Orinda City Council
March 12, 2024

H.3.d
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment D - Moraga Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Appendix Table 2
For-Sale Units - Calculation of Gross In-Lieu Fee Before Phase In In Lieu Fee Analysis
Town of Moraga, CA
Average Sales Price, Newer Units in Moraga $1,798,000
Average no. of Bedrooms, Newer Units in Moraga 3.96
Average net square footage, Newer Units in Moraga 3,040 sq ft Source: CoreLogic
B. Moderate Income Affordable Sales Price
3 Bedroom
Aff Price
4 Bedroom
Aff Price
Weighted
Average (1)
Appendix Table 4 Appendix Table 4
Affordable Price - Moderate Income $571,300 $613,400 $612,000 (1) Weighted to reflect the average of 3.96 bedrooms in the market rate unit sales data summarized in A.

Market Price $1,798,000
Less: Affordable Price ($612,000)
Affordability Gap $1,186,000
Affordability Gap
Inclusionary
Percentage
Average Unit
Square Feet
Gross InLieu Fee
Before
Phase-In
$1,186,000 x 10% ÷ 3,040 sq ft = $39.00 /SF
A. Average Price of Newer Units in Moraga Built Since 2010, Sold Last 4 Years (1/2019 - 11/2022) C. Affordability Gap
D. Calculation of For-Sale Gross In-Lieu Fee Before Phase-In Gross For-Sale In-Lieu Fee Before
Phase-In
_________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\16\16034\002\In-Lieu Fee Analysis Town of Moraga 12-21-22.xlsx; FS fee

H.3.d
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment D - Moraga Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Appendix Table 3
Rental Units - Calculation of Gross In-Lieu Fee Before Phase In In Lieu Fee Analysis
Town of Moraga, CA
Avg
Number of
BRs
Avg Unit
SF
Avg Effective
Rent Per
Month
Averages for Rental Unit in Moraga (Primarily older stock built in 1960s and 70s) 1.83 1,028 $2,110 Estimated Rent Premium for New Construction w/ Modern Finishes and Amenities (1) 50% Estimated Market Rent for New Rental Units in Moraga 1.83 1,028 $3,165 Source: CoStar
B. Affordable Monthly Rent
1 BR/ 2-p HH
2 BR/ 3-p
HH
Weighted
Average (1)
Contra Costa County Low Income Limit, 2022 $87,700 $98,650 Affordable Hsg Cost/Mo at 30% of Income Limit $2,193 $2,466 $2,420 Less: Utilities (2) ($95) ($125) ($120)
Affordable Rent $2,098 $2,341 $2,300
(1) Weighted to reflect the average of 1.83 bedrooms in the market rate rental units. (2) Assumes gas heat, hot water and cooking, air conditioning, electricity and water.

Market Rent
Affordable
Rent
Rent
Difference
Per Month
Rent
Difference
Per Year
Net Difference: Market and Affordable Rents $3,165 $2,300 $865 $10,382 Rent
Difference
Per Year

Capitalizatio
n Rate (1)
Capitalized
Value of Rent
Difference
Affordability Gap $10,382 ÷ 4.00% = $260,000
(1) Costar Walnut Creek area submarket cap rate for 2022YTD.

Affordability
Gap
Inclusionary
Percentage
Average
Unit Square
Feet
Gross In-Lieu
Fee Before
Phase-In
$260,000 x 10% ÷ 1,028 sq ft = $25.00 /SF
A. Estimated Market Rate Rents for New Units in Moraga
(1) To calculate the affordability gap associated with inclusion of affordable units in a newly built rental project, it is necessary to use rents reflective of new construction. CoStar data indicate nearly all Moraga apartment units were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, KMA estimated rents for new units based on a percentage rent premium for new units over older units. The estimated 50% premium is based on comparing rents for new apartments with those built in the 1960s and 1970s in Walnut Creek, where such data was available.

