is an architect, so this might be very useful.
Mayor Fay said he tends to agree with removing the word “library.” It is a rotunda that gives the opportunity for those walking into the library to see “Amy Worth Rotunda” but when walking out on the other side it could say “Amy’s Place.” Councilmember Gee suggested determining what Councilmember Worth would like. She is so happy to have the opportunity to name something significant after Amy, and was happy that so many regional leaders could join the Council tonight. Of all the things they could have picked out, they know how much the library means to her. She is sure they can finetune it so everyone can enjoy it, and also that they will have much more to say in December.
Councilmember Kosla agrees with omitting “library” as fitting. He feels Councilmember Worth is part of their family and in recognizing the things she has done for the City. He works in many cities and counties and every time he meets with different Mayors or City Managers, the first thing he asks is whether they know Amy Worth. Everyone always says such great things about her and she is regarded as an Ambassador throughout the Bay Area. It is an honor to have worked with her and he thinks the Closed Session items are where the real work happens. Amy has been such a leader with her experience of handling difficulties in the past and she does a really good job of getting her point across without being a bully or being very receptive to people’s other ideas. He thinks of the giant rotunda building in Oakland and he thinks the “Amy Worth Rotunda” sounds great, but he would leave it up to her and he also voiced support of shortening the wording.
Mayor Fay said he has known Amy for some time and initially met her in his office when he was still working, and he knew right away she was a regional leader. It has been a privilege to work with Amy over the years. He thanked her so much for choosing this year to retire because he gets to have his name on this resolution by signing it as Mayor.
Councilmember Worth thanked all Councilmembers and said as usual, their wonderful City Attorney comes up with a great suggestion for the resolution. She thinks they can figure out the fine-tuning to best word this honor. She was going to ask that the Council vote and then she will share her thoughts.
MOTION by Councilmember Gee moved and seconded by Councilmember Kosla to adopt City Council Resolution 52-22, as amended by the City Attorney, in order to honor Council Member Amy Worth for her 24 years of service by naming the Orinda Library Rotunda in her honor. Said motion carried by (4-0) roll call vote, with Councilmember Worth abstaining.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10 10.18.22
Councilmember Worth said she is so overwhelmed and honored. It has been an honor and joy to work with all of the Councils over the decades in the City of Orinda. She feels so touched to be recognized to be named in the library. Libraries are so important to her, stating her mother took her and her two brothers to the library every week growing up.
She is the one who taught her about community service and when she and her husband moved to Orinda, the first volunteer job she had was being on the Tot Lot Committee.
They were preparing for the Easter Fair and her friend, Pam Wiley said they needed a publicity chair for the Book Fair. She volunteered and met Linda Landau which has been a legendary friendship for decades in terms of working for the Library.
She is so touched by this recognition, thanked everyone for being here tonight to speak, and said it has been bittersweet to retire. She is especially grateful to her husband, Tom and their three wonderful children, Betsy, Annie, and Kate who are on the call tonight.
They put up with, and gave, a lot and at times they had to fix their own dinner and handle other things when she was at meetings which she described, and thanked them all for their support. She also thanked the many regional volunteers, Councilmembers and County Supervisors that work so hard to make the Bay Area a wonderful place to live.
She is looking forward to December 4th. She thanked the City Manager and City Clerk who are planning for the dedication and she cannot say thank you enough for this honor.
The Library means so much to her and she could not think of a more wonderful way to be honored and recognized in the Orinda community.
I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Councilmember Gee reported on the 2x2 Subcommittee meeting held last night with the City and MOFD. They talked about a lot of key issues that continue to arise that affect their ability to work together well which is improving their relationship in terms of figuring out best strategies for community fire prevention. She will defer to the Mayor or City Manager to talk about the good news they received regarding State budget monies and other good news potentially they will be exploring regarding insurance issues.
Mayor Fay noted that the 2x2 Subcommittee will focus on two issues going forward; one is insurance and how to measure progress making Orinda more wildfire safe. He is hoping some of these things will be able to be further vetted with the SSTOC as well.
J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – City Manager Biggs announced that the Fire Chief shared with the 2x2 Subcommittee that an effort he led and authored a request signed by the Town Manager of Moraga and MOFD Chief and himself to Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan that the State funded $800,000 in the budget trailer bill signed by the Governor on October 6th that will provide for funding for staffing to go to the Fire District and provide for a 3-year pilot program for two additional staff members in MOFD to work on fire prevention, inspection, and other related services for Orinda and Moraga. The Fire Chief will take it to the MOFD Board for acceptance, and they appreciate the Assemblymember’s efforts. Orinda and Moraga are also investing their own monies, and these additional resources will go a long way to help move them to be a more fire safe community.
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 10 10.18.22
Mayor Fay recognized City Manager Biggs as spearheading this, putting it together, and getting it moving, despite what others have said relating to the odds of it happening.
Mr. Biggs stated the Council approved at its last meeting a small grant program for residents to take advantage of to remove fire fuels along evacuation routes. It is also designed for people to take advantage of the formation of additional Firewise neighborhoods or also the Fire District’s Fire Adapted Ambassador program where they will come out and do a free evaluation or assessment of up to $599 as a match. Applications will be available November 1st and there is information available on the City’s website under the Emergency Preparedness link.
He reported the Parks and Recreation team is busy working on a new event on Saturday, December 3rd for a holiday tree lighting. This will be held in conjunction with the Tabor Sister City Foundation’s final Gingerbread House Competition.
Lastly, he reminded people on Sunday, December 4th from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the upper level of the Library Plaza where they will celebrate Councilmember Worth where they will unveil the naming in the Library and a backup plan to have an indoor/outdoor undercover event, depending upon weather conditions.
K. MATTERS INITIATED – None.
L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 01, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (2944 : City Council Minutes) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: November 1, 2022
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of November 2, 2022 to December 1, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.
BACKGROUND:
On October 5th, 2021 the Orinda City Council adopted Resolution No. 42-21 approving the continued use of teleconferencing for the meetings of all City legislative bodies pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361. The resolution was ratified on October 19, 2021, and at subsequent meetings through 2021 and 2022.
DISCUSSION:
At the time of adoption, the City Council anticipated that the resolution would appear on its consent calendar for review and ratification or update at regular Council meetings.
The State law authorizes the continuation for as long as the Governor’s proclaimed State of Emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic remains in effect. On On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023. State law also provides that the City Council determine that they desire to continue remote public meetings and make the necessary findings at least every thirty days. Those findings were contained in Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21, which staff recommends the Council vote to ratify based on current conditions.
Approval of this item will allow all public bodies established by the City of Orinda and covered by Resolution No. 42-21 to continue to conduct teleconferencing meetings.
On October 4, 2022, Contra Costa Health Services issued the attached revised Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings in which online meetings are still encouraged.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Weblink to: Staff Report, Adopted Resolution at October 5, 2021 Council Meeting B. Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings
F.2
Packet Pg. 31
Respectfully Submitted by:
Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:
F.2
Packet Pg. 32
Recommendations for safely holding public meetings
Each local government agency is authorized to determine whether to hold public meetings in person, on-line (teleconferencing only), or via a combination of methods. The following are recommendations from the Contra Costa County Health Officer to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during a public meeting.
1. Online meetings (i.e. teleconferencing meetings) are encouraged, where practical, as these meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19. This is particularly important when community prevalence rates are high. Our current trends as of October 4, 2022 in Covid-19 case rate, test positivity, Covid-19 hospitalizations, and COVID-19 wastewater surveillance are decreasing, but community transmission, as noted in CDC community transmission map, remains high. In addition to this, the predominant variant of COVID-19 being identified continues to be the Omicron variant and it’s subvariants the impact of which on the spread of COVID-19 has shown to dramatically increase COVID-19 transmission.
2. If a local agency determines to hold in-person meetings, offering the public the opportunity to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option is recommended, when possible, to give those at higher risk of and/or higher concern about COVID-19 an alternative to participating in person.
3. A written safety protocol should be developed and followed. It is recommended that the protocol require social distancing, where feasible – i.e. six feet of separation between attendees; and consider requiring or strongly encouraging face masking of all attendees and encouraging attendees to be up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccine.
4. Seating arrangements should allow for staff and members of the public to easily maintain at least six-foot distance from one another at all practicable times.
5. Consider holding public meetings outdoors. Increasing scientific consensus is that outdoor airflow reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission compared to indoor spaces. Hosting events outdoors also may make it easier to space staff and members of the public at least 6 feet apart. If unable to host outdoors, consider ways to increase ventilation and flow of the indoor space to reduce the risk of COVID-19 while indoors.
6. Current evidence is unclear as to the added benefit of temperature checks in addition to symptom checks. We encourage focus on symptom checks as they may screen out individuals with other Covid-19 symptoms besides fever and help reinforce the message to not go out in public if you are not feeling well.
7. Consider a voluntary attendance sheet with names and contact information to assist in contact tracing of any cases linked to a public meeting.
Revised 10-4-2022
Sefanit Mekuria, MD, MPH
Deputy Health Officer, Contra Costa County
F.2.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings (2948 : Ratify Continued Teleconference Resolution) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: November 1, 2022
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of Revised Draft Housing Element & Overview Regarding Key Housing Laws
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, provide feedback, and direct staff to submit the revised draft Housing Element to HCD.
BACKGROUND:
On May 16th, the City submitted the first draft of the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. HCD had 90- days, until August 12th, to complete their review of the first draft.
On July 26th, staff and the consultant team met with HCD to discuss their preliminary comments prior to the end of their 90-day review. Based on the preliminary comments received, the draft Housing Element was revised, released for public review on August 3rd, and submitted to HCD.
At the conclusion of the 90-days, on August 12th, the City received a comment letter from HCD regarding items that need to be corrected or further addressed. The HCD comment letter is included as Attachment A. Following receipt of the HCD comment letter, staff and the consultant team revised the Housing Element to address all the comments in the letter. On September 23rd, the revised draft Housing Element was released for public review.
A link to the September 23rd revised draft is provided as an attachment. Within the revised draft, highlighted text indicates changes that were made in response to the HCD comment letter; text that is noted using “track changes” (underlined for new text, strikethrough for deleted) but not highlighted signify changes made to the August revision that was submitted prior to the HCD comment letter. A comment letter matrix is also provided showing where in the Housing Element each comment is addressed.
On October 10th, a Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee meeting was held to provide an overview of the Housing Element revisions and to obtain feedback from the public and Subcommittee. At the end of the meeting, the Subcommittee recommended the revised draft Housing Element be considered by the entire City Council before resubmitting to HCD. Draft meeting minutes from the October 10th meeting are included as an attachment.
DISCUSSION:
September 23rd Revised Draft Housing Element
A summary of the major changes to the revised draft Housing Element is included below. A number of other edits have also been made in the revised draft Housing H.1
Packet Pg. 34
Element in response to the HCD comment letter. All edits have been included as track changes in the revised draft. At the Council meeting, the consultant team will provide a presentation overview of all the edits.
Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) Sites
The HCD comment letter requires more detail to demonstrate the development potential of the DPP sites for lower-income housing. The specific comments from HCD are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1. HCD Comment Letter - Comments regarding the DPP Sites.
Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence, especially for development with units affordable to lower-income households, to support mixed-use development in the Downtown Precise Plan area where the majority of sites are identified to accommodate the lower-income RHNA.
The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element also needs to analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed-use). This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element identifies nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households in the Downtown Precise Plan, it provides little description of the potential for redevelopment. Additionally, while the element states the City has been in contact with property owners, it does not specify if the owners are interested in redevelopment. The element must describe the methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning period. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. (Gov.
Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).) For sites with residential uses, the inventory could also describe structural conditions or other circumstances and trends demonstrating the redevelopment potential to more intense residential uses. For nonresidential sites, the inventory could also describe whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed interest in redevelopment.
Staff and the consultant team re-evaluated the DPP sites in order to address HCD’s comments. Staff and the consultant team also had an informal call with HCD in early H.1
Packet Pg. 35
September to better understand what level of detail is needed to include the DPP sites.
Sites where staff had limited contact with property owners, had knowledge of existing long-term leases, and sites that were in good condition were removed from the sites inventory. The DPP initially included 43 sites in the first draft Housing Element. 23 sites have now been removed and 1 new site has been added (4 Orinda Way), resulting in a total of 21 DPP sites in the updated sites inventory.
Figure 1 – Downtown Sites in the Updated Sites Inventory Source. September 23rd Revised Draft Housing Element (Figure 5-3) In order to account for the removal of 23 DPP sites, the densities of some of the DPP sites have been increased. Whereas the first draft proposed a maximum density of 30 du/ac in the Country Club Plaza block and BevMo block, the revised draft now proposes 65 du/ac for all of the sites in these 2 blocks, with one site proposed at a maximum of 70 du/ac. The maximum building heights have also been increased from 45’ to 55’ to account for the increased densities on these two blocks. A breakdown of all DPP sites and the proposed maximum densities can be found in Table 5-5A and Table 5-5B of the revised draft.
The first draft included a capacity of 447 units in the DPP and the revised draft now results in a capacity of 381 units, a total reduction of 66 units in the DPP. If the densities were not increased in the Country Club Plaza block and BevMo block, there would be a loss of 250 units
H.1
Packet Pg. 36
The distribution between low, moderate, and above moderate units within the DPP has also been modified with the revised draft. In the first draft, a majority of the lowerincome units were located within the DPP. The HCD comment letter included a comment regarding the concentration of lower-income sites in the DPP (See Table 2 below). In response to this comment, the draft has been revised to analyze all DPP sites on a mixed-income basis.
Lower-income RHNA - each site allocates 43% of its capacity to lower income Moderate-income RHNA - each site allocates 16% of its capacity to moderate income
Above-moderate income RHNA - each site allocates 41% of its capacity to above-moderate income
This mixed-income basis aligns with the RHNA distribution that was assigned to Orinda.
Of Orinda’s 1,359 RHNA units, 43% of the units fall into the lower-income category, 16% into the moderate-income category, and 41% into the above-moderate income category.
Table 2. HCD Comment Letter - Comment regarding Fair Housing Site Inventory and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element must include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) are distributed throughout the community in an AFFH manner. Currently all lower-income sites and higher density multifamily opportunities are concentrated in the Downtown Precise Plan. The element should discuss the impact of concentrating all the lower income units in one area. The element should also discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program mitigation actions that will be taken (e.g., housing mobility and new opportunities in other higher opportunity areas).
To gather more information on downtown property owners interest in housing on their property, staff sent a survey to all downtown property owners in late July and held a stakeholder meeting in early August. At the stakeholder meeting, EPS provided a presentation on the viability of redevelopment downtown. A number of property owners, property owner representatives, and developers attended the virtual stakeholder meeting. Property owners in attendance were able to share their level of interest in housing on their property.
The City also engaged with EPS to prepare a memo discussing the redevelopment potential of downtown. The memo is included as an attachment to this staff report. The memo discussed how the combined effects of poor commercial market performance, relatively low development intensity, and strong housing market suggests Orinda’s downtown is well-positioned for residentially-led reinvestment. The memo provides further support for the development trends and market conditions described in the HCD comment letter.
Last, staff compiled project examples from neighboring jurisdictions to demonstrate trends of residential development in downtowns. In the informal call with HCD in August, H.1
Packet Pg. 37
HCD indicated the city could provide project examples from surrounding jurisdictions if there were currently no development trends within Orinda’s downtown. The project examples include approved projects in Lafayette, San Carlos, and Alameda with similar densities and building heights to those proposed by the DPP.
Caltrans Gateway Site
The HCD comment letter also included a comment regarding the viability of the Caltrans Gateway site being redeveloped within the planning period. The specific comment is included in Table 3 below.
Table 3. HCD Comment Letter - Comments regarding the Caltrans Gateway Site.
Caltrans Sites: As noted in the element, sites currently owned by Caltrans are not currently listed as surplus or excess property. In addition, while the element includes Action 1.B to work with Caltrans to decertify the site, it is unclear whether the site will be declared excess or surplus and be available for housing within the planning period. Absent further evidence that Caltrans will dispose of this site within the planning period, this site should not be utilized to accommodate the RHNA.
Staff and the consultant team met with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) staff in late August to obtain guidance on their experience working with Caltrans and including this site in the city’s Housing Element.
Staff also discussed the Caltrans site with HCD during the informal call in early September when the DPP sites were discussed. HCD provided feedback on what revisions needed to be made in the Housing Element to include the Caltrans site as a site for the 6th cycle. The feedback included providing more detail on the steps that would be needed in order to decertify the site, the decertification timeframe, and what actions the City would take if the site is not decertified within the planning period.
In response to HCD’s guidance, the draft Housing Element has been revised to list all of the decertification steps, the decertification timeline, and an action item is included to ensure there are enough sites if the Caltrans site is not decertified by the planning period midpoint (2026). Information regarding the decertification steps and timeline is based on a discussion staff had with Caltrans in March regarding the history of the site and the decertification process. The revised draft also includes photos of the site to show that the site was previously planned as a cloverleaf, but was abandoned and is not being used as part of the right-of-way.
Buffer
No Net Loss Law requires that an adequate number of sites are available through the Housing Element planning period. In order to maintain an adequate number of sites, a buffer is recommended for the lower-income RHNA. In the first draft, the Housing Element assumed a 25% buffer. With the September 23rd revised draft, the buffer has been increased to 35%.
The buffer has been increased to account for the possibility that the Caltrans Gateway site is not be decertified to allow for housing development. The Caltrans Gateway Site has a proposed capacity of 200 units on the 10 acre site. Action 1.3 commits the City to H.1
Packet Pg. 38
work with Caltrans to decertify the site and to fund the decertification process. But if the Caltrans Gateway site is not decertified and the City does not have an adequate number of sites, the City would be required to identify and make available within 180 days other sites zoned at a density sufficient for lower or moderate-income housing for a total of 200 units.
Pine Grove Site
The Pine Grove site was added to the downtown sites inventory based on conversations City staff had with an interested developer regarding housing development on the site. Prior to the October 10th Subcommittee meeting, staff received a letter from the property owner’s representative stating they had no interest in housing development on their property and would like the site to be removed from the sites inventory.
On October 20th, City staff met with the Pine Grove property owner who expressed support for efforts to revitalize downtown including the addition of housing.
Understanding that the proposed Housing Element and DPP would add housing as a permitted use, and would not make his current office use non-conforming, the Pine Grove property owner withdrew his objection to the site being included in the Housing Element.
Housing Element Timeline
Staff anticipates submitting the revised draft Housing Element to HCD by the end of the week, on November 4th. HCD will then have 60-days to review the revised draft. The consultant team will be in contact with HCD during the 60-day review period to answer any questions and to ensure all comments have been addressed. Following a Conditional Compliance letter from HCD stating the Housing Element has been found in compliance, the Housing Element will need to be presented to the Planning Commission for recommendation and to the City Council for adoption. See Table 4 under Next Steps for a more complete Plan Orinda schedule.
Consequences of Late Adoption
There are a number of consequences that will occur if the Housing Element is not adopted by the January 31, 2023 deadline. Attached is a fact sheet prepared by ABAG explaining the consequences of late adoption. These consequences can include:
Rezoning Timeline - Housing Elements that are not adopted and not found to be in compliance within 120 days of the deadline have three years to complete all required rezoning, by January 31, 2026. Housing Elements found out of compliance must complete all rezoning within one year, by January 31, 2024. Funding – If the Housing Element is not adopted and not found to be in compliance by the deadline, the City would not be eligible for certain funding sources. For instance, the SB 2 grant where the City was awarded $160,000 required jurisdictions to indicate they had a compliant Housing Element as part of the application process.
“Builder’s Remedy” - If the Housing Element is not adopted and not found to be in compliance by the deadline, the so-called “builder’s remedy” is triggered. The “builder’s remedy” comes from the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that H.1
Packet Pg. 39
requires cities to make findings in order to deny or apply conditions to a housing development project for low or moderate income housing. One of the findings states that the project is inconsistent with zoning and land use designations. If a Housing Element is not adopted before the deadline, the City cannot make this finding. A fact sheet prepared by ABAG has been included as an attachment to provide further detail on “builder’s remedy”. As noted in the fact sheet, late adoption may result in HCD requiring “a local agency to approve an eligible housing development project despite its noncompliance with local development standards.”
Environmental Impact Report
The Plan Orinda draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was released for public review on September 15th. The 45-day public comment period will end on Monday, October 31st. All public comments on the draft EIR shall be emailed to [email protected].
The draft EIR analyzes the environmental impact of multiple potential Housing Element opportunity sites, including all the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) sites, church sites, Miramonte High School site, Caltrans Gateway site, and the BART parking lots. A greater number of sites were analyzed in order to provide the City Council the maximum flexibility in site selection for the Housing Element. The final EIR, which will include a response to comments received during the draft EIR public comment period, is anticipated to be available in December.