C. Net Difference: Market vs. Affordable Rents
D. Affordability Gap (Capitalized value of rent difference) Gross Rental In-Lieu Fee Before
Phase-In
E. Calculation of Gross Rental In-Lieu Fee Before Phase-In _________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\16\16034\002\In-Lieu Fee Analysis Town of Moraga 12-21-22.xlsx; R fee

H.3.d
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment D - Moraga Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Appendix Table 4
Affordable Sales Price Calculations
In Lieu Fee Analysis
Town of Moraga, CA
Unit Size (Bedroom) 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom
Household Size 4-person HH 5-person HH
Contra Costa County 2022 Median Income $142,800 $154,200 Moderate Income Limit $171,350 $185,050
% for Housing Costs 35% 35%
Available for Housing Costs $59,973 $64,768
(Less) Property Taxes ($7,138) ($7,675)
(Less) Hazard Insurance ($634) ($680)
(Less) HOA ($3,900) ($4,200)
(Less) Utilities ($2,796) ($3,348)
(Less) Mortgage Insurance ($4,340) ($4,666)
Income Available for Mortgage $41,166 $44,198
Supported Mortgage $542,700 $582,700
Down Payment @5% $28,600 $30,700
Home Price @120% AMI $571,300 $613,400
Monthly Expense Assumptions
- HOA $325 $350
- Utilities (1) $233 $279
Common Assumptions
- Mortgage Interest Rate 6.50% Freddie Mac 30-year fixed rate, average rate, 12/1/2022. - Down Payment 5.00% KMA assumption.
- Property Taxes (% of sales price) 1.25% Estimated based on sampling of property tax bills. - Hazard Insurance (% of sales price) 0.11% Estimate based on sampling of estimates for Moraga homes. - Mortgage Insurance (2) 0.80% loans up to $625,500

1.00% loans over $625,500
(1) Utility allowances per Contra Costa County Housing Authority (2022). (2) Based on FHA mortgage insurance premium schedule.

Single Family Units
_________________________________________________________ Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\16\16034\002\In-Lieu Fee Analysis Town of Moraga 12-21-22.xlsx; Affordable prices

H.3.d
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment D - Moraga Inclusionary Zoning In-Lieu Fee (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) B-18 Adopted Housing Element | January 2023

5.5 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Inclusionary zoning programs – of which the City’s local Below Market Rate or BMR program is one variant – are sometimes perceived as adding to the cost of housing by requiring the market-rate units to subsidize the affordable units. This is an area of much dispute, both in the Bay Area and nationally. There are as many positive aspects of inclusionary programs than there are negative aspects.

For example, a study conducted by the National Housing Conference’s (NHC) Center for Housing Policy (2000) highlighted several important contributions to inclusionary zoning to communities, not the least of which is the creation of income-integrated communities without sprawl.5 Over the last ten years, sSeveral studies have been published that specifically address the issue of who pays for inclusionary zoning. Some of these studies assert that the costs associated with inclusionary programs are passed on to the market priced homes, while other studies assert that in fact the cost is not borne by the end users at all. For example, the “Reason Foundation” study entitles “Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?” (April 2004) argues that housing consumers and some landowners pay for inclusionary requirements, not developers. The author asserts that market-rate buyer (and some extent, renters) will be forced to pay higher amounts than they otherwise would for their units because of inclusionary zoning’s implicit tax on other units.

In an article published in the Hastings School of Law Review in 2002 which provided one of the first comprehensive reviews of inclusionary zoning and its cost implications for jurisdictions in California, Barbara Kautz, former Director of Community Development for the City of Dan Mateo and now a lawyer with Goldfarb and Lipman, noted that:

Most cities that have conducted economic analyses have concluded that, in the long run, most of the costs are borne by landowners [rather than market rate renters or buyers.] Initially, before land prices have had time to adjust, either the market-rate buyers or the developer pays, 5 Inclusionary Zoning: A Viable Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis?” (Washington, DC: The Center for Housing Policy, National Housing Conference, October 2000).