Density Bonus Law
The state Density Bonus Law allows projects that include affordable or senior housing units an increase in density. Incentives, concessions, and waivers also allow developers to reduce or waive development standards. The number of incentives or concessions granted is dependent on the percentage of affordable units being proposed. The HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook clearly states that density bonus units cannot be calculated as part of the site capacity.
New Housing Laws
A number of laws will become effective in 2023 and would impact much of downtown. A handout prepared by ABAG is attached providing further detail on AB 2011 and SB 6.
The staff presentation on November 1st will also include an overview of these new state laws.
AB 2097 - Effective January 1, 2023, the City cannot impose or enforce any minimum parking requirements on residential, commercial, or other development projects within a half mile of BART. Much of downtown is within a half mile of BART and would be impacted by this law.
AB 2011 - Effective July 1, 2023, this bill creates a streamlined ministerial process for affordable housing projects in certain commercial areas. Eligible projects include multifamily housing projects, housing not located within 500’ of a freeway, and 100% affordable projects where only objective standards could be applied. Staff is currently preparing a map to understand which sites would H.1
Packet Pg. 40
potentially be affected by AB 2011 and the preliminary map will be included in the staff presentation on November 1st.
SB 6 - Effective July 1, 2023, market-rate housing projects would be allowed in commercial areas. Housing projects would be allowed at the default density of 20 du/ac for Orinda. This would likely apply to all sites in the DC and DO zoning district.
NEXT STEPS:
Following the November 1st City Council Meeting, if necessary, staff and the consultant team will make final edits before submitting the revised draft to HCD. It should be noted that certain changes may require a 7-day recirculation of the Housing Element, which would add an additional 2 weeks to the schedule when accounting for making the changes, producing the document, posting and circulating the new draft etc.; the schedule below assumes that any changes do not trigger this additional review process.
Table 4. Plan Orinda Schedule
City Council Meeting - Revised Draft Housing Element November 1, 2022 Submit Revised Draft Housing Element to HCD (60-days) November 4, 2022 City Council Meeting - Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis
November 15, 2022
Final EIR - Available for Public Review December 2022
Planning Commission Meeting - Draft DPP December 2022
Planning Commission Meeting/City Council Meeting - Draft Safety Element
December 2022
Receive Conditional Compliance Letter from HCD January 3, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting - Recommend Adoption of
Housing Element, Safety Element, DPP, & Final EIR
January 4 or 5, 2023
City Council Meeting - Adopt Housing Element, Safety Element, DPP & Final EIR
January 2023
Housing Element Deadline January 31, 2023
Submit Adopted Housing Element to HCD -
Certification Review
February 2023
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no material fiscal impact associated with staff’s recommendation to receive the report, take public testimony, provide feedback and submit the revised draft Housing Element to HCD.
H.1
Packet Pg. 41
ATTACHMENTS:
A. HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022)
B. Revised Draft Housing Element & Comment Matrix [weblink] C. Plan Orinda Draft Environmental Impact Report [weblink] D. EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) E. Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022)
F. ABAG Fact Sheet: Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element G. ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6
H. ABAG Fact Sheet: "Builder's Remedy" and Housing Elements I. Public Correspondence
Respectfully Submitted by:
Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
Prepared By: Winnie Mui, Associate Planner
Approved by:
H.1
Packet Pg. 42
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 12, 2022
Drummond Buckley, Director
Planning Department
City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way, 1st Floor
Orinda, CA 94563
Dear Drummond Buckley:
RE: City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Orinda’s (City) draft housing element received for review on May 16, 2022 along with revisions received on August 2, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on July 26, 2022 with Winnie Mui of your staff and consultants Lucy Rollins and Jennifer Gastelum. In addition, HCD considered comments from YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c),paragraph (1), subparagraph (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Drummond Buckley, Planning Director
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 August 12, 2022
APPENDIX
CITY OF ORINDA
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)) Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement: While the element does include data on overcrowded households, substandard housing conditions, and cost burdened households, it must also include an analysis including demographic data for persons experiencing homelessness. The element should analyze the data including looking at trends, patterns, and other local knowledge, and conclude with a summary of issues.
Site Inventory and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element must include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) are distributed throughout the community in an AFFH manner.
Currently all lower-income sites and higher density multifamily opportunities are concentrated in the Downtown Precise Plan. The element should discuss the impact of concentrating all the lower income units in one area. The element should also discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program mitigation actions that will be taken (e.g., housing mobility and new opportunities in other higher opportunity areas).
Contributing Factors: While the element lists contributing factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues and are fundamental to adequate goals and actions, the identified factors must be prioritized.
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 August 12, 2022
Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The element indicates (p. 128) that 8 units affordable to very low-income households, 30 units affordable to low-income households, and 13 units affordable to moderate income households have been built or are under construction or approved but provides no information demonstrating affordability of the units. As you know, the City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2022; however, the element must describe the City’s methodology for assigning these units to the various income groups based on actual sales price, rent level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed-restrictions) and demonstrate their availability in the planning period.
Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence, especially for development with units affordable to lower-income households, to support mixed-use development in the Downtown Precise Plan area where the majority of sites are identified to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element also needs to analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed-use). This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element identifies nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households in the Downtown Precise Plan, it provides little description of the potential for redevelopment. Additionally, while the element states the City has been in contact with property owners, it does not specify if the owners are interested in redevelopment. The element must describe the methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning period. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).) For sites with residential uses, the inventory could also describe structural conditions or other circumstances and trends demonstrating the redevelopment potential to more intense residential uses. For nonresidential sites, the inventory could also describe whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed interest in redevelopment.
For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml#analysis.
In addition, for the identified church sites, the element briefly describes the Vista Verde project. The element should describe any history of developing housing on church sites in H.1.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 August 12, 2022
addition to this project. To strengthen this analysis, the element should tie Vista Verde’s development experience to the characteristics of the 2-3 proposed sites, noting similarities in conditions and describing those churches’ degree of interest in residential development.
If the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate that the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
Caltrans Sites: As noted in the element, sites currently owned by Caltrans are not currently listed as surplus or excess property. In addition, while the element includes Action 1.B to work with Caltrans to decertify the site, it is unclear whether the site will be declared excess or surplus and be available for housing within the planning period. Absent further evidence that Caltrans will dispose of this site within the planning period, this site should not be utilized to accommodate the RHNA.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element must demonstrate permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. In particular, the element must analyze the occupancy limit of seven clients per night. In addition, emergency shelter spacing requirements appear to require siting beyond the development standards allowed under housing element law. Emergency shelters must only be subject to the same development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except for those standards prescribed by statute. The element must also clarify the existing uses of the four sites identified for potential shelter sites and whether they have the potential capacity for adaptive reuse.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element indicates the City modified its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU law. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance in order to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU development.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of H.1.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 August 12, 2022
developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The analysis must evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities and cost and supply of housing. The analysis should also describe past or current efforts to remove identified governmental constraints and include programs to address or remove any identified constraints. The element should analyze the minimum lot width and depth in the Residential Medium Density (RM) zone and the Senior Housing (SH) overlay as well as the height limit of 27 feet in most zoning districts as constraints and add or revise programs as needed. Further, the element states that ten dwelling units per acre may be a barrier to mixed-use development in the Downtown Zone but did not include a plan or program to address this potential constraint.
In addition, the element must clarify how the High-Density Overlay Zone interacts with the General Plan maximum density of ten dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to conversations with City staff, their appears that the City will initiate a general plan amendment along with the rezone to match densities proposed in the new overlay zones. The element should include this information either in the analysis or part of Program X and describe and analyze all zoning standards for the overlay
Growth Management Requirements: The element states “The Growth Management section meets the Contra Costa County mandate established by voter-approved Measures C and J,” but provides no explanation of the mandate or Measures C and J. The element must identify and analyze these regulations as potential constraints on a variety of housing types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobile homes, transitional housing.
Planned Development: The element indicates that multifamily development may occur through Planned Development (PD) but should clarify if this process is optional. If it is not, the element must describe and analyze the permit processing procedures impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability, particularly for residential development affordable to lower-income households. The analysis must describe approval procedures and decision-making criteria, and whether they are discretionary approvals.
Local Processing Procedures: While the element describes the approval process for residential development, it must clarify if the process applies to both single family and multifamily developments. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/constraints/processing-permitting-procedures.shtml.
Fees and Exactions: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. The element should also describe annexation, development agreement, and environmental fees as well as provide estimates for typical total costs in relation to the listed hourly staff charges. In addition, while the element lists the proportion of fees for multifamily and single-family developments, the fees for multifamily development are much higher and should be analyzed as a constraint.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 August 12, 2022
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element describes the process for a reasonable accommodation where the accommodation seems to be only for a limited term. The element must clarify whether the reasonable accommodation expires and if so, whether that complies with state law and federal fair housing guidance.
4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction... (Gov. Code, §65583, sub (a)(6).) Land Costs: While the element identifies land costs from 2014. The element must update land costs to reflect current conditions.
Construction Costs: While the element provides typical construction costs for single family homes, it should also include the typical cost for multifamily construction.
B. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subd. (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials.
Programs to be revised include the following:
• Action 3.B (Extremely Low-Income Housing) should describe which regulatory incentives will be expanded and include a timeline for implementation. • Action 3.E (Objective Design Standards) should revise the implementation timeframe to reflect the expenditure deadline of the funding source (SB 2). • Action 4.B (Development Review and Processing Procedures) should include implementing actions associated with the review.
• Action 4.E (Revised Parking Standards) currently states that “possible approval” would occur in 2025. The action should commit to specific parking revisions by a specific date.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory H.1.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 August 12, 2022
completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
Sites Identified in Prior Planning Periods: The element must include a program for vacant sites identified in two of more consecutive planning periods’ housing elements or nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element, that are currently identified to accommodate housing for lower-income households. The program must be implemented within the first year or three years of the planning period, whichever is applicable, and commit to zoning that will meet the density requirements for housing for lower-income households and allow by-right approval for housing developments that include 20 percent or more of its units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).)
Nonvacant Sites Reliance to Accommodate RHNA: As the element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it should include a program(s) to promote residential development of those sites. The program could commit to provide financial assistance, regulatory concessions, or incentives to encourage and facilitate new, or more intense, residential development on the sites.
Examples of incentives include identifying and targeting specific financial resources and reducing appropriate development standards. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/programrequirements/identify-adequate-sites.shtml.
Program 4.A (Amend Development Standards to Remove Constraints): While the program includes a specific commit to allow supportive housing as a permitted use without discretionary review in zones where multifamily and mixed-use developments are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, it should reference the correct Statutory Citation for AB 2162 (Gov. Code, § 65650).
3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 August 12, 2022
As noted in Findings A3 and A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete AFFH analysis. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs to sufficiently respond to contributing factors to fair housing issues. In addition, Action 5.A (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) must include specific metrics to demonstrate how actions will result in quantifiable outcomes.
C. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process (pp. 6-10), it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element could describe the efforts to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate-income households and organizations that represent them and to involve such groups and persons in the element throughout the process. In addition, the element should also summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: HCD Comment Letter (August 12, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview)
M EMORANDUM
To: Drummond Buckley and Winnie Mui, City of Orinda
From: Jason Moody, Ryan M. Martinez, and Rosanna Ren
Subject: Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda; EPS #211085
Date: September 21, 2022
This memorandum evaluates real estate market conditions affecting the redevelopment potential of Downtown Orinda. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) has prepared this analysis to inform the City of Orinda’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element and the Downtown Precise Plan.
While the City of Orinda is predominantly a residential community, the Downtown Precise Plan area is primarily a commercial district.
Specifically, approximately 95 percent of the privately owned acreage and 85 percent of the building square footage are composed of commercial properties (e.g., retail and office buildings). Notwithstanding its existing commercial orientation, the City has identified the Downtown as a strategic location to meet the goals of the Housing Element Update for the 2023-2031 planning period. As such, the City is seeking to implement land use regulations and policies to stimulate desirable residential redevelopment in the area. In particular, the City is interested in how increasing allowable residential densities could incentivize redevelopment to residential uses on sites that are under-utilized and / or poorly performing.
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 2 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" Summary of Key Findings
• A variety of market and real estate indicators suggest that Orinda’s downtown retail sector is underperforming and that many properties are likely providing modest or negligible financial returns to existing owners. Despite its relatively affluent population, Orinda’s retail sector never recovered from the Great Recession of 2008-09 and has further struggled due to the impact and aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. When adjusted for inflation, lease rates and sales volumes have declined continuously for at least two years and may not fully recover due to longstanding and pandemic-accelerated changes to retail trade more broadly. Moreover, the significant “leakage” of retail spending by Orinda residents to other jurisdictions has persisted for many years and reflects Downtown’s relatively weak position in a highly competitive retail market. The overall market conditions suggest that many properties are generating meager economic returns to existing property owners in their current format and may be ripe for a change of use and / or redevelopment. • Available data suggests that a large proportion of Downtown Orinda’s commercial properties are old, relatively low density, and outdated, suggesting that redevelopment to new and more intensive uses could unlock value relative to current conditions. While Downtown has good “bones” and strong supporting infrastructure, the age and level of development on many commercial properties suggest that they present prime opportunities for redevelopment. By way of example, the median commercial floor area ratio (FAR), the ratio of building space to land area, is about .35 which suggests relatively low development intensity. Meanwhile the average commercial building size is roughly 12,000 square feet, relatively small for a successful downtown. Most of the buildings are also old (albeit not historic) with an average age of 58 years and mostly designated as Class C by the real estate community (indicating a low level of improvements and modern amenities).
• Fueled by its strong community attributes, Orinda has consistently maintained a highly favorable residential market, with growth across all housing types primarily limited by supply constraints rather than a lack of demand. While Orinda’s commercial district has struggled over the last several decades, the residential market has remained consistently strong. Home prices, rents, and occupancy rates in the city have historically outperformed Contra Costa County and the broader East Bay Region. The city’s attractiveness is fueled by strong community attributes, including a quaint, small-town feel, low crime rates, good schools, and a strategic location with convenient accessibility to major employment centers (facilitated by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station), among other factors. Furthermore, the rate at which buyers and renters typically absorb new or available housing suggests significant pent-up demand.
• The combined effects of poor commercial market performance, relatively low development intensity, and a strong housing market suggest that Orinda’s downtown is well-positioned for residentially led reinvestment. Orinda’s relatively anemic retail sector (characterized by low sales volume, business closings, and leakage to surrounding communities), in conjunction with outdated and inefficient commercial land uses, makes the downtown area ripe for redevelopment. At the same time, continued strength in the city’s residential market and Downtown’s strategic location adjacent to BART and mixeduse amenities would suggest that appropriately scaled and positioned housing projects would likely be an attractive real estate investment.
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 3 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" Orinda’s Downtown Retail Sector
Although Orinda’s residents are relatively affluent, the city has a rather modest retail sector in terms of its scale, range of offerings, and sales volume. Moreover, the city’s retail sector has experienced decreasing lease and sales rates that never fully recovered from the Great Recession of 2008-09 and suffered further declines in aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to these compounding factors, many of Orinda’s retail establishments appear to operate on small margins and may not provide a long-term and stable source of income to existing property owners.
As shown in Figure 1, retail properties commanded their highest lease rates in the mid-2000s, and they fell precipitously during the subsequent economic downturn and have not reached their pre-Recession levels in inflation-adjusted terms. Lease rates increased from 2014 to 2019 before falling again in 2020 due to the pandemic’s effect on brick-and-mortar retail trade. Retail rents in Orinda are also lower than the city’s neighbors. By point of comparison, the (nominal) annual per square foot rent of retail properties was $35.80 in Orinda in 2019 versus $39.40 in Lafayette and $44.90 in Walnut Creek the same year. While the overall retail vacancy rate currently appears relatively low based on data from CoStar Group (about three percent), many of the properties are occupied by inactive and / or low sales volume tenants, such as consignment and estate sale stores, with irregular hours, dated improvements, and other factors that suggest marginal performance.
Additionally, EPS and City staff completed a field study to verify CoStar Group’s reported retail vacancy rate of roughly 3 percent and found that the actual rate is closer to 10 percent. The disconnect between the vacancy rate yielded from the field study and the reported rate likely is attributable to vacant properties not actively tracked by CoStar as well as several yet-to-be reported vacancies from recent business closures. EPS and City staff found that as of September 2022, nearly 35,000 square feet of retail space is unoccupied in Downtown Orinda.
Figure 1: Retail Market Trends in Orinda
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 4 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" The market struggles facing Orinda’s retail sector are further evidenced by declining sales volumes and the loss of tenants. In inflation-adjusted terms, taxable sales from retail and food services establishments, except for gas stations, declined from 2015 to 2019 and have not recovered from the additional declines associated with the pandemic-related recession.1 During this time, 50 retail and food services establishments were lost in Orinda, as shown in Figure 2.
These trends in part reflect a convergence of national trends related to the growth of ecommerce (accelerated by the pandemic), and the gravitation of sales to larger format, “big box” merchandisers. The Downtown Orinda retail appears to have been particularly susceptible to these macroeconomic phenomena, in part due to its relatively limited scale and small population base.
Figure 2: Retail Sales and Establishment Trends in Orinda Looking more broadly at the performance of Orinda’s retail sector relative to the broader East Bay reinforces its relatively anemic market position. As illustrated in Figure 3, Orinda ranks in the bottom tier of East Bay cities with pre-pandemic sales of less than $5,000 per capita (the average for the two-county region was $18,900 in 2019). 1 Fueling stations perform exceptionally well in Orinda due to the city’s strategic location along State Route 24 and the stations’ proximity to freeway on-ramps and off-ramps. Fueling stations are excluded from this analysis, however, due to their low probability of redevelopment determined mainly by site acquisition and redevelopment constraints.
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 5 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" Figure 3: Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales Among East Bay Cities (2019) The low per capita retail sales performance of Orinda stands in stark contrast to its relatively affluent demographics. As shown in Figure 4, the city’s median household income of over $231,000 puts it well above that of its neighbors, the County, and California as a whole. By way of example, the average household income of Lafayette ($188,140) and Walnut Creek ($108,689) are 81 and 47 percent of Orinda’s, respectively, yet both these cities contain relatively robust retail sectors. The incomes of Orinda’s residents demand higher-quality goods and services amply supplied by other retail markets such as those in the nearby cities of Lafayette and Walnut Creek as well as inner East Bay cities such as Berkeley and Emeryville.
Source: CDTFA; Analysis by EPS
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 6 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" Figure 4: Median Household Income
The local retail capture of consumer expenditures by residents and visitors provides further insight into the orientation and performance of Orinda’s retail sector. As illustrated in Figure 5, Orinda experiences significant retail leakage in almost all categories, except for grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations. This outcome is in part attributable to the city’s lack of substantial offerings particularly in the form of major, high volume anchor tenants. Unfortunately, the city’s small population, combined with existing supply elsewhere makes it difficult to attract such tenants, high household incomes notwithstanding.
Figure 5: Per Capita Sales Tax Leakage Compared to County Averages, by Type of Spending City/Place Household Income % of Orinda
Orinda $231,230 100%
Lafayette $188,140 81%
Walnut Creek $108,689 47%
Contra Costa County $103,997 45%
California $78,672 34%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2016-2020); Analysis by EPS H.1.d
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 7 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" Downtown Commercial Property Inventory
The age and condition of existing buildings and the development intensity of land uses in a particular area are key determinants to the likelihood and viability of redevelopment. As part of this analysis, EPS investigated existing development patterns and property characteristics in the Downtown Precise Plan area based on a variety of data sources as well as through interviews and visual inspection. While Downtown has good “bones” and strong supporting infrastructure, the age, type and intensity of buildings on many commercial properties suggest that they may present prime opportunities for redevelopment.
As summarized in Figure 6, there are approximately 68 commercial properties in Downtown Orinda totaling about 813,000 square feet (excluding public buildings, churches, and residential).
The median floor area ratio (FAR) for these buildings, the ratio of building space to land area, is .35, which suggests relatively low development intensity. Orinda’s downtown also has vacant parcels and parking lots not included in the above FAR calculation. Meanwhile, the average building size is about 12,000 square feet, further reflecting relatively small-scale development patterns. Smaller buildings located on properties with low FARs are generally more suitable for redevelopment because the value of existing structures is likely to be relatively low.
Figure 6: Property Characteristics of Orinda's Downtown Commercial District In addition to low-density development patterns, many of the commercial buildings in Downtown Orinda are relatively old and lack modern improvements. Specifically, the average commercial property is 58 years old – significantly aged but not historic – and two-thirds were built before 1970. Additionally, about 60 percent of the properties are designated as Class C by the real estate brokerage community, indicating that they likely do not have modern amenities or improvements. The remaining 40 percent are Class B and Downtown Orinda does not have any Class A commercial buildings. Thus, the quality of existing building stock likely further compounds the barriers to revenue generation faced by the retail sector.
Item (as of Q3 2022) Office Retail Total
Number of Properties 37 31 68
Average Age (Years) 53 64 58
Average FAR 0.42 0.53 0.47
Median FAR 0.35 0.40 0.35
Average Building Size (Sq.Ft.) 12,017 11,874 11,952
Class A (% of Total) 0% 0% 0%
Class B (% of Total) 62% 13% 40%
Class C (% of Total) 38% 87% 60%
100% 100% 100%
Source: CoStar Group; Analysis by EPS
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 8 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" In addition to the age and scale of existing commercial properties, Downtown Orinda has experienced negligible commercial development or reinvestment activity over the last 12 years, as illustrated in Figure 7. This stands in contrast to neighboring jurisdictions that have experienced substantial deliveries over this period. In addition, out of the 68 office and retail properties, only 4 have been substantially renovated based on real estate data from CoStar.
Figure 7: Total Square Feet of Inventory Delivered, by Land Use Type (2010 - 22) Housing Market Dynamics
While Orinda’s commercial district has struggled over the last several decades, the residential market has remained consistently strong. Home prices, rents, and occupancy rates in the city have historically outperformed Contra Costa County and the broader East Bay Region. The city’s attractiveness is fueled by strong community attributes, including a quaint, small-town feel, low crime rates, good schools, and a strategic location with convenient accessibility to major employment centers (facilitated by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station), among other factors. Furthermore, the rate at which buyers and renters typically absorb new or available housing suggests significant pent-up demand.
Orinda has evolved as an affluent, exclusive, and predominantly single-family housing market.
As shown in Figure 8, 95 percent of the housing stock is made up of single-family homes, a much higher proportion than Contra Costa County as a whole (75 percent) or neighboring jurisdictions such as Lafayette (80 percent) and Walnut Creek (51 percent). However, as reinforced by the market dynamics described below, the lack of higher-density multifamily housing in the city appears to be more a function of supply constraints rather than demand.
City/County Office Retail Total
Commercial[1]
Orinda 0 0 0
Lafayette 17,971 4,151 22,122
Walnut Creek 35,838 793,607 829,445
Contra Costa County 317,528 2,558,134 5,603,147
[1] Also includes industrial, R&D, and health care facilities Source: CoStar Group; Analysis by EPS
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 9 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" Figure 8: Housing Stock Distribution in the Region (2022) Strong residential demand in Orinda has driven up higher prices for homes compared to the rest of Contra Costa County and the East Bay Region. For example, Figure 9 shows that the median sale price of a single-family home in Orinda has consistently exceeded Contra Costa County over the past decade. The high desirability of living in Orinda is further evidenced by the rapid absorption of new homes in the city’s housing market. For example, Orinda Grove, a 73-lot subdivision development within walking distance of the Orinda BART station downtown, went on sale in 2013, and each unit sold within 20 months of the first model home opening. Notably, most homes in Orinda Grove were priced at around $1.2 million in 2013 dollars upon opening or about $1.5 million in today’s dollars.
Figure 9: Median Sale Price per Square Foot of Single-Family Homes City/County Single-Family Multifamily
Orinda 95% 5%
Lafayette 80% 20%
Walnut Creek 51% 49%
Contra Costa County 75% 25%
Source: California Department of Finance (DOF); Analysis by EPS H.1.d
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 10 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" While small compared to the single-family market, Orinda’s multifamily sector also performs well. Except for a brief period in 2014 when Monteverde Senior Apartments opened for tenancy, Orinda’s five total multifamily properties have exhibited high, stable occupancy rates. As shown in Figure 10, the injection of stock into the market from Monteverde was quickly absorbed as the city returned to near full occupancy within two years. Furthermore, besides the opening of Monteverde, Orinda has consistently maintained a higher occupancy rate than Contra Costa County, which along with historically higher rents, indicates the high desirability of Orinda’s housing stock relative to the region.2 It is noteworthy that, except for Monteverde, multifamily properties in the city are at least 30 years old, and have historically been highly sought after relative to the County, another sign of significant pent-up housing demand.
Figure 10: Occupancy Rates of Multifamily Properties
Driving the demand for housing in Orinda is the accessibility of its BART station downtown and its highly rated public schools. The Orinda BART station is a 12-minute trip to Downtown Oakland and a 25-minute trip to San Francisco’s Financial District. Thus, the short commute from Orinda to the Bay Area’s major employment centers is convenient for the roughly one-fifth of employed residents who commute to work on BART and an excellent option for the 30 percent who commute to either Oakland or San Francisco for work.
In addition to transit access, Orinda is home to widely recognized, top-tier public schools. Each elementary and intermediate school in Orinda, part of Orinda Union Elementary School District, scored a nine out of ten rating by leading non-profit Great Schools, far above average relative to the state. Most notably, Miramonte High School in Orinda, part of Acalanes Union High School District, received a perfect score from Great Schools and is among the state’s top-rated public 2 In inflation-adjusted terms, multifamily rents in Orinda were higher than in Contra Costa County for twenty years until the end of 2021, when rents in the city declined due to the pandemic-induced, regionwide decline in rental demand in conjunction with the high inflationary period which began earlier in the year.
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Memorandum 09/21/2022
Real Estate Market Conditions Affecting the Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda Page 11 "Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211085OrindaReap\Deliverables\211085_Orinda_DT_Commercial_2022.09.21.docx" high schools, recognized as a ‘highest performance’ school in both English Language Arts and Mathematics assessments by the California Department of Education.
Unlike the commercial sector, the overall residential market dynamics in Orinda appear highly favorable to new development. Home prices and occupancy rates remain consistently high and resistant to economic downturns and available supply is rapidly absorbed. The juxtaposition between highly favorable residential and rather unfavorable commercial market conditions suggests a relatively lucrative opportunity for downtown property owners to pursue housing redevelopment. Given appropriate land use policy, it is highly likely that a number of underperforming commercial properties in the Downtown Precise Plan will transition to higher-value residential formats over time.
H.1.d
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: EPS Memo (Redevelopment Potential of Downtown Orinda) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11 10.10.2022
MONDAY, October 10, 2022
CITY OF ORINDA
DOWNTOWN PLANNING & HOUSING ELEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
A. Call to Order/Roll Call
Chair Kosla called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 P.M.
Subcommittee Members Present: Inga Miller, Nick Kosla
B. Adoption of Agenda
MOTION by Vice Chair Miller and seconded by Chair Kosla to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (2-0) vote.
C. Agenda Items
1. Revised Draft Housing Element Update
Planning Director Drummond Buckley stated that after preparing an initial draft of the Housing Element, there was a 90-day review period by HCD. The City received comments from HCD and staff has been working to respond to all the comments. The September draft of the revised Housing Element is the response to HCD comments. The next step is for the City to submit the revised draft to HCD for a 60-day review period. This review process is very important because the City is required to have a Housing Element that is certified by HCD.
City Manager David Biggs stated every city in Northern California is going through the same process of trying to meet state mandates. The City is looking forward to getting through this process with community input. Most Housing Element are not approved by HCD through the first round or second round of review based on the experience that Southern California cities had.
Cynthia Walsh of PlaceWorks, Housing Element consultant, provided a presentation on the revised draft Housing Element.
Chair Kosla asked if staff had any additional comments after the presentation.
City Manager Biggs stated the City will be meeting with Caltrans to discuss the Caltrans site. The City of Lafayette recently received their HCD comment letter. In the letter, HCD is questioning the viability of the Lafayette BART site as not being close enough in the reasonable future even though they’re covered by an Assembly Bill that requires them to plan for housing. Orinda’s BART site is owned by Caltrans and is not covered by the Assembly Bill.
Chair Kosla asked if there were any questions for staff or the consultant.
Vice Chair Miller asked if the Pine Grove Business Center site was newly added and why it was added.
H.1.e
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 10.10.2022
Director Buckley stated that one of the things HCD likes to see for nonvacant parcels is developer interest. There is a table in the Housing Element that summarizes all the discussions the City has had with property owners and developers about possibly doing housing downtown, dating back to 2016. Regarding Pine Grove, he had communications with a developer that said they were in serious conversations with the property owner to potentially redevelop the site for residential use.
The site was not included in the first draft because these conversations happened around the same time or after the first draft was published. The City has the flexibility to add the Pine Grove site because the EIR analyzes the entire DPP area.
Chair Kosla asked for clarification regarding the land use designation for 30-65 du/acres.
Consultant Walsh clarified that the first draft Housing Element assumed 30 du/ac. For the revised draft Housing Element, it now assumes 65 du/ac. It is not a range of 30-65 du/ac and instead is being increased from 30 du/ac to 65 du/ac for those sites.
Chair Kosla asked if it would still fall under the high density land use designation.
Director Buckley stated that the DPP would have its own designation. The high density land use designation would apply to the sites outside of downtown.
Chair Kosla asked about the breakdown of affordability. The breakdown of affordability is for the Housing Element, but if someone wanted to build a completely market-rate project, they could, which is the reason for the buffer.
Consultant Walsh confirmed yes.
Chair Kosla asked about the cost of the Caltrans decertification process and what the decertification process means.
Director Buckley stated Caltrans requires a $35,000 deposit to go through the decertification process. It’s a process where there is a lot of internal communication of different departments within Caltrans to confirm a site is not needed for right-of-way purposes. At the end of the process, they do the decertification which is basically creating a parcel that can be sold.
City Manager Biggs added that there is another process. The governor recently formed a state task force to identify and market sites for housing to the development community. The City will explore this option when it meets with Caltrans. Staff is unsure if this is something they can get Caltrans or the state to commit to prior to the Housing Element deadline. The City would probably have less control over what would developed would occur with this process. There are HCD staff members that are part of this task force looking at state surplus property sites. Staff will probably have more information about the site after meeting with Caltrans in early November.
Chair Kosla asked if Caltrans had indicated if $35,000 is just an initial cost or if there would be additional costs after the deposit. He also asked what the estimated timeline would be.
Director Buckley stated that Caltrans understood what the City’s timelines were and did not say they could not meet them. Caltrans would not make any commitment to how much the entire decertification process would cost. His impression from the conversation with Caltrans was that it would not go over $35,000, but they did not explicitly state that.
H.1.e
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 10.10.2022
Chair Kosla brought up the Vista Verde project that was recently approved by City Council. For that project, the City gave a concession for density bonus. Current zoning limited the site to 2.5 stories, but the City decided they could go up another 2.5 stories as one concession. Each additional story was not an additional concession. While building heights matter, with density bonus, the buildings could go up much higher, with many more stories than what is being proposed.
Director Buckley confirmed that he believed the Vista Verde project was granted one concession for 2.5 stories.
Chair Kosla asked about the letter from the Pine Grove representative that said they don’t want the site included in the Housing Element.
Director Buckley stated that staff contacted the Pine Grove representative by phone today and was not able to reach him.
Chair Kosla asked if the site would be grandfathered in even if the site was included in the Housing Element.
Director Buckley stated the proposed zoning changes don’t require anyone to do anything. It would allow the owner the flexibility of doing housing in the future.
Chair Kosla opened the floor for public comment. A summary of public comments (not verbatim) are as follows:
Nick Waranoff stated it is disappointing to hear at the last minute that the Pine Grove owner is not interested. Staff is grossly underutilizing the capacity at the 10-acre Caltrans parcel. There is no logical reason to propose only 200 units at this site. If staff is proposing to zone sites in the heart of the Village for 65 or 75 du/ac, why not put 85 du/ac on the Caltrans parcel. At 10 acres, that would be 850 units. If you look at Lafayette’s experience with density bonus, they are realizing 110% of their zoned density when people invoke the density bonus. You could easily get 1,000 units at the Caltrans parcel. There are no adjacent homes like places south of downtown. He urged not to upzone the Country Club Plaza which is the most beautiful block downtown. He would preserve the zoning in Country Club Plaza and put the density at Caltrans. There is no justification for a 35% buffer. The Caltrans parcel is the path to saving the village character downtown. He urged maximum usage of the Caltrans parcel and minimizing any upzoning downtown.
Rusty Snow spoke on behalf of Orinda Watch. The Housing Element states the maximum density for housing downtown is 1,618 units. At 2.5 people per unit, that represents about 4,000 residents in the downtown. This will be one of the most important decisions made by the City Council. The Council’s decision may forever radically change the character of Orinda.
Orinda Watch believes rezoning downtown will have devastating effects on Orinda and simply should not be done. The plan allows for housing to have a height of 55’ and possibly more.
They call this stack and pack which has been built in Lafayette and Walnut Creek. Adding this quantity of housing at these heights could destroy the small-town, semi-rural environment that is cherished. Orinda Watch understands a number of residents would like to see cosmetic changes downtown, but does not believe that adding large amounts of tall housing units is the cure. The downtown is already zoned to allow for a reasonable number of housing units that have a more desirable building height of 35’. The City can instead rezone the BART parking lots and the Caltrans 10-acre site. These two sites could absorb all of the RHNA units without H.1.e
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 10.10.2022
having to rezone the rest of Orinda. BART wrote a letter to the City on March 11th that stated they may develop the Orinda parking lot into housing. Because BART put it in writing, it should be taken seriously and considered as a viable option to fulfill HCD requirements.
Snow stated there are other reasons the City should use the BART parking lots and Caltrans site. One is overpopulation risk. What if the City rezones downtown and the housing development results in 4,000 or more in population. Then, what if BART proceeds to development 1,600 units in the BART parking lots. That would result in another 4,000+ in population. The increase of 8,000 or more residents in the Orinda downtown and BART areas would be devastating to Orinda. Orinda Watch strongly believes the BART parking lots should be added now and not downtown. It is naïve to assume people living downtown will not need to park vehicles. AB 297 was signed that bans local governments from mandating parking near transit stops. With no parking supplied downtown, where will all the people park. Many cities are working on a lawsuit or ballot measure that may take away the authority from the state and return the authority of zoning and land to the cities. Orinda Watch recommends not rezoning downtown and waiting to see what happens with the ballot measures before taking any action.
Hold off on rezoning until the City sees the impact of SB 9. In conclusion, Orinda Watch believes the City should rezone the BART parking lots and increase the units proposed on the Caltrans site and not rezone the downtown area. The risk of rezoning downtown is high, but it does not have to be done because there are other viable alternatives. Orinda Watch has about 1,400 people on its email list and a majority of them are strongly against stack and pack housing.
Janet Maoirana ceded her time to Rusty Snow. She requested that this item be put on the City Council agenda.
Chris Kniel stated he built his house 45 years ago and at the time Orinda was pretty much built out. He is surprised to see the housing issue being discussed now with 1,400 homes. There is an article in the current paper with the headline “Bay Area Cities May Not Hit State Deadlines”.
The articles discusses how of the 15 Bay Area cities, 14 have not reached closure on this issue. The fact that 14 out of 15 cities are having issues with this is a good opportunity to get together with the other 14 cities. 1,400 units is insane. To sum it up, it’s stupid, it’s absurd, and it’s insane. 441,000 homes is the requirement for the 9 Bay Area communities. Where do these numbers come from and were there studies to get to this number. What is the justification for doubling the number of units.
Kathy Jenkins agreed with Orinda Watch and building out the Caltrans site to maximum that site and getting the traffic out of downtown. She asked who is challenging HCD’s RHNA numbers. She thought it would be a lawsuit, but hadn’t seen anything about it. She also asked how the current lawsuit that is suing the state for local control would affect what Orinda is reporting to HCD and Orinda’s RHNA requirements.
Michele Jacobson stated that the City Council should review all the changes in the revised Housing Element, including the increased densities and heights downtown before it is submitted to HCD. She asked if the Housing Element could be revised after it is submitted to HCD in case the City Council doesn’t like what is currently being proposed.
Rusty Snow concurred with Michele Jacobson. He thought the full City Council would weigh in before it is submitted to HCD. He asked if the City Council could hear the changes and then make changes after it is submitted to HCD. He asked why the process has to be so fast if so many other cities are not meet the timelines. He asked why Orinda has to be one of the only H.1.e
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 10.10.2022
cities that might make the timeline.
Nick Waranoff stated there is a law firm that has drafted a lawsuit against HCD challenging the RHNA numbers on a statewide basis. It is based on a report of the California state auditor which found many errors in the HCD and the Department of Finance methodology and process. The lawyers need a critical mass of cities to join in the lawsuit, which it does not have yet. They are looking for $25,000 to $30,000 per city which would cover the cost to take the case to trial. It is something perhaps the Subcommittee might recommend to the Council to consider joining. People that have looked at the numbers estimate that it would remove about one third of the RHNA. This potential lawsuit is based on the findings of the independent state auditor.
Joshua Hawn is in support of the changes to the Housing Element. It is a great improvement to the previous draft and includes more realistic sites and capacities for the Downtown Precise Plan. He believes this plan would revitalize and increase the vibrancy of downtown area and not utterly destroy it like other speakers have said. People are leaving California because it is incredibly unaffordable to live here. He hopes the City Council will adopt a compliant Housing Element.
Brandyn Iverson asked about the status of the objective design standards. She asked the scope of what can be included in the objective standards. It is important in evaluating the consequences of Orinda complying on a certain timeline.
Chair Kosla closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Subcommittee for discussion. A summary of the Subcommittees comments (not verbatim) are as follows:
Chair Kosla asked staff to respond to the questions raised during the public comment period.
Director Buckley responded to the question regarding who is challenging HCD’s RHNA numbers. The City Council would need to direct staff to analyze the overall RHNA numbers and staff has not been directed to do so. The presentation did state the City would resubmit to HCD in a few days, but that would depend on the feedback received tonight at the Subcommittee meeting. Staff is trying to submit in a few days to start the 60-day review period and to meet the January 31, 2023 deadline. Orinda is ahead of many other agencies. The City has been talking about downtown for a couple of years and Placeworks was hired to help the City six to nine months before they started on the Housing Element. There are consequences if you do not meet the deadline.
Director Buckley responded to the comments about using the BART parking lots as a site.
There is a section in the Housing Element that discusses this site. Part of the reason for including this section in the Housing Element was to see if HCD would provide any comments on the site. HCD did not comment on the BART section at all. Orinda will probably need to rely in the BART station for the next Housing Element cycle and come up with a plan. In Lafayette’s comment letter, HCD is asking for more detail on Lafayette’s BART site, such as the development standards that would apply. This is a complicated process in Orinda because there are three main parties: the City, BART, and Caltrans. Caltrans owns the property and BART has a use agreement and some easements. Staff has met with BART multiple times over the years and indicated to BART that the community will probably eventually be supportive of mixed-use at the BART station. Orinda is ahead of Lafayette in BART’s schedule for development, but it is more than halfway through this 6th cycle Housing Element. Staff is aware of the process it will need to go through with Caltrans based on the Gateway site. It is H.1.e
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 10.10.2022
an involved process for the decertification. The City would likely be looking at the same process for the BART sites, with the additional layer of BART’s process of planning of the site.
Director Buckley responded to the question about the objective standards. There is a draft of the objective design standards prepared by Opticos. The document is pretty much ready to be adopted as part of the Downtown Precise Plan. This would be followed up with zoning changes in the future.
Chair Kosla asked about some possible legislation for local land use control.
Director Buckley stated he believes there was a petition to get the legislation onto the upcoming ballot. He doesn’t know the current status of that legislation.
City Manager Biggs concurred with Director Buckley. He doesn’t know if there will be another attempt to get the legislation on the 2024 ballot. At the last Subcommittee meeting, the EIR was discussed. As part of the EIR, it looks at a broader scope with specific options such as BART and some other alternatives to give the Council flexibility. The real question is whether HCD would accept BART. The goal is additional activities downtown including housing. The City is seeing increasing vacancies in retail spaces, sales tax data is underperforming, and there is a lot of leakage as people don’t shop and dine in Orinda. Regarding the news article that was mentioned, only 15 cities have submitted a draft Housing Element in Northern California so far. Most cities have not submitted, so they will have more difficulty meeting the state-imposed deadlines.
Chair Kosla asked about the January 31, 2023 deadline and what would happen if the City doesn’t meet the deadline.
Consultant Walsh stated the City wants to adopt a Housing Element that has received HCD’s blessing. The goal is to work with HCD during this next 60-day period to receive a letter that says adopt the Housing Element and you will be found in substantial compliance. The City should adopt the Housing Element by the January 31st due date. After the January 31st date, the City has a grace period of 120 days to be in compliance. In compliance means you’ve adopted your Housing Element, resubmitted to HCD for 60-days, and HCD confirms you’ve adopted what you said you would adopt. If this is completed within 120 days, then the City has three years to complete all rezoning. If the deadlines are not met, then the City only has one year to complete all rezoning, by January 31, 2024.