H.3.e
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment E -Lafayette Inclusionary Program Summary - Excerpt from Housing Element Contraints Analysis (3098 : Inclusionary H.3.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) B-19 Adopted Housing Element | January 2023
depending on whether the market allows the developer to increase his prices. If the developer cannot raise the market price for the non-inclusionary units or lower his total costs, or some combination, his profits will decline…. To put this another way, builders will pay less for land because inclusionary zoning lowers their profits.6
Kautz asserts that developers will sell at the highest level they are able to sell at, meaning they will set prices according to what the market will bear. If a unit’s market value is $900,000, it will be sold for $900,000. Developers would not “add” more to the price to pay for the affordable units that are required; if they could sell it at $1,000,000, for example, they would have sold it for that price in the first place. Furthermore, if the market value of a unit is $900,000, a buyer would not pay $1,000,000. And, if all a buyer can afford is $900,000, then the buyer will not spend $1,00,000. Ultimately, the price for a unit is dependent on what the market will bear; it is not directly affected by the affordability requirement.

The requirement to add inclusionary units results in substantial costs to a project compared to being allowed to build all market rate units. These costs cannot be passed on to other purchasers because buyers will not pay more because the development costs more; buyers pay what the market will bear relative to the desirability of the unit, the location, and the community. Nor will the developer build for a lesser profit (unless the developer is unlucky enough to have purchased land and planned a project under one set of conditions and must sell units under a different set of conditions as a result of an unanticipated City policy.) The land price is the variable that adjusts, over time, to absorb the increased costs of development within the community.

If the cost of inclusionary zoning is not borne by the buyers or renters, but rather the developers (in terms of less profit) or the original landowners (also in terms of less profit), the question then becomes whether or not inclusionary zoning unfairly reduces the profit one can realize through the development of property. As the courts have repeatedly shown, zoning laws do not constitute a “taking” unless an owner is deprived of most, if not all, of the economic benefit of a property. Land is a limited community resource, and as such courts have given jurisdictions broad discretion in implementing a variety of land use mechanisms that tend to restrict both the value and the particular use of property in order to achieve objectives that meet the greatest public good.

In most instances – certainly within the State of California – local jurisdictions with inclusionary programs have analyzed them as potential constraints to development. This has been the directive of State HCD: while it pronounces “Housing Element law neutral relative to enactment of mandatory local inclusionary provisions,” the State also notes that there may be tradeoffs that must be discussed in the Housing Element’s constraints section. However, jurisdictions almost always have implemented a number of incentives and cost benefits to mitigate these impacts, so that whatever constraint has been identified there is an offset offered to mitigate it.

The City implemented its inclusionary zoning program in the Downtown only in 2016 (subsequent amendments have taken place in 2017 and 2018). The purpose of the program is to facilitate the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households of various income levels and sizes in Lafayette, specifically to assist in the dispersal of affordable housing units throughout the downtown.
6Barbara Ehrlich Kautz, “In Defense of Inclusionary Zoning: Successfully Creating Affordable Housing,” University of San Francisco Law Review – Vol. 36, No 4 (Summer 2002).

H.3.e
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment E -Lafayette Inclusionary Program Summary - Excerpt from Housing Element Contraints Analysis (3098 : Inclusionary H.3.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) B-20 Adopted Housing Element | January 2023
Basic Requirements
The ordinance applies to developments of two or more units and essentially re-implements the inclusionary requirements of the former redevelopment agency, which was dissolved by the governor in 2012. For single family for-sale projects, 15 percent of the units must be inclusionary units sold or rented at an affordable price to moderate-income households. For projects creating multiple for-sale family dwellings, 15 percent of the total units must be inclusionary units, with nine percent sold at an affordable sales price to low or moderate-income households and six percent sold to an affordable sales price of very low-income households.

For projects in the downtown that are multi-family rental dwellings, 15 percent of the total units must be inclusionary units, with nine percent rented at an affordable price to low-income households and six percent rented at an affordable price to very low-income households.

Alternatives to development
In-Lieu Fees: A project with two to six for-sale units may elect to pay the applicable in-lieu fees and is not required to build inclusionary units. Further, a project with seven to 20 for-sale units may elect to make all of the inclusionary units affordable at moderate-income. Similarly, a project with seven to 20 rental units may elect to make all of the inclusionary units affordable at low-income.