Chair Kosla asked if HCD waits until day 60 to provide comments to the City during the 60-day review period.
Consultant Walsh confirmed yes. Placeworks will begin reaching out to HCD around day 20 of their 60-day review to let them know the City is eager to work with them and obtain compliance. Placeworks will continue to call and work informally with HCD to make sure what is being proposed in the final draft is meeting all of HCD requirements.
Chair Kosla asked if there is anything that would prevent HCD from doing multiple rounds of 60-day review.
Consultant Walsh said there isn’t anything that would prevent HCD from requiring multiple rounds of 60-day review, but she has not personally had to do more than three rounds of review with HCD.
H.1.e
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 10.10.2022
Vice Chair Miller pointed out that Nick Waranoff had his hand raised and would like to allow him to speak if he has more information about current initiatives or ballot measures advocating for local control.
Chair Kosla reopened the floor for public comment specifically for comments related to current initiatives or ballot measures advocating for local control. A summary of public comments (not verbatim) are as follows:
Nick Waranoff stated there is a plan to put the initiative on the 2024 ballot. The initiative group is currently in the process of raising money to hire professional signature gatherers in addition to volunteers like himself. The initiative has a website called Our Neighborhood Voices where you can learn a lot of information. The initiative would not undue any existing state law. It would empower a local agency like a City Council to decide, for example, if it does not want to follow the Housing Element law, SB 9, SB 30, or any of the other hundreds of housing bills that have been enacted.
Chris Kniel stated local control belongs with the local communities and local elected officials. It should have never been ceded to the bureaucrats in Sacramento who are not qualified to deal with these local issues. Local control needs to be fixed and brought back to the local area.
Chair Kosla closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Subcommittee for discussion. A summary of the Subcommittees comments (not verbatim) are as follows:
Vice Chair Miller asked why the buffer has been increased to 35%.
Director Buckley stated there is no standard for what the best buffer is. For the Gateway site, there is a process to decertify the site to make it available for housing development. If Caltrans decides not to release the land at the end of the decertification process, then the buffer will be needed. The buffer is about the Caltrans Gateway site and the unique process for making it available for residential development. Usually the buffer is for when a project is built with market-rate housing when it was allocated for low-income housing and the City needs to find the units elsewhere.
Vice Chair Miller asked if there would be a way to calculate the potential of what it could look like if density bonus was used on every site. She asked if there was a way to quantify this so it could give the community a picture of what it would look like. She also asked about maximum building heights related to density bonus and how the objective design standards would implement the maximum heights.
City Manager Biggs stated that in the Bay Area there is a de facto economic limit. The economics change dramatically for anything above five stories. Unless the market changes, staff believes you won’t see buildings above five stories even with density bonuses. He doesn’t believe the density bonuses offset the economics of steel framed construction.
Director Buckley stated HCD is very explicit in not allowing agencies to count any of their RHNA toward additional units created through density bonus law. Staff have internally discussed providing a presentation to the Council in the near future to go over all the new bills that will become effective January 1st. Some of these new bills might result in portions of downtown being rezoned for residential use. The objective design standards are basically zoning regulations to ensure development is done sensitively in a way to reduce bulk and mass without having the discretion to go through the design review process anymore. It’s a set H.1.e
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 10.10.2022
of standards that are intended to allow the City maximum control over the architecture of multifamily mixed-use projects within downtown. It contemplates maintaining the maximum 35’ building height within the Downtown Office district. In the Downtown Commercial district it contemplates a 45’ maximum building height except for the two blocks where the higher density is proposed. Those two areas would go up to 55’ in height with the higher densities.
Vice Chair Miller asked what would happen if a density bonus waiver is used for building height.
Director Buckley stated this is a complex set of laws that should be answered by the City Attorney. There are waivers and concessions which are different. For waivers, cities used to be able to challenge developers to make them show why a waiver is necessary from an economic standpoint. One of the many changes to density bonus law in the last few years took away that ability to challenge waivers. If the Subcommittee would like to discuss density bonus law, he would ask it be done with the City Attorney.
Chair Kosla asked about building heights and the objective design standards related to density bonus. He recalled the Vista Verde project was granted multiple additional stories under one concession.
Director Buckley stated his understanding is that waivers are the more unlimited part of density bonus. For the Vista Verde project, if the City said a concession could only be used for one story, the developer could have responded with asking for a waiver for the additional stories.
He added that the objective design standards are a detailed list of requirements, such as requiring setting back the building every few feet, or bump-outs, or stepbacks on the upper levels. The objective design standards create a much bigger menu of items developers need to request waivers or concessions for.
Vice Chair Miller stated multiple people have indicated the BART parking lots should be included in the Housing Element instead of downtown. People are concerned that BART will develop the site without the City’s participation within the next few years. She asked staff’s assessment of the risk of unplanned growth at the BART parking lots.
Director Buckley stated BART does not have land use control over Orinda’s BART station in the way it does for stations where they own the parking lot and land. Orinda is not subject to AB 2923 because BART does not own the land. AB 2923 was passed a few years ago basically giving BART zoning control over its stations. In communities where AB 2923 applies, BART attempts to work with the community and staff. BART seems to want to partner with Orinda when Orinda is ready to do something. It will be a long, complicated process. When staff last spoke to BART, they had not started any conversations with Caltrans.
Vice Chair Miller asked about the consequences if the City does not adopt a compliant Housing Element, such as giving developers more leverage and funding consequences.
Director Buckley stated there is an effort by ABAG to tie transportation funding to housing production. They recently adopted a policy about this issue. Orinda is not impacted by this policy because it excludes cities with a BART station that have a population of less than 30,000. If Orinda was not excluded, it would require high densities within a half mile of a BART station. It would be more difficult to obtain transportation funding through different grant programs if the city did not comply.
H.1.e
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 10.10.2022
Consultant Walsh added that the City’s objective design standards have been funded by SB 2 grant funds. The City was required to have a compliant Housing Element in order to obtain SB 2 funds.
Vice Chair Miller asked any there are any incentives developers receive if the City does not have a compliant Housing Element.
Consultant Walsh stated the City’s general plan would be out of compliance if the Housing Element is out of compliance. The City would then be open to litigation. If someone were to sue the City and win, the City could lose all local control of its building department. That would be the far end of the spectrum.
Director Buckley responded to a question from the public that was not answered. The question was regarding what would happen if the City submitted to HCD and then the City Council decided to do something different during the 60-day review period. He stated the City has flexibility all the way up until the Housing Element is adopted, but there are consequences to the timing as previously discussed.
Consultant Walsh stated that the draft can be revised during the HCD review period if directed by the Council. HCD could see the revisions as big enough to start the 60-day review period again. If revisions were made the evening of adoption, most likely the City would need to resubmit back to HCD for another 60-days. It pushes the timeline out further from the January 31st deadline.
Chair Kosla asked a follow-up question about the deadlines. If the City adopted a compliant Housing Element within 120 days after the January 31st deadline, would the Housing Element be compliant and would the City still be eligible for grants opportunities.
Consultant Walsh responded that if you’re found out of compliance after January 31st, there is no grace period for grant funding. Starting February 2023, the City would not be eligible for certain grants.
Chair Kosla asked how long the City would not be eligible for grants.
Consultant Walsh responded that the City would not be eligible for grants just until the Housing Element is found in compliance. The drop dead timeline to submit a compliant Housing Element to HCD is March 31st.
Chair Kosla stated that the revised draft being discussed tonight is substantially different than what the City Council originally reviewed back in April. New state laws have also been approved. He thinks there should be one more check in with the City Council before submitting to HCD. He would rather have the entire City Council in agreement rather than submitting to HCD, having the Council review the draft halfway through the review period, and resubmitting to HCD again. Orinda is way ahead of many other jurisdictions Housing Elements. You don’t want a scenario in January when there is a new majority in the Council to state the full Council never approved what was submitted to HCD for final approval.
Chair Kosla would like the whole City Council to see: all the new edits that have been made, the new information on the Caltrans Gateway site, the changes to the downtown height and density, and the change to the 35% buffer. He would also like staff to: provide more information on the Pine Grove site related to the letter that was received as late H.1.e
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 10.10.2022
correspondence, provide more information on the interaction between BART and Caltrans and the process it goes through, and to answer the question of whether density bonus law would trump the objective design standards that are being prepared, specifically regarding whether there is a limit to height that can be requested
Vice Chair Miller concurred with Chair Kosla’s comments. She’s agreed the revised draft should be presented to the full City Council and would like to get more clarity on some of the points Chair Kosla raised, possibly at the November 1st City Council meeting. She thinks the full Council should weigh in on whether the Pine Grove site is included in the revised draft given the statement from the owner.
Vice Chair Miller stated it would be helpful to have information about the traffic studies to the extent they are bringing in trips to the schools. It’s an adjacent issue, but it’s on everyone’s mind. She asked if the City is allowed to factor in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and is concerned about it not considering routes to the schools.
Director Buckley stated that the final EIR would not be available by the November 1st City Council meeting.
City Manager Biggs stated that if the revised draft is submitted to HCD shortly after the November 1st City Council meeting, the City may not meet the January 31st deadline since it needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption.
Director Buckley responded that it might be difficult to meet the January 31st deadline, but there is a grace period after January 31st. Staff is trying to keep the grace period available in case it’s needed, but this might be a good reason to use the grace period. There is a 60-day grace period after the January 31st date and he believes that can be met.
Chair Kosla stated he would rather take an extra couple weeks to make sure everything is addressed including speaking to the Pine Grove owner, answering questions about density bonus law, and additional conversations with Caltrans. He would like to know how many times Caltrans has done the decertification process, how long did it took, and any examples.
City Manager Biggs stated staff is not meeting will Caltrans until after November 1st. Staff originally scheduled an earlier date, but the meeting has been canceled twice now.
Director Buckley added that staff already met with Caltrans in the past and has communicated with Caltrans by email.
D. Public Forum
Nick Waranoff spoke about an inclusionary housing ordinance. It is important because even if a Housing Element is certified, it is strictly about zoning. At the midpoint of the sixth cycle in 2027, the test will be whether building permits have been issued equal to half of the RHNA.
There is no legal restriction that requires a site to be built with affordable housing. If the City wants to avoid the future consequences in 2027 of not having issued sufficient building permits, it needs to do everything it can to get affordable housing built. The City has no control over issuance of building permits. And the City has no control over whether affordable housing or luxury housing is built. The only way to get control over this process is with an inclusionary housing ordinance. He proposes 7% lower income and 8% moderate income. The moderate income category goes up to $171,000 for a four-person household, a category well-suited for H.1.e
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 10.10.2022
teachers. The school board believes teaching housing is critical to attracting and retaining teachers. It would be a win-win for the City if it had an inclusionary housing ordinance. This is covered as an action item in the Housing Element. Rather than commit to an inclusionary ordinance, the draft Housing Element states the City will study the subject for three years. It would not take very long to adopt Lafayette’s inclusionary housing ordinance with a few word changes on an interim basis. The City could then study it for three years and change it. If the City wants to avoid the adverse consequences in 2027, and if the City wants to help the school district, there isn’t a better way to do that then with an inclusionary ordinance.
Michele Jacobson is concerned about retail downtown. It’s not addressed in the Housing Element, and it is typically not addressed. However, the plan proposes to change the downtown from primarily commercial to primary housing. We need to talk about how the retail will be protected and she believes it should be part of the Housing Element. How can the land use be retained and how will it be organized and function together.
E. Adjournment
The Subcommittee meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:20 P.M.
H.1.e
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Downtown Planning & Housing Element Subcommittee Meeting Minutes (October 10, 2022) (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element July 2022 1
Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element
Technical Memo, July 2022
Requirements for Adoption of the Housing Element and Required Rezoning
AB 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2020) amended the provisions of state housing element law related to consequences of adopting a housing element after the due date. The current deadline for jurisdictions in the nine counties that are members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is January 31, 2023.
Previous Cycle Rules
To understand the new rules for adoption of a housing element, it may be helpful to compare them with those adopted in the last housing element cycle, the fifth cycle, when housing elements were due in January 2015. In the fifth cycle, if housing elements were not adopted by 120 days after the due date, the local jurisdiction was then required to prepare a new housing element every four years, rather than every eight years. Those jurisdictions that adopted housing elements more than 120 days after the due date were required to adopt a mid-cycle housing element in 2019.
Cities and counties tended to view the 120-day period as a “safe harbor” that allowed housing elements to be adopted within that period without consequences.
H.1.f
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing July 2022 2
New Sixth Cycle Rules
AB 1398 has eliminated any requirement for a four-year housing element once the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has found a community’s sixth cycle housing element in conformance with state law (Government Code1 Section 65588(e)(4)(A)).
Instead, there are two formal consequences for failing to adopt and receive HCD certification of a housing element within 120 days of the deadline:
If a housing element is not adopted and found by HCD to be in conformance with state law within 120 days of the due date, then all rezoning required to provide adequate sites must be accomplished within one year of the due date (by January 31, 2024 for Bay Area jurisdictions), rather than within three years plus 120 days of the due date (Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(i)).
HCD has 60 days to review an adopted housing element (Section 65585(b)(3)). Any community desiring to have three years to adopt the necessary zoning must adopt a compliant housing element within 60 days of the due date, or by April 1, 2023.
If a housing element is adopted more than one year from the due date, HCD will not find it in compliance with state law until all necessary rezoning is adopted (Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii)).
HCD has also adopted a policy relating to completing rezoning by the due date for the housing element:
If zoning required to provide adequate sites for lower income housing is adopted after the housing element due date of January 31, 2023, it must provide for “by right” approval. “By right” approval means that a housing project that does not require a subdivision (a rental project) and that contains 20 percent lower income housing is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Only design review based on objective standards may be required, but the local ordinance must provide for this (Section 65583.2(i)).
In the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, the due date for Housing Elements, October 15, 2021, has passed, and most jurisdictions are still working with HCD to receive certification.
Limitations on Denial of Certain Housing Projects
Once the due date passes without adoption of a housing element, the content of the housing element may no longer comply with state law.
Under The Housing Accountability Act housing projects where 20 percent of the total units are affordable to lower income households may only be denied under limited circumstances that include inadequate water and sewer, a “specific health or safety impact,” lack of compliance with state or federal law, and agricultural or natural resource zoning (Section 65589.5(d)). Such a project can also usually be denied if it is inconsistent with both the land use element and zoning ordinance, but it cannot be denied for those reasons if the Housing
1 Subsequent citations are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated.
H.1.f
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing July 2022 3
Element is inconsistent with state law or if the housing development project is proposed on a site shown to be suitable for affordable housing in the Housing Element and consistent with the density in the Housing Element, even if the rezoning has not yet been completed (Section 65589.5(d)(5)).
Similarly, if rezoning has not been completed on time, a housing development project containing 49 percent affordable units that is proposed on a site proposed to be rezoned must be reviewed “by right” and approved unless the community can find that the project would result in a “specific adverse impact” that cannot be mitigated (Section 65583(g)).
It is also important to remember that under the Housing Accountability Act, so long as a proposed housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria, but not consistent with the zoning, the proposed housing development project is considered consistent with the applicable zoning standards and a rezoning is not required (Section 65589.5(j)(4)). Consequently, once a housing element has been adopted specifying the allowed density of a site, in some cases a housing development project consistent with that density may be able to proceed without a rezoning.
H.1.f
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing July 2022 4
Appendix - Funding Tied to Housing Elements
State funding programs that incentivize greater
coordination with housing planning, include:
Local Partnership Program: Projects are
evaluated on how they advance housing
element goals.
Transit and Intercity Rail Capital
Program: Projects must document how transit
ridership growth is supported by housing
policies including evidence of compliance with
state-required housing plans.
Active Transportation
Program: Infrastructure projects must address
their potential to support existing and planned
housing, and planning projects must be
consistent with local housing policies.
HOME Investment Partnerships
Program: Applications receive points for
housing element compliance.
Solutions for Congested Corridors
Program: Projects must address how they
support infill development, which may include
identifying housing element policies that
streamline multifamily housing development.
Funding programs that require a local jurisdiction’s
housing element compliance include:
Community Development Block Grant Program
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
Local Housing Trust Fund Program
Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program
Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant
Program
H.1.f
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing 1 DISCLAIMER: This document is intended solely as a technical overview of the provisions of AB 2011 (2022) and SB 6 (2022).
It is not intended to serve as legal advice regarding any jurisdiction's specific policies or any proposed housing development project. Local staff should consult with their city attorney or county counsel when adopting an ordinance to implement the provisions of AB 2011 and/or SB 6 or when determining the applicability of these provisions to any proposed housing development project in their jurisdiction.
Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6
Introduction
AB 2011 and SB 6 are intended to permit residential development on sites currently zoned and designated for commercial or retail uses. Both bills were signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 29, 2022, and will go into effect on July 1, 2023.
AB 2011 creates a CEQA-exempt, ministerial approval process for multifamily housing developments on sites within a zone where office, retail or parking are the principally permitted use. The law provides for slightly different qualifying criteria (1) for 100-percent affordable projects and (2) for mixed-income projects located "commercial corridors." AB 2011 projects must pay prevailing wages to construction workers, among other labor standards.
SB 6, on the other hand, does not create any new approval process. Rather, the legislation provides that projects meeting SB 6 criteria may invoke SB 35 and the Housing Accountability Act. A project proposed under SB 6 may be either a 100-percent residential project or a mixed-use project where at least 50 percent of the square footage is dedicated to residential uses. SB 6 are not exempt from CEQA but need not provide any affordable housing. SB 6 projects are required to pay prevailing wages and utilize a "skilled and trained workforce." The provisions of both laws are applicable to local jurisdictions without an implementing ordinance, although such an ordinance is exempt from CEQA.
The charts on the following pages present a summary of key details.
H.1.g
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6 (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
2 Senate Bill 6 vs. Assembly Bill 2011 (2022)
APPLICABLE ZONES
AB 2011
Mixed-income Housing Projects
AB 2011
100% Affordable Housing Projects SB 6 Projects
• Zone where office, retail, or parking
are principally permitted usei
• Project site abuts a commercial
corridorii and has frontage along the
commercial corridor of minimum of
50 feet
• Zone where office, retail, or parking
are principally permitted use
• Zone where office, retail, or parking
are principally permitted use
EFFECTIVE DATE
All AB 2011 Projects SB 6 Projects
July 1, 2023 July 1, 2023
APPROVAL PROCESS
All AB 2011 Projects SB 6 Projects
• Creates new ministerial process for qualifying projects o For projects with 150 units or lessiii, must be processed in 90 days o For projects with more than 150 units, must be processed in 180 days • Jurisdiction must identify any inconsistencies with qualifying criteria within prescribed timelines, otherwise development is deemed to be in compliance o For projects with 150 units or fewer, must be informed within 60 days of application submission
o For projects more than 150 units, must be informed within 90 days of application submission
• May perform design review, but limited to objective standards only and within the following timelines:
o For projects with 150 units or fewer, within 90 days of submission o For projects with more than 150 units, within 180 days of submission • Jurisdictions may adopt an implementing ordinance (CEQA-exempt) • Does not create any new approval
process
• If the project meets all requirements
(except non-compliance with zoning
prohibiting residential use), then it
may invoke SB 35iv and the Housing
Accountability Act
• Jurisdictions may adopt an
implementing ordinance (CEQAexempt)
CEQA & COASTAL ACT APPLICABILITY
AB 2011
Mixed-income Housing Projects
AB 2011
100% Affordable Housing Projects SB 6 Projects
• Exempt from CEQA
• Not permitted in coastal zones so
Coastal Act would not apply
• Exempt from CEQA
• Coastal Act may apply
• Not exempt from CEQA
• Coastal Act may apply
H.1.g
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6 (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
3 SITE AND PROJECT CRITERIA
All AB 2011 Projects SB 6 Projects
• Must propose a multifamily housing development projectv • Within an urbanized area or urban cluster (designated by US Census Bureau) • At least 75 percent of the site adjoinsvi parcels developed with urban uses • Not on or adjoined to a site where more than one-third dedicated to industrial usesvii
• Satisfies SB 35 environmental criteria found in Gov. Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)- (K)
• Cannot be on a property that contains one to four dwelling units • For sites within a neighborhood plan areaviii, there is either:
o (As of January 1, 2022) An applicable neighborhood plan that permits multifamily housing development on the site; OR
o (As of January 1, 2024) An applicable neighborhood plan that permits multifamily housing on the site, the notice of preparation for the neighborhood plan was issued before January 1, 2022, the neighborhood plan was adopted between January 1, 2022 and January 1, 2024, and the environmental review for the neighborhood plan was completed before January 1, 2024. • Where the site is vacant, the site satisfies both of the following:
o It does not contain any tribal resources that could be affected by the development, and the effects of which cannot be mitigated pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.2
o It is not located in a very high fire severity zone
• Cannot be located on a site governed by the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Recreational Vehicle Occupancy Law, the Mobilehome Parks Act, or the Special Occupancy Parks Act
• Housing cannot be located within 500 feet of a freewayix • Housing cannot be within 3,200 feet of an oil or natural gas extraction or refinery • Development proponent has completed a Phase I environmental assessment and mitigated any health hazards to a level of insignificance • Notice to commercial tenants and relocation assistance to certain qualifying independently-owned commercial tenants is required
• ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR MIXED INCOME PROJECTS ONLY:
o The site is 20 acres or less
o The development would not require the demolition of:
▪ Housing subject to recorded covenant, ordinance or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to moderate, low or very low income households ▪ Housing subject to rent price control
▪ Housing occupied by tenants in the last 10 years, excluding manager's units
o The development would not require the demolition of a historic structure o A prior residential use was not demolished on the site in the last 10 years • The site cannot be one zoned for housing, unless zoned for multifamily residential use (e.g., the site cannot be one zoned for single-family residential development) • Proposed housing development must
be either:
o Project that includes residential
units only; OR
o Mixed-use project with at least 50
percent of the square footage
dedicated to residential use
• The project site is 20 acres or less
• Within an urbanized area or urban
cluster (designated by US Census
Bureau)
• Not on or adjoined to a site where
more than one-third dedicated to
industrial use
• Must be consistent with any
applicable and approved sustainable
community strategy or alternative
planx
• Notice to commercial tenants and
relocation assistance to certain
qualifying independently-owned
commercial tenants is required
H.1.g
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6 (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
AB 2011
Mixed-income Housing Projects
AB 2011
100% Affordable Housing Projects SB 6 Projects
• FOR RENTAL PROJECTS:
o 8 percent very-low income and 5
percent extremely low-income; OR
o 15 percent lower income
• FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED PROJECTS:
o 30 percent moderate income; OR
o 15 percent lower income
• Units are subject to recorded deed
restriction:
o 55 years for rental units
o 45 years for owner-occupied units
• Affordable units must be equitably
distributed, have the same
bedroom/bathroom count ratios, and
the same quality appliances, fixtures
and finished as market-rate units
• Local inclusionary requirements
prevail if greater affordability req'd
• 100 percent of the units, excluding
managers' units are dedicated to
lower-income households at an
affordable costxi or affordable CTCAC
rent
• Units are subject to recorded deed
restriction:
o 55 years for rental units
• 45 years for owner-occupied units
• None, unless local inclusionary
requirements applicable
LABOR REQUIREMENTS
All AB 2011 Projects SB 6 Projects
• Prevailing wage requiredxii
• FOR PROJECTS WITH MORE THAN 50 UNITS ONLY: Must require contractors to employ construction craft employees or let subcontracts for at least 1,000 hours to participate in an apprenticeship program and make specified health care contributions
• Developer must require these standards be included in all construction contracts • Developer must certify to the local government that the labor requirements will be met in the project construction
• Developer must provide local agency with monthly compliance reports • Prevailing wage required
• "Skilled and trained workforce"xiii
required
o EXCEPT where, after specified
bidding process, fewer than two
prequalified contractors that are
committed to using a "skilled and
trained workforce" bid on the
contract
• Developer must require these
standards be included in all
construction contracts
• Developer must certify to the local
government that the labor
requirements will be met in the
project construction
• Developer must provide local agency
with monthly compliance reports
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
See Appendix A
H.1.g
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6 (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
5 OTHER NOTABLE PROVISIONS
All AB 2011 Projects SB 6 Projects
• Projects may be eligible for density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or parking ratios pursuant to density bonus law
• Local government must ensure project complies with SB 330 replacement housing requirements even if not in affected city or countyxiv
• HCD has enforcement authority and must publish technical assistance • Jurisdictions must include certain specified information about AB 2011 projects in housing element annual reports
• Local agency may exempt parcel if it
makes written findings supported by
substantial evidence of either:
o Concurrently reallocated the lost
residential density to other lots so
there is no-net-loss; OR
o Lost residential density can be
accommodated on a site or sites
allowing residential densities at or
above those specified above and
in excess of the acreage required
to accommodate the local
agency's share of housing for
lower-income households
• May reallocate density to site or site if
those sites:
o Are suitable for residential
development; AND
o Are subject to a by-right
development ordinance
• Prevailing wage requirements may be
enforced by Labor Commissioner
• Developer may be subject to civil
penalty of $10,000 per month for
failure to provide monthly compliance
report
• Developer may be subject to civil
penalty of $200 per day for each
worker employed in contravention of
"skilled and trained workforce"
requirement
H.1.g
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6 (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
6 APPENDIX A: Development Standards
AB 2011 Mixed-income Housing Projects
• In metropolitan jurisdictionsxv, the residential density shall meet or exceed the greater of the following:
o The existing residential density permitted;
o For sites of less than one acre, 30 units/acre;
o For sites of one acre or greater located on commercial corridor of less than 100 ft in width, 40 units/acre; o For sites of one acre or greater located on commercial corridor of 100 ft or greater width, 60 units/acre; o For sites within one-half mile of major transit stopxvi, 80 units/acre • In non-metropolitan jurisdictions, residential density shall meet or exceed the greater of:
o The existing residential density permitted;
o For sites of less than one acre, 20 units/acre;
o For sites of one acre or greater located on commercial corridor of less than 100 ft in width, 30 units/acre; o For sites of one acre or greater located on commercial corridor of 100 ft or greater width, 50 units/acre; o For sites within one-half mile of major transit stop, 70 units/acre • Height limit applicable shall be the greater of the following:
o Height currently permitted on the parcel;
o For site on commercial corridor of less than 100 feet in width, 35 feet; o For sites on commercial corridor of 100 feet or more, 45 feet; o For sites within one-half mile of a major transit stop in a city with a population of greater than 100,000, 65 feet. • No parking may be required except requirements related to bicycle parking, electric vehicle parking spaces or parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities
• Meets following setback standards:
o For portion of property that fronts commercial corridor, no setbacks may be required ▪ All parking must be set back at least 25 feet
▪ On ground floor, building must abut within 10 ft of the property line for at least 80% of frontage o For portion of property that fronts side streetxvii, building must abut within 10 ft of property line for at least 60% of frontage o For portion of property that abuts adjoining property that also abuts same commercial corridor, no setbacks may be required UNLESS adjoining property contains residential use that was constructed prior to enactment of AB 2011 o For portion of property that does not abut commercial corridor, side street or adjoining property that abuts same commercial corridor
▪ Along property lines that abut residential use:
• Ground floor shall be set back 10 feet
• Starting with second floor, each floor shall be stepped back in amount equal to 7 ft multiplied by the floor number
• Along property lines that abut non-residential use, the development shall be set back 15 ft H.1.g
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6 (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
7 AB 2011 100% Affordable Housing Projects
• Project density meets or exceeds applicable density deemed appropriate to accommodate lower-income households pursuant to housing element law
• Development must meet objective zoning, subdivision and design review standards for the zone that allows greater residential density between the following:
o Existing zoning designation for the parcel if it allows multifamily residential use; OR o Zoning designation for the closest parcel that allows residential use at density that is appropriate to accommodate lowerincome households pursuant to housing element law • Development shall be deemed consistent with objective zoning standards related to housing density if compliant with maximum density allowed within the land use designation and regardless of any specified maximum unit allocation that may result in fewer units of housing being permitted
SB 6 Projects
• Project density meets or exceeds applicable density deemed appropriate to accommodate lower-income households pursuant to housing element law
• Must comply with local zoning, parking, design and other ordinances, local code requirements and procedures applicable to the processing and permitting of a housing development in zone that allows for housing with above-described density o If more than one zoning designation allows for above-described density, the applicable zoning standards shall be those for the zoning designation for the closest parcel that allows residential use at density that is appropriate to accommodate lower-income households pursuant to housing element law o If existing zoning designation for the parcel allows residential density that exceeds housing element law density, the existing zoning designation applies
• Must comply with all other objective local requirements for a parcel (except those that prohibit residential use or allow residential use only at a lower density) including impact fee and inclusionary housing requirements H.1.g
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6 (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
8 Endnotes
i
"Principally permitted use" means a use that may occupy more than one-third of the square footage of designated use on the site and does not require a conditional use permit. The same definition is used in both AB 2011 and SB 6. ii
"Commercial corridor" means a highway, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 360, that is not a freeway, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 332, and that has a right-of-way, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 525, of at least 70 feet but not greater than 150 feet. iii For the purposes of calculating the total units in a development, the development project includes (1) all projects developed on a site regardless of when those developments occur and (2) all projects developed on adjacent sites that were subdivided from the subject site after January 1, 2022.
iv Government Code Section 65913.4 outlines the approval process for SB 35 projects. v
"Multifamily" means a property with five or more housing units for sale or for rent. There is no requirement that the housing units be attached.
vi Parcels separated only by a street or highway are considered adjoined. vii "Dedicated to industrial use" means any of the following: (1) square footage is currently being used as industrial use; (2) more recently permitted use of the square footage is an industrial use; or (3) site was designated for industrial use in local government's latest general plan adopted before January 1, 2022.
viii "Neighborhood plan" means a specific plan adopted pursuant to Government Code Sections 65450, et seq., an area plan, precise plan, urban village plan, or master plan that has been adopted by a local government. ix "Freeway" has the same definition as in Vehicle Code Section 332. x
Sustainable community strategies and alternative plans are outlined in Government Code Section 65080. xi "Affordable cost" is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5. xii "Prevailing wage" means at least the general prevailing rate or per diem wages for the type of work and the geographic area as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1773 and 1773.9, except apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. The same definition is used in both AB 2011 and SB 6. xiii "Skilled and trained workforce" has the same meaning as in Public Contract Code Sections 2600, et seq. xiv An "affected city" means a city, including a charter city, that the Department of Housing and Community Development determines is in an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau, but does not include any city that has a population of 5,000 less and is not located within an urbanized area, as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau. Government Code Section 66300(a)(1). An "affected county" means a census designated place, based on the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, that is wholly located within the boundaries of an urbanized area, as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau. Government Code Section 66300(a)(2). HCD has published a list of affected cities and affected counties. xv A "metropolitan jurisdiction" is determined pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(d)-(e). xvi "Major transit stop" has the same definition as in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b). xvii "Side street" means a highway, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 360, that is not a freeway, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 332, and that has a right-of-way, as defined in Vehicle Code Section 525, of at least 25 and fewer than 70 feet.
H.1.g
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: Overview of AB 2011 and SB 6 (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) 1 DISCLAIMER: This document is intended solely as a technical overview of the provisions of certain provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. It is not intended to serve as legal advice regarding any jurisdiction's specific policies or any proposed housing development project. Local staff should consult with their city attorney or county counsel when determining the applicability of these provisions to any proposed housing development project in their jurisdiction.
The “Builder’s Remedy” and Housing Elements
There have recently been press reports regarding the so-called “Builder’s Remedy” that can be used to avoid local zoning requirements when a locality’s housing element does not substantially comply with state law. These reports have stated that, if a locality has a noncompliant housing element the city or county must approve the housing development project, regardless of the local zoning.
The “Builder’s Remedy” arises from the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.51 ; the HAA). This
paper describes the provisions of the HAA that constitute the “Builder’s Remedy” and how they may apply to a proposed housing development project.
How Does the “Builder’s Remedy” Work?
The HAA requires that cities and counties make one of five findings to deny, or to apply conditions that make infeasible, a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” or an emergency shelter. (Section 65589.5(d).) A housing development project with 20 percent of the total units available to lower income households or with all of the units available for moderate or middle income households may qualify as housing “for very low, low- or moderate income households” (see detailed description below). The five findings which would allow denial of an eligible project can be summarized as follows:
1. The city or county has met or exceeded its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the proposed income categories in the development.
2. The housing development or emergency shelter would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards in place when the application was deemed complete.
3. The denial or condition is required to meet state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable.
4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project.
1 All future references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified.
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: "Builder's Remedy" and Housing Elements (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
2 5. The project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element. However, a city or county cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law.
If a locality has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law, developers may propose eligible housing development projects that do not comply with either the zoning or the general plan. The term “Builder’s Remedy” is used to describe the situation where a local agency may be required to approve an eligible housing development project because it cannot make one of the other four findings.
Are Projects Using the “Builder’s Remedy” Exempt from CEQA Review? The HAA contains no exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act. The HAA states specifically that nothing relieves the local agency from making the required CEQA findings and otherwise complying with CEQA. (Section 65589.5(e).) A project may be exempt from CEQA under other provisions of CEQA, other state laws, or the CEQA Guidelines.
When Does a Housing Element No Longer Comply with State Law? Is There a Grace Period If the Housing Element Is Not Adopted by the Due Date? Housing elements are required to comply with current state housing element law on the established due date (January 31, 2023 in the ABAG region). State law has changed significantly since fifth cycle housing elements were adopted, and it would be unlikely that a fifth cycle housing element would substantially comply with current state law. If a sixth cycle element has not been adopted by the due date, the housing element would likely be out of compliance with state law until a complying sixth cycle housing element is adopted. There is no grace period, even for the period when a housing element is being reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
HCD approval is not required for a housing element to be found substantially compliant with state law. State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).) However, HCD is authorized to refer agencies to the Attorney General if it finds a housing element out of compliance with state law. (Section 65585(j).) Are a Local Agency’s Development Standards Null and Void If the Housing Element is Not in Compliance with State Law?
No, the local agency’s development standards are not null and void if the housing element is not in substantial compliance with state law. The “Builder’s Remedy,” however, may require a local agency to approve an eligible housing development project despite its noncompliance with local development standards. Conversely, other projects may be challenged because a finding of general plan consistency cannot be made if the general plan is out of compliance with state law.
What Projects Are Eligible to Use the “Builder’s Remedy”? The “Builder’s Remedy” applies only to a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” and to emergency shelters. The HAA defines a “housing development project” as either:
• Residential units only;
• Mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or H.1.h
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: "Builder's Remedy" and Housing Elements (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Regional Housing Technical Assistance Program
3 • Transitional housing or supportive housing.2 (Section 65589.5(h)(2).) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” includes either:
• 20% of the total units sold or rented to lower income households; • 100% of the units sold or rented to moderate income households; or • 100% of the units sold or rented to middle income households.3 Monthly housing costs for lower income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of median income, adjusted for household size, and the units must remain affordable for 30 years. Monthly housing costs for moderate income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of median income. There are no standards in the HAA for housing costs for middle income households. (Sections 65589.5(h)(3), (h)(4).) An emergency shelter is housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. (Section 65582(d); Health & Safety Code Section 50801(e).)
2 As defined in Section 65582.
3 Those earning no more than 150 percent of median income.
H.1.h
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: ABAG Fact Sheet: "Builder's Remedy" and Housing Elements (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law From: Sheri Smith
To: Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; David Biggs
Subject: FW: Comments on Draft Housing Element Update Sept 23, 2022 Date: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:37:42 PM
Attachments: Comments on Draft Housing Element Update Sept 23, 2022.pdf From: Michele Jacobson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:24 PM
To: Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>; Sheri Smith <[email protected]> Cc: Orinda Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on Draft Housing Element Update Sept 23, 2022 CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! To the Orinda City Council,
In preparation for your meeting of November 1, at which I believe the Council will be considering whether to resubmit the current draft Housing Element Update, I have reviewed a portion of the document and offer some comments and questions. These are the first half of my comments on the HCD Submittal Draft 2 of the 2023 - 2031 Housing Element Update, Revised September 23, 2022. The remaining comments will be sent in the next day or two.
I recognize that the challenges involved in the planning effort that Orinda is going through are significant. I also recognize that there are necessarily many moving parts. My comments are offered in good faith as support to the community that I continue to care deeply about. Even though I no longer live in Orinda, I hope that my granddaughters and their mother and father (that are currently Orindans) and my many long time Orinda friends will be able to enjoy Orinda in the future as much as I did when we lived there.
Best of luck,
Michele Jacobson
Sent from my iPad
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview)
Second paragraph, third sentence:
According to Table 4-6, and the definition of overcrowding as more than 1.0 persons per habitable room, the County had 5.0% overcrowded households, not 1.5% (3.5% + 1.5% =
5.0%). Similarly, the Bay Area had 6.9% overcrowded households, not 2.7%.
Table 4.6:
First and last rows, third column from left:
Should be 100.0% in both, not 0.0%
First Paragraph
Second sentence
According to Table 4.7, the increase was from 2009 to 2019. The last 2 cells in the first column should state that. The second sentence implies the increase occurred from 2015 to 2019.
Suggest this be clarified by adding, “between 2009 and 2019” to the end of the second sentence.
Third sentence figures seem wildly off.
Fourth sentence data and years need to be corrected. Table 4-7 doesn’t contain data from 2015. The increases pertain to the years 2009 to 2019, according to Table 4-7. Also, care needs to be taken to use the correct terms. Most of this discussion is about ‘median family income’, not family income or median income. Needs to be fixed in text and in Table 4-7.
The text and Table 4-8 seem to be inconsistent. The table is titled ‘Housing Overpayment for Low Income Households’, yet the text, starting in the second paragraph on page 36, refers to ‘Orinda residents spending more than 30% of their income on housing. The table has data on households, not residents, and it has data on low income households, not all households. I also can’t replicate the math in the last three rows. Don’t think they’re correct.
Table 4-8
This table needs to refer to Orinda in the title.
It is a very confusing table. Should Lower income renters be (30-80%) instead of 0-80% since Extremely low-income (ELI) renters is (0-30%)? Same for owners. Not sure what is meant by H.1.i
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) the rows showing ‘Income between 30% and 50%’ and ‘Income between 50% and 80%’ in the context of this table. If their totals were added to the others, is it double counting? The CHAS data sets for 2015 - 2019 are online. Can they be used here instead of the data from 2014 - 2018?
Somehow convey that this data is on lower income households only (0 - 80% of HAMFI). There isn’t any data in this table on households with incomes over 80% of the HUD average median family income. It’s very likely that many households with higher incomes are also overpaying, but that data isn’t included in this table or in the HE. The last three rows of the table should be changed to reflect the percentage of lower income households (not all family households) that are overpaying and state it clearly.
Third paragraph
How do ABAG’s statistics from 2018 inform the number of jobs in Orinda two years later in 2020? The text says according to ABAG’s statistics from 2018, there were 5,495 jobs in Orinda in 2020. Was it an estimate? To add to the confusion, the fifth paragraph says ABAG’s statistics from 2018 indicate that the number of jobs in Orinda will increase to 5,500 by 2040. So an increase of five jobs in 20 years? Is this correct? Can an explanation be included? How about the expected impact of the DPP?
Fifth paragraph
The number of households are expected to decrease, not increase, based on numbers presented by ABAG. Again, should something be said about the DPP’s impact on this number?
Text at bottom of page - change ‘in the labor force’ to ‘in Orinda’s labor force’. The two tables preceding this text referred to the employment and employers beyond Orinda, so the geography covered in each table needs to be clear.
Pages 40 and 41
Tables 4-11, 4-12, 4-13 and 4-14
Add Orinda to the titles.
Pages 46 and 47
Tables 4-19 and 4-20
Identify the geographical area(s) being evaluated, either in the title or in a footnote. For Table 4-20, should the interest rate assumptions be increased? H.1.i
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Text in second paragraph on page 47 - the report doesn’t contain any data on overpayment by all of the households in Orinda, especially those earning more than 80% of the median family income or HAMFI. So how can this HE come to the conclusion that “all households would have a hard time affording existing and newly constructed homes in Orinda”? Apparently many are managing to do so.
Table 4-21
Add Orinda to title or footnote.
4.7.1 Qualified Entities
What are these entities qualified for? Please add explanation.
4.8.1 Senior Households
Second paragraph - I question whether it’s 27.8% of senior households falling into the extremely low-income group. My math is (105 + 130)/2,728 = 8.6%, which is also shown in Table 4-22.
The statement that senior housing is an identified need of the city should be tempered by the fact that the current senior housing units built to accommodate low- income seniors addresses the need of the seniors that the senior housing attracted. 216 of the 319 renter occupied senior households are in assisted living. These low income seniors aren’t sleeping in the park. This type of need should be planned for, but the implication here is that these needs are not currently being addressed at all and that Orinda’s low income senior housing wasn’t the reason that the number of low income senior residents in Orinda increased. With that logic, communities should not build low income housing because it increases the number of low income residents in the community.
Table 4-22
Add Orinda to title or footnote.