Off-Site Development: In addition, instead of providing inclusionary units on-site to satisfy inclusionary requirements, a developer may propose providing all or a portion of the inclusionary units off-site, including for-sale housing or rental housing. In order to approve such a proposal, the city council must find that on-site production of such units is infeasible or that greater public benefit will result from the units being off-site. The city council may require the provision of a minimum of one and may require up to two off-site units for every unit not provided on-site.

Regardless of the number of off-site for-sale units that are required, 40 percent of the off-site units must be affordable to very low-income households and 60 percent must be affordable to low- or moderate-income households.

In addition, regardless of the number of off-site rental units that are required, 40 percent of the off-site units shall be affordable to very low-income households and 60 percent shall be affordable to low-income households.

Affordability Restrictions
Basic Restrictions: For-sale inclusionary units are restricted to the applicable income level for a period not less than 45 years, while rental inclusionary units are restricted to the applicable income level for a period not less than 55 years, including inclusionary units proposed as off-site rental units.

Special Options for Ownership Developments: An applicant for a residential ownership project may elect to provide all or a portion of the inclusionary units required for the residential project at affordable rent to lower income households rather than provide for-sale units. Fifteen percent of the total units must be affordable to lower incomes, with nine percent rented at an affordable rent to low income households and six percent rented at an affordable rent to very low income households. If the applicant proposes to provide rental units off-site, 40 percent of the off-site rental units must be affordable to very low-income households and 60 percent must be affordable to low-income households.

Sales of Affordable Rental Units. If the owner of the ownership project later determines to offer the affordable rental units in the project for sale at an affordable sales price, any subsequent H.3.e
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Attachment E -Lafayette Inclusionary Program Summary - Excerpt from Housing Element Contraints Analysis (3098 : Inclusionary H.3.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) B-21 Adopted Housing Element | January 2023
regulatory agreement shall include provisions for sale of the affordable units, as well as relocation benefits for tenants of the affordable rental units.

Development Allowances, Reductions, Adjustments and Waivers In approving an inclusionary housing agreement, the city may, at its sole discretion, include one or more of the following allowances:
• Unit Size Reduction. The size of the required inclusionary units may be smaller than the market rate units.
• Interior Finishes. Inclusionary units may have different interior finishes than market rate units so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and consistent with current state building code standards for new housing.
• Accessory Dwelling Units. Projects consisting of single-family detached units may meet the inclusionary unit requirements by providing an accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of the city's accessory dwelling unit regulations on a one-for-one basis. Further:
• A developer of a project may petition the city council for a reduction, adjustment, or waiver of requirements based upon substantial evidence showing the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impact of the development and the inclusionary requirements. • A project that has received approval for a tentative subdivision or parcel map, use permit or other discretionary approval and submits a new or revised application for the same property may petition for a reduction, adjustment or waiver of the requirements with respect to the number of lots or square footage of construction previously.

Because developers can receive density bonuses when they provide affordable housing, the cost to develop the below market rate units is offset by the additional density – along with concessions and waivers – received. Table 4 above documents the achieved density of all recent multifamily projects developed since 2017. In addition to illustrating that average densities are being achieved well above zoned density, this table also notes that projects have proposed larger percentages of affordable units than required by the City’s inclusionary requirements, in part because of the additional densities achieved through a density bonus.

Although the ordinance calls for the setting of in-lieu fees, the City has not established in-lieu fees at this time. As a result, the Implementation Plan includes a program (6.1.c) to assessw the feasibility of a fee. The Implementation Plan also includes AFFH Action 2.2, which is an evaluation and adjustment the city's inclusionary and density bonus programs to allow a smaller unit contribution (<15%), larger density bonuses, and/or increased city support in exchange for affordable units that address the needs of under-represented residents with disproportionate housing needs (e.g., childfriendly developments with day care on site for single parents, and 3-4 bedroom units for larger families).

Based on the research and many years of implementation, the City’s inclusionary program is not a constraint to development. As noted above, Ddevelopers have a variety of options for complying with the provisions and will use the density bonus – which requires a certain level of affordability anyway – to obtain additional concessions and waivers. bonus to offset costs associated with providing affordable units.

H.3.e
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment E -Lafayette Inclusionary Program Summary - Excerpt from Housing Element Contraints Analysis (3098 : Inclusionary H.3.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
(c)
Part 7. - Special Housing Regulations
Chapter 6-34 - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
Sections:
6-3401 - Purpose.

The city of Lafayette's policy is to comply with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by providing reasonable accommodation in the application of its land use and zoning regulations and reasonable modification in a policy, practice, or procedure for housing designed for occupancy by qualified persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing. The city also recognizes the importance of sustaining and enhancing residential neighborhoods.

This chapter is intended solely for residential use. In determining whether a requested modification is reasonable, the city will consider, among other relevant factors, the extent to which the modification might be in conflict with the legitimate purposes of its existing zoning regulations, including where relevant, those regulations aimed at sustaining residential neighborhoods and preserving a suitable environment for family life. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a process for making and acting upon requests for reasonable accommodation.
(Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
6-3402 - Definitions.
"Housing designed for occupancy by, or with supportive services for persons with disabilities" includes a wide range of housing types, including, but not limited to, housing that is physically accessible to people with mobility impairments, residential care facilities for individuals with disabilities or for the elderly, group homes, housing for individuals with Alzheimer's disease, housing for persons with HIV/AIDS, housing with support services and transitional housing that serve homeless with disabilities.
"Person with disabilities" means an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual. "Reasonable accommodation and modification" means the act of making facilities used by residents readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, through the removal of constraints within the land use, zoning, permit and processing procedures. (Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
6-3403 - Application required.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
Any person who requests reasonable modification, based on the disability of residents, in the application of a land use or zoning law which may be acting as a barrier to fair housing opportunities, may do so on a form prescribed for that purpose by the city.

If the project for which the request is being made also requires some other planning permit or approval, then the applicant shall file the request together with the application for such permit or approval.

If the zoning administrator finds that the proposed development is minimal in nature and complies with the purpose and intent of this chapter and/or other related chapters of this title, the zoning administrator may waive the requirement for related discretionary permits, including, but not limited to, a hillside development permit.
(Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
6-3404 - Submittal requirements.

The applicant shall provide the following information:

Applicant's name, address, and telephone numbers;
Project property address;
The current use of the property;
The zoning code provision, regulation, or policy from which the modification is being requested;
The basis for the claim that the person(s) and the housing for which modification is sought qualify under Sections 6-3402(a) and (b) of this chapter, and why the modification is reasonably necessary;
Other relevant information as requested by the zoning administrator or his or her designee; and
Upon request and when necessary to establish a substantial impairment or the need for a modification, a medical certification may be required (this will not be required where the impairment and need for modification are readily apparent). (Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
6-3405 - Procedures for reasonable accommodation and modification.

The procedure for reasonable modification is as follows:

Application. An application shall be filed with the zoning administrator on a form approved by the city. The application shall include all submittal requirements as described in Section 6- 3404 of this chapter. If assistance is needed to complete the application, or an alternative H.3.f
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)
(d)
(a)
format for the application is necessary, the zoning administrator should be contacted for assistance.

Public Notice. Within ten days of deeming an application complete, a notice of pending application shall be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. If the zoning administrator finds that the request for reasonable modification is de minimus in nature and complies with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning administrator may waive the requirement for public notification. If a notice is appropriate, it shall include the following information:

Description of reasonable modification request;
Statement about the scope of application review permitted by this chapter; Date by which public comments regarding the application shall be submitted for consideration;
Date that the zoning administrator shall make a determination on the application; and Appeal rights as described in Section 6-3406 of this chapter.

Determination. Within 30 days of deeming an application complete, the zoning administrator shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application.

Expiration of Permit. The permit is valid for 12 months from the date of issuance unless a longer period is stated in the permit. If the applicant does not begin the work authorized by the permit by the expiration date, the permit shall expire. The applicant may request one 12- month extension from the zoning administrator.
(Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
6-3406 - Appeals.