Pages 50 and 51
Figure 4-4 and Table 4-25
Add Orinda to title or footnote
Also, some Orinda senior households are not economically challenged but they want to stay in their community in a smaller, more convenient or less demanding type of housing. Please address this group of existing Orinda residents. Maybe under Senior Housing and Services on pages 50 and 51?
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Table 4-24
Add Orinda to title or footnote.
4.8.4 Large Families
This section has many errors, both in the text and the table. First paragraph, second sentence:
13.5% of 7,167 is not 546. It is 967. Table 4-26 says it is, but the logic of Table 4-26 is flawed.
The cell in the last row of the third and fifth columns should be 100%. Also, all of the cells in the seventh column are wrong. They should show what percentage the numbers in the sixth column represent relative to the total of 7,167. This means that Figure 4-5 is completely wrong and makes no sense. It should have been obvious since Figure 4-5 now indicates that the majority of households in Orinda are 1- person households, when in fact they represent only 18% of Orinda households. Also, 92.6% of large households are homeowners, not 7.8% as stated. Please have this entire section (text, table and figure) redone by someone who understands percentages.
Tables 4-26 and 4-27, and Figure 4-5
Add Orinda to title or footnote.
Energy Efficiency Measures for New Homes and Home Addition and Rehabilitation Projects Given that the HE contains the introduction of many multi-family housing developments, are there similar measures that apply to those types of developments?
First paragraph, Distribution of Income
Last sentence says there are no areas of poverty within City limits, but aren’t 216 subsidized senior housing units an area of poverty by definition? Is this number just too low to be mentioned?
Here it says “there are no licensed adult residential facilities or assisted living facilities in Orinda for seniors or persons with disabilities”, yet page 48 states that the Orinda Senior Village provides 15 units of housing for disabled persons. Is this inconsistent?
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Overcrowding
Third paragraph, last sentence - does this mean the City plans to encourage or require multi-family developments to accommodate larger households (5 people or more)? Overpayment
The first and second sentences of the second paragraph are wrong and have no supporting data! The data presented on page 36 pertains to lower income households only, not all Orinda residents. Either this section is totally wrong or the earlier one is. Same comment on declarations made on page 97. Figure 4-19 does not match the text in the large paragraph on page 97. Please resolve.
Housing Condition
Second paragraph, fourth sentence. Is it not a possibility that the topography of Orinda limits its capacity to add more units? The remaining lots are often ones that nobody could afford to build on due to unstable soils or steep slopes. And the boundaries of the City can’t be expanded. At least mention these facts as part of the reality facing the community.
Pages 103 and 104
4.11.4 Sites Inventory Analysis
Fourth sentence of fourth paragraph on page 103 talks about development of affordable housing within walking distance of local amenities and transit. Also, the second paragraph on page 104 talks about “income-integration in close proximity to services, jobs and transit.” Please include a discussion in the HE about how the number of local amenities, services and jobs will be preserved or expanded, given the extreme pressure to build housing on every potential parcel in Orinda’s limited downtown.
Last sentence of last paragraph on page 104 says, “The concentration of the largest portion of the RHNA, for all income categories in the tract that includes Downtown will facilitate greater access to opportunity for all households, with the goal of reducing reliance on individual vehicles to access services and reduce sprawling development.” How does a concentration of housing in Downtown facilitate opportunity for all households? Does the HE only consider the households downtown? The opportunities of existing Orinda residents, most of whom cannot access downtown other than by car, will have their opportunities severely restricted by a large concentration of the RHNA in the Downtown (especially if parking is unavailable) and they may well be forced to drive longer distances for goods and services. Please prove your point while including the needs and challenges of existing Orinda residents.
Please add map showing census tracts.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Table 4-34
Please clarify if this is median household or median family income.
If all of the existing 216 assisted units are downtown, should the figure for lower RHNA be higher than 168?
First paragraph, third sentence. There are two school districts within Orinda, not one. Orinda Unified School District and Acalanes Unified High School District.
Second paragraph, second sentence. The figure 483 units is not consistent with the figure of 176 units on page 155. Reconcile.
First paragraph, second to last sentence. “…affordable units developed on rezoned sites can have access to on-site commercial areas and essential services as part of the development, which is particularly important for lower-income seniors and persons living with disabilities or other mobility challenges.” Please demonstrate why this HE can rely on on-site commercial areas and essential services being part of future development, especially in light of the recently enacted laws (AB 2011 and SB 6) allowing multi-family developments to be built on commercially zoned areas by right.
What is the assumed amount of commercial development and essential services downtown in the HE? What mechanism does the City have to ensure their existence?
First paragraph
The percentiles mentioned in the first sentence do not appear to be demonstrated in Chart 4-6, as stated. Please clarify where the figures in the second sentence come from. Should ‘Mixed Income’ be added to the text and the chart, since it is included on Figure 4-26? Last sentence says, “The areas of Orinda outside of downtown are primarily residential, offering limited local commercial uses with job opportunities.” Please add a sentence about Orinda’s largest employer which is the schools and that they are all outside of the downtown.
Second paragraph
Second sentence
The HE says, “When considering where to locate future housing for all income levels, and particularly lower-income units, downtown Orinda would offer the most convenient access to jobs available within the city.” But this disregards two points. First, most of the jobs available within the City are related to the schools, none of which are downtown. Second, the planned rezoning of all of Orinda’s office and retail properties to mixed use to allow for a major increase in multi-family housing, coupled with recent laws allowing residential uses to be built on property H.1.i
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) zoned for commercial use by right, means that the number of jobs downtown is more likely to decrease as more housing is added.
Potential Effects on Disproportionate Housing
First paragraph
Remove the first reference to Figure 4-27 as it does not address overcrowding.
Third sentence
The Claremont neighborhood is west of Camino Pablo, not San Pablo Dam Road.
Fourth sentence
There is no data in the HE that supports the statement that “the Claremont neighborhood sees the highest rate of overpayment, with 65% of renters contributing 30% or more of their household income toward housing expenses.” The analysis on page 36 pertains to Low Income Households only (percentages don’t apply to all Orinda households) and isn’t broken out by neighborhood. If the data is in the HE, it needs to be referenced.
Second paragraph
First sentence
Chart 4-7 doesn’t include neighborhood information, so how could it demonstrate distribution of overpayment by neighborhood?
This entire section should be reviewed after pages 36 and 97 are corrected.
Figure 4-27
Without knowing the number of renter households in the tract, this information is useless. For example, Claremont neighborhood shows as having 60% to 80% of the renter households for whom gross rent is 30% or more. But if there are only five renter households in that neighborhood, it means only 3 or 4 renters in the neighborhood are overpaying for housing. As shown, the lower the number of renters, the greater likelihood is that a higher percentage are overpaying. It seems misleading.
Pages 142 +
Add Orinda to the titles of these Tables:
Tables 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4
5.2 Availability of Land
Fourth paragraph, first sentence
Shouldn’t the list also include Tables 5-3 and 5-7?
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Project Examples
First paragraph
Second sentence
Why aren’t Orinda’s senior housing developments and the Orinda Grove project included here as acceptable examples of residential development in the downtown? Second Paragraph
The development standards of neighboring jurisdictions are being used as justification for the HE’s proposed building heights and densities for downtown Orinda. Which neighboring jurisdictions are these? The project examples included in Section 5.75 don’t have heights or densities as high as are being proposed in this paragraph (55’ and 85 du/acre, respectively).
Please list the neighboring jurisdictions that were used as justification for height and density.
Some of the unit numbers in rows and columns don’t add up. For instance, Site DPP-10 shows a realistic capacity of 27 units, broken out into 23 lower, 4 moderate and 5 above moderate. But 23 + 4 + 5 = 32, not 27.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Nick Waranoff
To: Nick Kosla; Inga Miller
Cc: Dennis Fay; Darlene Gee; Amy Worth; Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui; David Biggs Subject: There Is No 120-Day "Grace Period" for Adopting a Compliant Housing Element Date: Saturday, October 22, 2022 11:59:11 AM
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Any statements that there is should be disregarded.
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/a6021e61/LzSYUWl6oESbQfMVE3YAGQ? u=https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/builders-remedybay-area-will-soon-face-a-powerful-housing-tool Nick Waranoff
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Julie Tamayo
To: Drummond Buckley; Winnie Mui
Subject: FW: Continued Comments on Draft Housing Element Update Sept 23, 2022 Date: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:52:47 AM
Attachments: Continued Comments on Draft Housing Element Update Sept 23, 2022.pdf See attached.
From: Michele Jacobson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 5:12 PM
To: Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>; Sheri Smith <[email protected]> Cc: Orinda Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Continued Comments on Draft Housing Element Update Sept 23, 2022 CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! To All,
Attached are most of my remaining comments on the Draft Housing Element of September 23, 2022, as promised.
There will be a separate comment paper on Chapter 5 of the Draft Housing Element that I hope to send very soon. I apologize for the multiple emails, but the document contains a great deal of information and I recognize that the decisions you are faced with have the potential to be of significant impact to Orinda’s future.
Please let me know if there are any questions.
Thank you,
Michele
202-641-8447
Sent from my iPad
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview)
Table 4-35
First row, third column
The cell says, “Adopting the DPP to permit up to 30 du/ac in Downtown.” Other places in the HE state a maximum downtown density of 85 du/ac and still others say a maximum downtown density of 65 or 70 du/ac. Needs to be reconciled.
Second row, second column
The HE states that a contributing factor towards the limited variety of housing types in Orinda is, “Lack of public support for higher-density and/or affordable housing.” Given the public support for the high-density and affordable senior housing projects recently built downtown, it seems that saying there is a “lack of public support” is an overstatement. In addition, many have said they support multi-family housing downtown for a variety of income levels for the DPP, but they do not support so much housing that the downtown loses its retail and services, its pedestrian scale and the diverse and eclectic character of the traditional downtown.
Modify the contributing factor to more accurately reflect the current position of residents.
Second row, third column
Add another meaningful action - “Permit multi-family housing on sites formerly zoned DO.
Increase the allowed density in multi-family on sites formerly zoned DC.” Third row, second column
Add “Limited opportunities for further development in Orinda due to topography, unstable soils and the inability to expand the city’s boundaries.”
Second column
Same comment as above regarding the statement that there is a “Lack of public support for higher-density and/or affordable housing.”
**************
Comments on Chapter 5, Housing Sites Inventory, are contained in a separate document **************
Table 6-1
Add ‘Existing Orinda’ to title.
Add (du/acre) below Allowable Density.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview)
Parking Standards
Add some discussion about new State laws regarding parking and how they might affect Orinda’s proposed multifamily housing and commercial development.
Tables 6-2 and 6-3
Add ‘Existing Orinda’ to title
First paragraph, third sentence
Many homes in Orinda are on ¼ acre. Suggest this be changed from “1 to 2 homes per acre” to “1 to 4 homes per acre.”
Regarding Development and Permit Fees
This section is challenging to follow.
Third paragraph, last sentence
Please confirm the per unit costs for water connection and water installation for multifamily development in Region 3 and explain how these relate to system capacity charges for water.
Fourth paragraph
A table showing the math used to arrive at the total in this paragraph and the first paragraph on this page would be very helpful. It looks now as if the conclusion that total fees are higher per unit for multifamily than single-family homes may be wrong.
Pages 196 and 197
Add Orinda to the Table titles
Section 6.3.2 Land Availability/Environmental Constraints Before wildfires became the main worry, Orinda’s unstable soils and steep topography were considered a major environmental constraint in this earthquake prone area. Some houses had to change their addresses after sliding down from Tahos Road while others were lost completely from Zander Road, for example. Given that these conditions haven’t changed, it seems that a paragraph should be included here.
6.3.5 Construction Costs
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Second paragraph
Second sentence
If the cost for multifamily construction is only $2 higher per square foot than for a single-family home (or a total of $1,600 more for each 800 square foot multifamily unit), it isn’t obvious that the difference is enough to pose a constraint on development of multifamily housing. Please explain and adjust the related Actions if appropriate.
Fifth sentence
The single-family home included a two-car garage. What assumptions were made regarding parking in the costs for multifamily construction?
Goal 1: New Housing Production. “Encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, which will be assisted through appropriate zoning and development standards.”
Related Policy 1.1: “Housing Diversity. Provide for a diversity of housing types to meet current and future needs of all residents without compromising the semi-rural character of Orinda’s neighborhoods.”
Add an Implementing Action to specifically address the particular housing needs of all current Orinda seniors.
The HE addresses the housing needs of low-income or disabled seniors. Other than to suggest that they hire live-in help to age-in-place, the HE does not address the housing needs of Orinda’s seniors that are neither low-income or disabled. Many are current residents that want to simplify the demands of their housing while staying in the community. By providing moderate and above moderate housing options with reduced maintenance demands, true transit options and proximity to services and amenities, such as some units within Orinda Woods, many seniors in this group would likely choose them and sell their 5 bedroom home, freeing it up for a younger family that needs this kind of space.
First paragraph, third sentence
The maximum density of 70 units per acre in the DC zone is not consistent with other statements in the HE. Need to reconcile.
Last paragraph
Quantified Objective: “…provide opportunity for multifamily housing for all households, which will be within close proximity to services and other resources in high opportunity areas.” H.1.i
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) To ensure that services and other resources will actually be retained and expanded in downtown Orinda, some Implementing Actions are needed. Otherwise it’s probable that downtown will become just another residential community and the commercial aspect of downtown would be lost to both existing and future residents.
Last paragraph
What is the source of the figure of 558 units? Should it actually be 486?
Action 1.F: Multifamily Development
Qualified Objective: “50 lower-income units, 30 units within close proximity to services and other resources in high opportunity areas.”
See comment on Page 208.
Top of page
Quantified Objective: “…to promote access to resources and mobility for target households.” See comment on Page 208.
Top of page
Quantified Objective: “…to promote access to resources and mobility for target households.” See comment on Page 208.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Drummond Buckley
To: Osa Wolff; Winnie Mui; Cynthia Walsh; Jennifer Gastelum Subject: Fwd: Agenda Nov 1 housing element
Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 8:01:52 AM
Attachments: Drummond email to Michelle re Opticos July 24, 2020.pdf Email from Winnie Mui to Michelle Jacobson July 24, 2020.pdf Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Date: October 26, 2022 at 7:41:37 AM PDT
To: Dennis Fay <[email protected]>, Inga Miller <[email protected]>, Amy Worth <[email protected]>, Darlene Gee <[email protected]>, Nick Kosla <[email protected]> Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>, Drummond Buckley <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Nov 1 housing element
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! Introduction
In this memo, I address the following points:
The current height limit of 35 feet should not be increased. Our RHNA can be satisfied by increasing density without raising the height limit from its current 35 feet. Developers invoking the density bonus law will be able to build above the height limit, so we should keep the starting point as low as possible.
The 23 sites lost from the DPP, due to HCD’s objection, should be moved to CalTrans, which has the capacity to accept them. Doing so will make it unnecessary to further upzone the BevMo/CVS and Country Club Plaza/Phairs/Orinda Motors site.
The “realistic capacity” proposed by staff is not realistic and should be increased to a realistic number. Increasing it will reduce the amount of upzoning required and help preserve our village character downtown.
The increase in the buffer proposed by staff should be rejected. Eliminating the increase will reduce the amount of upzoning required and help preserve our village character downtown.
Orinda should commit to enact, not merely “study,” an inclusionary housing ordinance.
The density at Miramonte should be increased to align with a new law facilitating teacher housing.
Forget about BART for now. There isn’t time to deal with it.
Although it is necessary to increase density downtown, it is NOT necessary to increase current 35 foot height limit. The height limit should NOT increased.
The current height limit of 35 feet should not be increased. Our RHNA can be satisfied by increasing density without raising the height limit from its current 35 feet. Developers invoking the density bonus law will be able to build above the height limit, so we should keep the starting point as low as possible.
It is necessary to increase density on sufficient sites constituting sufficient acres to satisfy the Housing Element requirement to zone for lower income housing. This is done by adopting at least a density of 20 dwelling units/acre over a sufficient number of acres to meet the RHNA for that income category, plus a buffer (discussed below).
However, RHNA does not require that the height limit be raised.
No analysis has ever been presented (to the best of my recollection) that the height limit needs to be raised. In fact, Opticos wrote, “Lot testing found that an overall density range of 18 to 27 du/ac could make development feasible within existing height allowances.” See Slide 27 here. https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/s7pkv59mqj01b03jo1pzr8llwwwgvza3 Drummond has written, “According to our consultant Opticos Design, the recommended max H.1.i
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) density/height/stories cited in the staff report could easily be accommodated within mixed use projects.
In other words, a one-acre site with ground floor retail, a 35' height limit, a maximum of 3 stories, and a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre could reasonably accommodate 30 dwelling units plus the retail component. Even with a ground-floor retail component to the project, it is realistic to anticipate a project could be constructed to the maximum residential density. Email dated July 24, 2020 from Drummond Buckley to Michele Jacobson. . “ATTACH COPY
The Density Bonus Law will allow greater densities, and waivers or concessions regarding height limits, in any event. We should start with as low a height as possible, given that it will be increased by invocation of the density bonus law.
The 35 foot height limit has for decades been a key part of our village character. There is no need to raise it.
The dwelling units lost by elimination of the 23 sites will all fit on the CalTrans site and should be zoned for there, instead of increasing density and height at BevMo/CVS and an assemblage of Orinda Motors/ Phairs/Country Club Plaza.
As the staff memo explains, in response to HCD comments, the City was required to remove 23 sites, located downtown, from the Housing Element. This resulted in a loss of 250 dwelling units. (Staff Memo., page 3.)
What part of the city should be upzoned to accommodate the dwelling units that would have been authorized for the 23 deleted sites. Last spring the council decided to mildly increase density and height downtown, balancing the state mandated new housing against the overwhelming strong desire of residents to preserve the village character. The council was also mindful of the fact that, under the state Density Bonus Law, developers would have a right to increases in density and heights beyond whatever the city specified.
In this setting, staff on Oct 10 presented to the council's downtown subcommittee is response to HCD's rejection of the first draft of the Housing Element. Staff disregarded the limits the council had adopted months earlier. Instead, it proposed substantial increases in density and height at a few downtown sites, including the BevMo/CVS parcel, and an assemblage of the parcels currently occupied by Orinda Motors, Phairs, Szechuan, Geppettos, Baan Thai, and other small businesses that have been a cherished part of Orinda for decades. (Staff Memo., page 3.)
A better place to accommodate the 250 dwelling units lost by the elimination of the 23 sites, would be the 10-acre CalTrans parcel across from Wilder. Staff has proposed only 200 units for that site, at a density of 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre. (See Draft Housing Element dated Sept. 22, 2022 [hereinafter “Housing Element”], Action 1.C, page 210. NOTE: your copy of the Housing Element may have thumbnails on the left margin; the number of the thumbnails is approximately 10 higher than the actual page numbers of the Housing Element to account for the cover, table of contents, etc.) Staff has not explained why a density of 75 dwelling units is appropriate for the north end of the village, but only a density of 20-40 units is the max for the CalTrans parcel. Increasing the density of the CalTrans parcel to 50-75 units per acre would permit that parcel to absorb ALL 250 of the dwelling units lost by elimination of the 23 sites, with capacity to spare. The city could require that any development include a shuttle to downtown and BART (like Orindawoods and, I have heard but not verified, like Wilder has or was supposed to provide).
An additional benefit to moving housing from downtown to the CalTrans site is that doing so facilitates evacuation in the event of a wildfire or other emergency. Downtown will be a choke point.
The “realistic capacity” should be increased.
The “realistic capacity” proposed by staff is not realistic and should be increased to a realistic number.
Increasing the “realistic capacity” will reduce the amount of upzoning required, and thus help preserve our village character downtown.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) The “realistic capacity” used by staff of 60% (which acts as a second buffer) is too low, and has the effect of increasing the number of sites needed, and number of dwelling units needed, to meet the RHNA. In fact, you should use between 90% and 100% because the only likely feasible projects will be density bonus projects. The Economic Feasibility Study dated April 2, 2021 concluded that the only developments that were “likely feasible” – other than townhouses at the Masonic Center – were projects invoking a density bonus. See Figure 6 at page 13.
https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo
Lafayette is using 90% to 95%. See Section 10.1.6 entitled “Realistic Capacity” and a table showing an average yield of 111%. This appears at pages H-41 and H-42 here. https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?clip_id=6217&meta_id=151894&view_id= Consideration of the experience of a neighboring city is allowed.
Some new laws also support increasing the “realistic capacity” because they facilitate development. AB 2097 prevents imposition of parking minimums within one-half mile of BART. This reduces the cost of development and increases the likelihood of development. The combination of SB 6 and AB 2011 mean that even sites designated as mixed use, or as commercial or office, can be developed as residential.
Staff’s justification for the low realistic capacity percentage in the DPP is flawed. The Housing Element says it is “To account for nonresidential development….” However, realistic capacity only applies to dwelling units (residential development); the concept isn’t applied to a building that might have nonresidential uses. Moreover, the recent enactment of AB 2011 and SB 6 appear to prevent the city from requiring non-residential uses in a mixed use development. (See attached email from Winnie Mui to Michele Jacobson.)
The buffer should not be increased.
The increase in the buffer proposed by staff should be rejected. Eliminating the increase will reduce the amount of upzoning required.
Staff is also proposing to increase the buffer to 35% for the lower income category. (See Housing Element, page 171.) The prior draft had a 25% buffer that HCD accepted. There is no justification for this. A higher buffer requires zoning for more housing The effect of a higher buffer is to require higher density and taller buildings to accommodate the additional housing -- a gift to developers.
At the Oct. 10, 2022 Subcommittee Meeting, staff stated that the reason for increasing the buffer is uncertainty about the CalTrans parcel. But the Housing Element itself projects only a 20-24 month maximum period for the site to be designated as surplus. (See Housing Element pp. 162-163.) In fact, there is no nexus between the buffer and the possible longer time it may take to develop the CalTrans parcel.
There is an additional reason not to increase the buffer. Once the reasonable capacity is increased, as it should, the surplus number of units at the lower and moderate income levels goes up a huge amount.
Staff can present the math. But there is absolutely no need to increase the buffer.
Therefore, do not increase the buffer, because an increase in the buffer is contrary to preserving the village character.
Orinda should commit, in the “Actions” section of the Housing Element, to enact an inclusionary zoning ordinance, and enact one promptly.
Action 3.G (page 222) needs to be revised to commit to adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance instead of merely committing to “research” such an ordinance. This would seem to be required by “Goal 1: New Housing Production. Encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, which will be assisted through appropriate zoning and development standards.” (Page 207.) It is VITAL to understand that zoning for lower income housing means zoning sufficient acres at a density of at least 20 dwelling units/acre so that the product of the dwelling units multiplied by the H.1.i
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) number of acres satisfies the lower income RHNA. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/housing-element-memos/docs/defaultdensity2020censusupdate.pdf NOTABLY, however, there is no requirement that the sites so zoned, and identified as lower income housing, be restricted to such housing. A developer can take advantage of the density and build whatever it chooses.
Historically, very little affordable housing has been built in Orinda, although plenty of above-moderate housing has been built. An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would require a specified percentage (e.g., 8%) of units of any project be for lower income households, and a specified percentage (e.g., 7%) be for moderate income households (think teachers).
Such an ordinance will help ensure that affordable housing is actually built, not just zoned for. Absent such an ordinance, a developer can take advantage of the increased density and heights and build as little affordable housing as it chooses. The Density Bonus Law doesn’t protect us because developers get the large bonus from a small number of very low income units. For teachers and other moderate income folks, we need to require moderate income units. Also, if sufficient permits aren’t pulled by the mid-cycle (2027), several adverse consequences come into play under SB 35.
Density and height at the Miramonte site should be increased.
The Draft Housing Element proposes a density of 20-25 units per acre on the Miramonte site. (Page 209.) The site is owned by the Acalanes Union High School District. A new law, AB 2295, allows a school district to build up to 35 feet for teacher and staff housing, at the density allowed by law. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2295 The density of this site should be increased to 30 d.u./acre to reasonably maximize the benefit.
Forget about BART for now.
Although I previously (six months ago) advocated for putting housing on BART, that ship has sailed.
There isn’t time to redo the Housing Element to do so. The Housing Element is due January 31, 2023.
There are severe consequences if a compliant Housing Element is not timely submitted by January 31, 2023. Perhaps the worst is the Builder’s Remedy. See this recent SF Chronicle news story that mentions Lafayette.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builders-remedy-california-17517171.php In a nutshell, if a compliant Housing Element is not submitted by the deadline, the Builder’s Remedy become available. That remedy allows a developer to disregard density and height limits, and build anything so long as it includes 20% affordable housing.
The leading article describing the Builder’s Remedy is by Prof. Elmendorf. Here is link https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/Builder%27s%20Remedy%20Primer1.pdf This article is vital to understanding the risk if a compliant Housing Element is not timely submitted.
Here is another article; this one by the Holland and Knight law firm. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/builders-remedy-bay-area-will-soon-face-apowerful-housing-tool Below are some news articles. Note: you need to take their “legal analysis” with a healthy does of salt. I present them only so you understand what is happening in the “real world.” Articles re Santa Monica (note: SoCalif issues are more complex. Their HE due date was earlier and a confusing bill, AB 197, applies)
https://la.urbanize.city/post/builders-remedy-projects-could-bring-nearly-4000-homes-santa-monica https://abundanthousingla.org/the-builders-remedy-comes-to-santa-monica/ Article re Redondo Beach
https://abundanthousingla.org/builders-remedy/
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Thus, to avoid the fate of Santa Monica and Redondo Beach, we cannot do anything that risks submitting a compliant Housing Element by January 31, 2023. Weaving BART into the document would create that risk.
Moreover, it is unlikely anything would happen at BART by mid-cycle, which is 2027. It is important that building permits be issued (not just housing zoned for) equal to half the RHNA at all income levels, in order to avoid the consequences of SB 35, which generally speaking would greatly expand by-right development.
What if nothing gets built?
A legitimate concern is that nothing may get built if density is only modestly increased, and the height limit is not increased.
In fact, however, the density bonus law will allow a developer to increase both density and height substantially. Density bonuses are set forth in the table on page 5 of this guide. https://www.meyersnave.com/wp-content/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2021.pdf Density bonus have since gone up. See https://www.meyersnave.com/californias-density-bonus-law2021-update/ ; https://www.meyersnave.com/homepage-slides/california-density-bonus-law-2022- update/
Moreover, the developer interest shown to date demonstrates that there is no need for dramatic increases.
Additionally, the very new laws mentioned above (AB 2097, SB 6 and AB 2011) will greatly facilitate development.
If nothing gets built after the densities but not heights are increased, the city can always revisit the subject.
Conclusion and action items.
In conclusion:
1. The densities adopted in the spring should not be further increased. The height limit of 35 feet, in effect for decades, should not be increased.
2. The dwelling units “lost” by the deletion of the 23 sites should be moved to the CalTrans parcel.
3. The realistic capacity should be increased.
4. The buffer should not be increased.
5. The Housing Element should commit that Orinda will enact, and Orinda should promptly enact, an inclusionary zoning ordinance.
6. The density and height at Miramonte should be increased to align with a new law.
7. Forget about BART for now.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Waranoff
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2020 at 5:44:14 PM PDT
To: Michele Jacobson <[email protected]>, Winnie Mui <[email protected]> Cc: Adam Foster <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: material for July 28 workshop
Good evening Michele.
The theoretical maximums are simply the maximum number of units that would be permitted based on the various densities cited in the report. For instance, the theoretical maximum number of units for a oneacre site with a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre is 10 units. We used the phrase "theoretical maximum" because there are many factors which could result in fewer total units when we apply these numbers toward the DPP project area-- market realities, existing improvements, existing ownership patterns, etc.
According to our consultant Opticos Design, the recommended max density/height/stories cited in the staff report could easily be accommodated within mixed use projects. In other words, a one-acre site with ground floor retail, a 35' height limit, a maximum of 3 stories, and a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre could reasonably accommodate 30 dwelling units plus the retail component. Even with a groundfloor retail component to the project, it is realistic to anticipate a project could be constructed to the maximum residential density.
Drummond Buckley
925-956-9305
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Drummond Buckley
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 3:24 PM
To: Winnie Mui <[email protected]>; 'Michele Jacobson' <[email protected]> Cc: Adam Foster <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: material for July 28 workshop
Thanks Winnie. I think you meant maximum number of residential *units (not uses).
From: Winnie Mui
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 3:14 PM
To: 'Michele Jacobson' <[email protected]>
Cc: Adam Foster <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]> Subject: RE: material for July 28 workshop
Hi Michele,
The provided density is independent of ground-floor commercial uses. Rather, it’s a maximum number of residential uses that could be constructed on a property. The municipal code states that residential use is allowed as part of a mixed-use development in the DC District and we are not proposing to change that.
Best,
Winnie Mui
Associate Planner, City of Orinda
22 Orinda Way, Orinda CA 94563
925.253.4210 (main line)
925.726.1757 (direct)
www.cityoforinda.org
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Drummond Buckley
To: Osa L. Wolff; Winnie Mui; Cynthia Walsh; Jennifer Gastelum Subject: FW: Agenda Nov 1 housing element - FOLLOW UP TO EARLIER EMAIL Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 9:57:11 AM
Attachments: Drummond email to Michelle re Opticos July 24, 2020.pdf Email from Winnie Mui to Michelle Jacobson July 24, 2020.pdf From: Nick Waranoff [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 9:24 AM
To: Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]> Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Agenda Nov 1 housing element - FOLLOW UP TO EARLIER EMAIL CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! The “staff memo” is the one for Oct 10. https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/2022-10-10-StaffMemo The 250 units lost, mentioned in staff memo, may be after applying the staff’s 60% realistic capacity. If so, the total lost zoned units would be around 420. That number of units could still easily be accommodated at the CalTrans site by increasing the density from 20-40 to 65 d.u./acre.
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 7:41 AM
To: Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]> Cc: 'David Biggs' <[email protected]>; 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Nov 1 housing element
Introduction
In this memo, I address the following points:
·
The current height limit of 35 feet should not be increased. Our RHNA can be satisfied by increasing density without raising the height limit from its current 35 feet. Developers invoking the density bonus law will be able to build above the height limit, so we should keep the starting point as low as possible. ·
The 23 sites lost from the DPP, due to HCD’s objection, should be moved to CalTrans, which has the capacity to accept them. Doing so will make it unnecessary to further upzone the BevMo/CVS and Country Club Plaza/Phairs/Orinda Motors site.
·
The “realistic capacity” proposed by staff is not realistic and should be increased to a realistic number.
Increasing it will reduce the amount of upzoning required and help preserve our village character downtown.
·
The increase in the buffer proposed by staff should be rejected. Eliminating the increase will reduce the amount of upzoning required and help preserve our village character downtown. ·
Orinda should commit to enact, not merely “study,” an inclusionary housing ordinance. ·
The density at Miramonte should be increased to align with a new law facilitating teacher housing. ·
Forget about BART for now. There isn’t time to deal with it.
Although it is necessary to increase density downtown, it is NOT necessary to increase current 35 foot height limit. The height limit should NOT increased.
The current height limit of 35 feet should not be increased. Our RHNA can be satisfied by increasing density without raising the height limit from its current 35 feet. Developers invoking the density bonus law will be able to build above the height limit, so we should keep the starting point as low as possible.
It is necessary to increase density on sufficient sites constituting sufficient acres to satisfy the Housing H.1.i
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Element requirement to zone for lower income housing. This is done by adopting at least a density of 20 dwelling units/acre over a sufficient number of acres to meet the RHNA for that income category, plus a buffer (discussed below).
However, RHNA does not require that the height limit be raised.
No analysis has ever been presented (to the best of my recollection) that the height limit needs to be raised. In fact, Opticos wrote, “Lot testing found that an overall density range of 18 to 27 du/ac could make development feasible within existing height allowances.” See Slide 27 here. https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/s7pkv59mqj01b03jo1pzr8llwwwgvza3 Drummond has written, “According to our consultant Opticos Design, the recommended max density/height/stories cited in the staff report could easily be accommodated within mixed use projects. In other words, a one-acre site with ground floor retail, a 35' height limit, a maximum of 3 stories, and a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre could reasonably accommodate 30 dwelling units plus the retail component. Even with a ground-floor retail component to the project, it is realistic to anticipate a project could be constructed to the maximum residential density. Email dated July 24, 2020 from Drummond Buckley to Michele Jacobson. . “ATTACH COPY
The Density Bonus Law will allow greater densities, and waivers or concessions regarding height limits, in any event. We should start with as low a height as possible, given that it will be increased by invocation of the density bonus law.
The 35 foot height limit has for decades been a key part of our village character. There is no need to raise it.
The dwelling units lost by elimination of the 23 sites will all fit on the CalTrans site and should be zoned for there, instead of increasing density and height at BevMo/CVS and an assemblage of Orinda Motors/ Phairs/Country Club Plaza.
As the staff memo explains, in response to HCD comments, the City was required to remove 23 sites, located downtown, from the Housing Element. This resulted in a loss of 250 dwelling units. (Staff Memo., page 3.) What part of the city should be upzoned to accommodate the dwelling units that would have been authorized for the 23 deleted sites. Last spring the council decided to mildly increase density and height downtown, balancing the state mandated new housing against the overwhelming strong desire of residents to preserve the village character. The council was also mindful of the fact that, under the state Density Bonus Law, developers would have a right to increases in density and heights beyond whatever the city specified.
In this setting, staff on Oct 10 presented to the council's downtown subcommittee is response to HCD's rejection of the first draft of the Housing Element. Staff disregarded the limits the council had adopted months earlier. Instead, it proposed substantial increases in density and height at a few downtown sites, including the BevMo/CVS parcel, and an assemblage of the parcels currently occupied by Orinda Motors, Phairs, Szechuan, Geppettos, Baan Thai, and other small businesses that have been a cherished part of Orinda for decades. (Staff Memo., page 3.)
A better place to accommodate the 250 dwelling units lost by the elimination of the 23 sites, would be the 10- acre CalTrans parcel across from Wilder. Staff has proposed only 200 units for that site, at a density of 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre. (See Draft Housing Element dated Sept. 22, 2022 [hereinafter “Housing Element”], Action 1.C, page 210. NOTE: your copy of the Housing Element may have thumbnails on the left margin; the number of the thumbnails is approximately 10 higher than the actual page numbers of the Housing Element to account for the cover, table of contents, etc.) Staff has not explained why a density of 75 dwelling units is appropriate for the north end of the village, but only a density of 20-40 units is the max for the CalTrans parcel. Increasing the density of the CalTrans parcel to 50-75 units per acre would permit that parcel to absorb ALL 250 of the dwelling units lost by elimination of the 23 sites, with capacity to spare. The city could require that any development include a shuttle to H.1.i
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) downtown and BART (like Orindawoods and, I have heard but not verified, like Wilder has or was supposed to provide).
An additional benefit to moving housing from downtown to the CalTrans site is that doing so facilitates evacuation in the event of a wildfire or other emergency. Downtown will be a choke point.
The “realistic capacity” should be increased.
The “realistic capacity” proposed by staff is not realistic and should be increased to a realistic number.
Increasing the “realistic capacity” will reduce the amount of upzoning required, and thus help preserve our village character downtown.
The “realistic capacity” used by staff of 60% (which acts as a second buffer) is too low, and has the effect of increasing the number of sites needed, and number of dwelling units needed, to meet the RHNA. In fact, you should use between 90% and 100% because the only likely feasible projects will be density bonus projects.
The Economic Feasibility Study dated April 2, 2021 concluded that the only developments that were “likely feasible” – other than townhouses at the Masonic Center – were projects invoking a density bonus. See Figure 6 at page 13. https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo Lafayette is using 90% to 95%. See Section 10.1.6 entitled “Realistic Capacity” and a table showing an average yield of 111%. This appears at pages H-41 and H-42 here. https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?clip_id=6217&meta_id=151894&view_id= Consideration of
the experience of a neighboring city is allowed.
Some new laws also support increasing the “realistic capacity” because they facilitate development. AB 2097 prevents imposition of parking minimums within one-half mile of BART. This reduces the cost of development and increases the likelihood of development. The combination of SB 6 and AB 2011 mean that even sites designated as mixed use, or as commercial or office, can be developed as residential.
Staff’s justification for the low realistic capacity percentage in the DPP is flawed. The Housing Element says it is “To account for nonresidential development….” However, realistic capacity only applies to dwelling units (residential development); the concept isn’t applied to a building that might have nonresidential uses.
Moreover, the recent enactment of AB 2011 and SB 6 appear to prevent the city from requiring nonresidential uses in a mixed use development. (See attached email from Winnie Mui to Michele Jacobson.) The buffer should not be increased.
The increase in the buffer proposed by staff should be rejected. Eliminating the increase will reduce the amount of upzoning required.
Staff is also proposing to increase the buffer to 35% for the lower income category. (See Housing Element, page 171.) The prior draft had a 25% buffer that HCD accepted. There is no justification for this. A higher buffer requires zoning for more housing The effect of a higher buffer is to require higher density and taller buildings to accommodate the additional housing -- a gift to developers.
At the Oct. 10, 2022 Subcommittee Meeting, staff stated that the reason for increasing the buffer is uncertainty about the CalTrans parcel. But the Housing Element itself projects only a 20-24 month maximum period for the site to be designated as surplus. (See Housing Element pp. 162-163.) In fact, there is no nexus between the buffer and the possible longer time it may take to develop the CalTrans parcel.
There is an additional reason not to increase the buffer. Once the reasonable capacity is increased, as it should, the surplus number of units at the lower and moderate income levels goes up a huge amount. Staff can present the math. But there is absolutely no need to increase the buffer.
Therefore, do not increase the buffer, because an increase in the buffer is contrary to preserving the village character.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Orinda should commit, in the “Actions” section of the Housing Element, to enact an inclusionary zoning ordinance, and enact one promptly.
Action 3.G (page 222) needs to be revised to commit to adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance instead of merely committing to “research” such an ordinance. This would seem to be required by “Goal 1: New Housing Production. Encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, which will be assisted through appropriate zoning and development standards.” (Page 207.) It is VITAL to understand that zoning for lower income housing means zoning sufficient acres at a density of at least 20 dwelling units/acre so that the product of the dwelling units multiplied by the number of acres satisfies the lower income RHNA. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/defaultdensity2020censusupdate.pdf NOTABLY, however, there is no requirement that the sites so zoned, and identified as lower income housing, be restricted to such housing. A developer can take advantage of the density and build whatever it chooses.
Historically, very little affordable housing has been built in Orinda, although plenty of above-moderate housing has been built. An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would require a specified percentage (e.g., 8%) of units of any project be for lower income households, and a specified percentage (e.g., 7%) be for moderate income households (think teachers).
Such an ordinance will help ensure that affordable housing is actually built, not just zoned for. Absent such an ordinance, a developer can take advantage of the increased density and heights and build as little affordable housing as it chooses. The Density Bonus Law doesn’t protect us because developers get the large bonus from a small number of very low income units. For teachers and other moderate income folks, we need to require moderate income units. Also, if sufficient permits aren’t pulled by the mid-cycle (2027), several adverse consequences come into play under SB 35.
Density and height at the Miramonte site should be increased.
The Draft Housing Element proposes a density of 20-25 units per acre on the Miramonte site. (Page 209.) The site is owned by the Acalanes Union High School District. A new law, AB 2295, allows a school district to build up to 35 feet for teacher and staff housing, at the density allowed by law. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2295 The density of this site should be increased to 30 d.u./acre to reasonably maximize the benefit.
Forget about BART for now.
Although I previously (six months ago) advocated for putting housing on BART, that ship has sailed. There isn’t time to redo the Housing Element to do so. The Housing Element is due January 31, 2023.
There are severe consequences if a compliant Housing Element is not timely submitted by January 31, 2023.
Perhaps the worst is the Builder’s Remedy. See this recent SF Chronicle news story that mentions Lafayette. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builders-remedy-california-17517171.php In a nutshell, if a compliant Housing Element is not submitted by the deadline, the Builder’s Remedy become available. That remedy allows a developer to disregard density and height limits, and build anything so long as it includes 20% affordable housing.
The leading article describing the Builder’s Remedy is by Prof. Elmendorf. Here is link https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/Builder%27s%20Remedy%20Primer1.pdf This article is vital to understanding the risk if a compliant Housing Element is not timely submitted. Here is another article; this one by the Holland and Knight law firm. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/builders-remedy-bay-area-will-soon-face-apowerful-housing-tool H.1.i
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Below are some news articles. Note: you need to take their “legal analysis” with a healthy does of salt. I present them only so you understand what is happening in the “real world.” Articles re Santa Monica (note: SoCalif issues are more complex. Their HE due date was earlier and a confusing bill, AB 197, applies)
https://la.urbanize.city/post/builders-remedy-projects-could-bring-nearly-4000-homes-santa-monica https://abundanthousingla.org/the-builders-remedy-comes-to-santa-monica/ Article re Redondo Beach
https://abundanthousingla.org/builders-remedy/
Thus, to avoid the fate of Santa Monica and Redondo Beach, we cannot do anything that risks submitting a compliant Housing Element by January 31, 2023. Weaving BART into the document would create that risk.
Moreover, it is unlikely anything would happen at BART by mid-cycle, which is 2027. It is important that building permits be issued (not just housing zoned for) equal to half the RHNA at all income levels, in order to avoid the consequences of SB 35, which generally speaking would greatly expand by-right development.
What if nothing gets built?
A legitimate concern is that nothing may get built if density is only modestly increased, and the height limit is not increased.
In fact, however, the density bonus law will allow a developer to increase both density and height substantially. Density bonuses are set forth in the table on page 5 of this guide. https://www.meyersnave.com/wp-content/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2021.pdf Density bonus have since gone up. See https://www.meyersnave.com/californias-density-bonus-law-2021- update/ ; https://www.meyersnave.com/homepage-slides/california-density-bonus-law-2022-update/ Moreover, the developer interest shown to date demonstrates that there is no need for dramatic increases.
Additionally, the very new laws mentioned above (AB 2097, SB 6 and AB 2011) will greatly facilitate development.
If nothing gets built after the densities but not heights are increased, the city can always revisit the subject.
Conclusion and action items.
In conclusion:
1. The densities adopted in the spring should not be further increased. The height limit of 35 feet, in effect for decades, should not be increased.
2. The dwelling units “lost” by the deletion of the 23 sites should be moved to the CalTrans parcel.
3. The realistic capacity should be increased.
4. The buffer should not be increased.
5. The Housing Element should commit that Orinda will enact, and Orinda should promptly enact, an inclusionary zoning ordinance.
6. The density and height at Miramonte should be increased to align with a new law.
7. Forget about BART for now.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Waranoff
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Sheri Smith
To: Winnie Mui
Cc: Drummond Buckley
Subject: FW: November 1 Agenda - Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 11:24:33 AM
For inclusion with the 11/1 staff report. Sheri
From: Dan DeBusschere [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>
Cc: David Biggs <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Sheri Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: November 1 Agenda - Housing Element
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
Hi to everyoneBefore our first submission to HCD draft approval (DDP), everyone of you including our consultants thought we could "sell" our draft plan therefore, we do not have to look to other areas for density development like BART and the CalTrans sites. My suggestion to zone BART was shot down because of concerns that HCD would never approve it because of The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. My parting shot to you guys was, if you can sell it (the DPP), then go for it.
The net out is we did NOT sell the DPP and now we have a proposed Housing Element plan to upzone parts of downtown that no one wants. The irony is some of the new zoning may not meet AFFH requirements that we were trying to avoid by not considering BART.
I like one of Nick Waranoff's suggestions which is:
"The 23 sites lost from the DPP, due to HCD’s objection, should be moved to CalTrans, which has the capacity to accept them. Doing so will make it unnecessary to further upzone the BevMo/CVS and Country Club Plaza/Phairs/Orinda Motors site."
Also, if there is no real reason to increase height limits, then do not do it. Require the developer use it to cash in on some waiver requirement. Do not give it away up front.
Best wishes to everyone,
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Dan DeBusschere
Orinda, CA
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Drummond Buckley
To: Winnie Mui
Cc: Sheri Smith
Subject: FW: Agenda Nov 1 housing element - FOLLOW UP TO EARLIER EMAIL Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 5:33:38 PM
Please add to the correspondence first thing on Thurs, thanks.
From: Chris Kniel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 5:22 PM
To: Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]>; David Biggs <[email protected]>; Drummond Buckley <[email protected]>; Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>; Sheri Smith <[email protected]> Cc: Rusty Snow <[email protected]>; Bruce London <[email protected]>; Kathleen Jenkins <[email protected]>; Anne Marie Kniel <[email protected]>; Armstrong, Nyna <[email protected]>; Richard Colman <[email protected]>; DeBusschere, Dan <[email protected]>; Mike Delehunt <[email protected]>; Dick Curry <[email protected]>; Eve Phillips <[email protected]>; Barbara Hagen <[email protected]>; kh6444 Hagen <[email protected]>; Jerry Wooten <[email protected]>; Linda Delehunt <[email protected]>; Janet Maiorana <[email protected]>; Chet Martine <[email protected]>; Melanie Snow <[email protected]>; Owen Murphy <[email protected]>; raemon earle <[email protected]>; Peter Singleton <[email protected]>; Steve Arnon <[email protected]>; Scott Zeller <[email protected]>; Orinda Tip <[email protected]>; Charleen Earley Charleen Earley <[email protected]>; Chris Kniel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Agenda Nov 1 housing element - FOLLOW UP TO EARLIER EMAIL CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! Oct 26, 2022
Re: Agenda Nov 1 housing element - FOLLOW UP TO EARLIER EMAIL Hello Nick,
Thank you for your valiant efforts trying to make sense out of the current “Housing Element” mandates. Referring to your recent memo, I am sure you have captured more information on this subject than the rest of Orinda put together. : ) Unfortunately, the HCD has forced a level of confusion and complexity that no longer is solvable. It’s unlikely many of the other Bay Area Cities will be able to meet these absurd, ridiculous, incomprehensible, developed out of thin air mandates. The so-called Housing Element narrative should be put on hold pending numerous corrections, clarifications, and simplifications from HCD.
I expect local taxpayers will soon wake up to reestablish local control for Housing Elements and other such measures. Local Control, provided by our locally elected officials, as opposed to centralized state control, can work. Because of numerous differences from locality to locality, centralized control doesn't fit.
In the meantime, I suggest the City Council, City Management, and local police spend time developing preparations and real solutions for the upcoming downturn in ‘23 and ‘24 with particular focus on surging crime, safety, and reactions to high unemployment.
All the best,
Chris Kniel
Sheri Smith <[email protected]> - Kindly add to the public record. “There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent corrupt and vile men.” ~ Ludwig von Mises
On Oct 26, 2022, at 9:26 AM, Nick Waranoff <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 9:24 AM
To: 'Dennis Fay' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]> Cc: 'David Biggs' <[email protected]>; 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Agenda Nov 1 housing element - FOLLOW UP TO EARLIER EMAIL The “staff memo” is the one for Oct 10. https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/2022-10-10-StaffMemo H.1.i
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) The 250 units lost, mentioned in staff memo, may be after applying the staff’s 60% realistic capacity. If so, the total lost zoned units would be around 420. That number of units could still easily be accommodated at the CalTrans site by increasing the density from 20-40 to 65 d.u./acre.
From: Nick Waranoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 7:41 AM
To: Dennis Fay <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Amy Worth <[email protected]>; 'Darlene Gee' <[email protected]>; Nick Kosla <[email protected]> Cc: 'David Biggs' <[email protected]>; 'Drummond Buckley' <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Nov 1 housing element
Introduction
In this memo, I address the following points:
The current height limit of 35 feet should not be increased. Our RHNA can be satisfied by increasing density without raising the height limit from its current 35 feet. Developers invoking the density bonus law will be able to build above the height limit, so we should keep the starting point as low as possible.
The 23 sites lost from the DPP, due to HCD’s objection, should be moved to CalTrans, which has the capacity to accept them. Doing so will make it unnecessary to further upzone the BevMo/CVS and Country Club Plaza/Phairs/Orinda Motors site.
The “realistic capacity” proposed by staff is not realistic and should be increased to a realistic number.
Increasing it will reduce the amount of upzoning required and help preserve our village character downtown.
The increase in the buffer proposed by staff should be rejected. Eliminating the increase will reduce the amount of upzoning required and help preserve our village character downtown.
Orinda should commit to enact, not merely “study,” an inclusionary housing ordinance.
The density at Miramonte should be increased to align with a new law facilitating teacher housing.
Forget about BART for now. There isn’t time to deal with it.
Although it is necessary to increase density downtown, it is NOT necessary to increase current 35 foot height limit. The height limit should NOT increased.
The current height limit of 35 feet should not be increased. Our RHNA can be satisfied by increasing density without raising the height limit from its current 35 feet. Developers invoking the density bonus law will be able to build above the height limit, so we should keep the starting point as low as possible.
It is necessary to increase density on sufficient sites constituting sufficient acres to satisfy the Housing Element requirement to zone for lower income housing. This is done by adopting at least a density of 20 dwelling units/acre over a sufficient number of acres to meet the RHNA for that income category, plus a buffer (discussed below).
However, RHNA does not require that the height limit be raised.
No analysis has ever been presented (to the best of my recollection) that the height limit needs to be raised.
In fact, Opticos wrote, “Lot testing found that an overall density range of 18 to 27 du/ac could make development feasible within existing height allowances.” See Slide 27 here. https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/s/s7pkv59mqj01b03jo1pzr8llwwwgvza3 Drummond has written, “According to our consultant Opticos Design, the recommended max density/height/stories cited in the staff report could easily be accommodated within mixed use projects. In other words, a one-acre site with ground floor retail, a 35' height limit, a maximum of 3 stories, and a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre could reasonably accommodate 30 dwelling units plus the retail component. Even with a ground-floor retail component to the project, it is realistic to anticipate a project could be constructed to the maximum residential density. Email dated July 24, 2020 from Drummond Buckley to Michele Jacobson. . “ATTACH COPY
The Density Bonus Law will allow greater densities, and waivers or concessions regarding height limits, in any event. We should start with as low a height as possible, given that it will be increased by invocation of the density bonus law.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) The 35 foot height limit has for decades been a key part of our village character. There is no need to raise it.
The dwelling units lost by elimination of the 23 sites will all fit on the CalTrans site and should be zoned for there, instead of increasing density and height at BevMo/CVS and an assemblage of Orinda Motors/ Phairs/Country Club Plaza.
As the staff memo explains, in response to HCD comments, the City was required to remove 23 sites, located downtown, from the Housing Element. This resulted in a loss of 250 dwelling units. (Staff Memo., page
3.)
What part of the city should be upzoned to accommodate the dwelling units that would have been authorized for the 23 deleted sites. Last spring the council decided to mildly increase density and height downtown, balancing the state mandated new housing against the overwhelming strong desire of residents to preserve the village character. The council was also mindful of the fact that, under the state Density Bonus Law, developers would have a right to increases in density and heights beyond whatever the city specified.
In this setting, staff on Oct 10 presented to the council's downtown subcommittee is response to HCD's rejection of the first draft of the Housing Element. Staff disregarded the limits the council had adopted months earlier. Instead, it proposed substantial increases in density and height at a few downtown sites, including the BevMo/CVS parcel, and an assemblage of the parcels currently occupied by Orinda Motors, Phairs, Szechuan, Geppettos, Baan Thai, and other small businesses that have been a cherished part of Orinda for decades. (Staff Memo., page 3.)
A better place to accommodate the 250 dwelling units lost by the elimination of the 23 sites, would be the 10-acre CalTrans parcel across from Wilder. Staff has proposed only 200 units for that site, at a density of 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre. (See Draft Housing Element dated Sept. 22, 2022 [hereinafter “Housing Element”], Action 1.C, page 210. NOTE: your copy of the Housing Element may have thumbnails on the left margin; the number of the thumbnails is approximately 10 higher than the actual page numbers of the Housing Element to account for the cover, table of contents, etc.) Staff has not explained why a density of 75 dwelling units is appropriate for the north end of the village, but only a density of 20-40 units is the max for the CalTrans parcel. Increasing the density of the CalTrans parcel to 50-75 units per acre would permit that parcel to absorb ALL 250 of the dwelling units lost by elimination of the 23 sites, with capacity to spare. The city could require that any development include a shuttle to downtown and BART (like Orindawoods and, I have heard but not verified, like Wilder has or was supposed to provide).
An additional benefit to moving housing from downtown to the CalTrans site is that doing so facilitates evacuation in the event of a wildfire or other emergency. Downtown will be a choke point.
The “realistic capacity” should be increased.
The “realistic capacity” proposed by staff is not realistic and should be increased to a realistic number.
Increasing the “realistic capacity” will reduce the amount of upzoning required, and thus help preserve our village character downtown.
The “realistic capacity” used by staff of 60% (which acts as a second buffer) is too low, and has the effect of increasing the number of sites needed, and number of dwelling units needed, to meet the RHNA. In fact, you should use between 90% and 100% because the only likely feasible projects will be density bonus projects.
The Economic Feasibility Study dated April 2, 2021 concluded that the only developments that were “likely feasible” – other than townhouses at the Masonic Center – were projects invoking a density bonus. See Figure 6 at page 13. https://cityoforinda.app.box.com/v/DPPFeasibilityMemo Lafayette is using 90% to 95%. See Section 10.1.6 entitled “Realistic Capacity” and a table showing an average yield of 111%. This appears at pages H-41 and H-42 here. https://lafayette.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?clip_id=6217&meta_id=151894&view_id= Consideration
of the experience of a neighboring city is allowed.
Some new laws also support increasing the “realistic capacity” because they facilitate development. AB 2097 prevents imposition of parking minimums within one-half mile of BART. This reduces the cost of H.1.i
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) development and increases the likelihood of development. The combination of SB 6 and AB 2011 mean that even sites designated as mixed use, or as commercial or office, can be developed as residential.
Staff’s justification for the low realistic capacity percentage in the DPP is flawed. The Housing Element says it is “To account for nonresidential development….” However, realistic capacity only applies to dwelling units (residential development); the concept isn’t applied to a building that might have nonresidential uses.
Moreover, the recent enactment of AB 2011 and SB 6 appear to prevent the city from requiring nonresidential uses in a mixed use development. (See attached email from Winnie Mui to Michele Jacobson.) The buffer should not be increased.
The increase in the buffer proposed by staff should be rejected. Eliminating the increase will reduce the amount of upzoning required.
Staff is also proposing to increase the buffer to 35% for the lower income category. (See Housing Element, page 171.) The prior draft had a 25% buffer that HCD accepted. There is no justification for this. A higher buffer requires zoning for more housing The effect of a higher buffer is to require higher density and taller buildings to accommodate the additional housing -- a gift to developers.
At the Oct. 10, 2022 Subcommittee Meeting, staff stated that the reason for increasing the buffer is uncertainty about the CalTrans parcel. But the Housing Element itself projects only a 20-24 month maximum period for the site to be designated as surplus. (See Housing Element pp. 162-163.) In fact, there is no nexus between the buffer and the possible longer time it may take to develop the CalTrans parcel.
There is an additional reason not to increase the buffer. Once the reasonable capacity is increased, as it should, the surplus number of units at the lower and moderate income levels goes up a huge amount. Staff can present the math. But there is absolutely no need to increase the buffer.
Therefore, do not increase the buffer, because an increase in the buffer is contrary to preserving the village character.
Orinda should commit, in the “Actions” section of the Housing Element, to enact an inclusionary zoning ordinance, and enact one promptly.
Action 3.G (page 222) needs to be revised to commit to adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance instead of merely committing to “research” such an ordinance. This would seem to be required by “Goal 1:
New Housing Production. Encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, which will be assisted through appropriate zoning and development standards.” (Page 207.) It is VITAL to understand that zoning for lower income housing means zoning sufficient acres at a density of at least 20 dwelling units/acre so that the product of the dwelling units multiplied by the number of acres satisfies the lower income RHNA. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/defaultdensity2020censusupdate.pdf NOTABLY, however, there is no requirement that the sites so zoned, and identified as lower income housing, be restricted to such housing.
A developer can take advantage of the density and build whatever it chooses.
Historically, very little affordable housing has been built in Orinda, although plenty of above-moderate housing has been built. An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would require a specified percentage (e.g., 8%) of units of any project be for lower income households, and a specified percentage (e.g., 7%) be for moderate income households (think teachers).
Such an ordinance will help ensure that affordable housing is actually built, not just zoned for. Absent such an ordinance, a developer can take advantage of the increased density and heights and build as little affordable housing as it chooses. The Density Bonus Law doesn’t protect us because developers get the large bonus from a small number of very low income units. For teachers and other moderate income folks, we need to require moderate income units. Also, if sufficient permits aren’t pulled by the mid-cycle (2027), several adverse consequences come into play under SB 35.
Density and height at the Miramonte site should be increased.
The Draft Housing Element proposes a density of 20-25 units per acre on the Miramonte site. (Page 209.) The site is owned by the Acalanes Union High School District. A new law, AB 2295, allows a school district H.1.i
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) to build up to 35 feet for teacher and staff housing, at the density allowed by law. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2295 The density of this site should be increased to 30 d.u./acre to reasonably maximize the benefit.
Forget about BART for now.
Although I previously (six months ago) advocated for putting housing on BART, that ship has sailed. There isn’t time to redo the Housing Element to do so. The Housing Element is due January 31, 2023.
There are severe consequences if a compliant Housing Element is not timely submitted by January 31, 2023.
Perhaps the worst is the Builder’s Remedy. See this recent SF Chronicle news story that mentions Lafayette.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builders-remedy-california-17517171.php In a nutshell, if a compliant Housing Element is not submitted by the deadline, the Builder’s Remedy become available. That remedy allows a developer to disregard density and height limits, and build anything so long as it includes 20% affordable housing.
The leading article describing the Builder’s Remedy is by Prof. Elmendorf. Here is link https://law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10866/files/media/documents/Builder%27s%20Remedy%20Primer1.pdf This article is vital to understanding the risk if a compliant Housing Element is not timely submitted. Here is another article; this one by the Holland and Knight law firm. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/builders-remedy-bay-area-will-soon-face-apowerful-housing-tool Below are some news articles. Note: you need to take their “legal analysis” with a healthy does of salt. I present them only so you understand what is happening in the “real world.” Articles re Santa Monica (note: SoCalif issues are more complex. Their HE due date was earlier and a confusing bill, AB 197, applies)
https://la.urbanize.city/post/builders-remedy-projects-could-bring-nearly-4000-homes-santa-monica https://abundanthousingla.org/the-builders-remedy-comes-to-santa-monica/ Article re Redondo Beach
https://abundanthousingla.org/builders-remedy/
Thus, to avoid the fate of Santa Monica and Redondo Beach, we cannot do anything that risks submitting a compliant Housing Element by January 31, 2023. Weaving BART into the document would create that risk.
Moreover, it is unlikely anything would happen at BART by mid-cycle, which is 2027. It is important that building permits be issued (not just housing zoned for) equal to half the RHNA at all income levels, in order to avoid the consequences of SB 35, which generally speaking would greatly expand by-right development.
What if nothing gets built?
A legitimate concern is that nothing may get built if density is only modestly increased, and the height limit is not increased.
In fact, however, the density bonus law will allow a developer to increase both density and height substantially. Density bonuses are set forth in the table on page 5 of this guide. https://www.meyersnave.com/wp-content/uploads/California-Density-Bonus-Law_2021.pdf Density bonus have since gone up. See https://www.meyersnave.com/californias-density-bonus-law-2021- update/ ; https://www.meyersnave.com/homepage-slides/california-density-bonus-law-2022-update/ Moreover, the developer interest shown to date demonstrates that there is no need for dramatic increases.
Additionally, the very new laws mentioned above (AB 2097, SB 6 and AB 2011) will greatly facilitate development.
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) If nothing gets built after the densities but not heights are increased, the city can always revisit the subject.
Conclusion and action items.
In conclusion:
1. The densities adopted in the spring should not be further increased. The height limit of 35 feet, in effect for decades, should not be increased.
2. The dwelling units “lost” by the deletion of the 23 sites should be moved to the CalTrans parcel.
3. The realistic capacity should be increased.
4. The buffer should not be increased.
5. The Housing Element should commit that Orinda will enact, and Orinda should promptly enact, an inclusionary zoning ordinance.
6. The density and height at Miramonte should be increased to align with a new law.
7. Forget about BART for now.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Waranoff
<Drummond email to Michelle re Opticos July 24, 2020.pdf><Email from Winnie Mui to Michelle Jacobson July 24, 2020.pdf> H.1.i
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) From: Sheri Smith
To: Winnie Mui; Drummond Buckley
Subject: Fwd: Comments on HE Chapter 5, Housing Sites Inventory.docx Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 6:54:43 PM
Attachments: Comments on HE Chapter 5, Housing Sites Inventory.docx Begin forwarded message:
From: Michele Jacobson <[email protected]>
Date: October 26, 2022 at 6:24:03 PM PDT
To: Inga Miller <[email protected]>, Darlene Gee <[email protected]>, Dennis Fay <[email protected]>, Amy Worth <[email protected]>, Nick Kosla <[email protected]>, Sheri Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: Orinda Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on HE Chapter 5, Housing Sites Inventory.docx CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments!
To All,
Attached is the last list of my comments and questions on the text of the Draft Housing Element Update, September 23, 2022.
Thank you,
Michele Jacobson
Sent from my iPad
H.1.i
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Public Correspondence (2954 : Revised Draft Housing Element & Key Housing Law Overview) Charts 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7 (on pages 112 - 137) These charts don’t make sense. What is meant by ‘Above Moderate Income Capacity, for instance? Maybe instructions on how to read the charts would help. Alameda’s Housing Element Update has similar charts, but they are understandable.