A person desiring to appeal the determination of the zoning administrator regarding the approval, conditional approval, or denial of a request for reasonable modification shall file a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 14 days after the date of determination. The city council will consider the appeal within 30 days after the notice is filed. The city council shall limit its consideration of the appeal to whether the reasonable modification meets the findings in Section 6-3407 of this chapter. There shall be no appeal fee for appealing a denial of a request for reasonable modification. (Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
6-3407 - Specific findings required.

In making a determination regarding the reasonableness of a requested modification, the following factors shall be considered:

Special needs created by the disability;
H.3.f
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(a)
(b)
Potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested modification; Potential impact on surrounding uses;
Physical attributes of and any proposed changes to the subject property and structures; Alternatives which may provide an equivalent level of benefit; Whether the requested modification would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city;
Whether the requested modification would require a fundamental alteration in the nature or effect of the city's land use and zoning ordinances, programs or policies; Whether the modification would create a "direct threat," which is a significant risk to the health or safety of others, that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by further modification of the city's policies, practices, or procedures; and Whether the requested modification is consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
6-3408 - Fees.

There is no application fee associated with requests for reasonable modification.

No application fee shall apply to the request for reasonable modification unless the request is made concurrently with an application for some other discretionary approval, in which case, the applicant shall pay only the required application fee for the discretionary approval. (Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
6-3409 - Conditions of approval.

In granting a request for reasonable modification, the reviewing authority may impose any conditions deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable modification would comply with the findings required by Section 6-3407 of this chapter. Conditions may be imposed to ensure that any removable structures or physical design features that are constructed or installed in association with the reasonable modification be removed once those structures or physical design features are no longer necessary for housing designed for a person with a disability. Any approval or conditional approval of an application may be conditioned to provide for its rescission or automatic expiration under appropriate circumstances.
(Ord. 556 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2006)
Chapter 6-35 - EMERGENCY SHELTERS
Sections:

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
6-3501 - Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to provide temporary shelter for homeless persons or others in need in a manner that protects the health, safety, and general welfare of nearby residents and businesses, consistent with California Government Code § 65583, which requires all California cities to identify in their General Plan Housing Element at least one zone where emergency shelters are permitted by right without requiring discretionary permits or action, provided they comply with objective operating standards established by the City.
(Ord. No. 610, § 1(exh. A), 9-10-2012)
6-3502 - Definition of emergency shelter.

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Emergency shelter" means housing with minimal supportive services that is designed for and occupied by homeless persons for no more than six-months in a consecutive 12-month period. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. (Ord. No. 610, § 1(exh. A), 9-10-2012)
6-3503 - Permit required.

An emergency shelter that complies with the provisions of this Chapter shall be permitted within the General Commercial District 1 (C-1), pursuant to an emergency shelter permit. (Ord. No. 610, § 1(exh. A), 9-10-2012)
6-3504 - Emergency shelter permit; application and issuance.

An application for an emergency shelter permit shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on a form approved by the City together with a fee fixed by resolution of the City Council. The Zoning Administrator shall approve an application that meets the development standards set forth in Section 6-3505 without discretionary review or a public hearing, as soon as practicable, and in no event more than 30 days after the application has been deemed complete.

Pursuant to Section 6-250 of the Lafayette Municipal Code, this approval shall expire one year from the approval date unless a building permit has been issued for the project. The Zoning Administrator may extend the period to exercise the permit for up to one additional year upon a showing of good cause, if such request is received in writing prior to the expiration date.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(7)
(8)
(Ord. No. 610, § 1(exh. A), 9-10-2012)
6-3505 - Development and management standards.

Development standards. An emergency shelter shall conform to the development standards set forth below, as well as all development standards of the C-1 zoning district set forth in Title 6, Part 3, Chapter 6-9 of this Code, including the requirement for design review for any building constructed or altered to affect the exterior appearance. If there is a conflict between the C-1 development standards set forth in Title 6, Part 3, Chapter 6-9 of this Code and the standards set forth below, the standards set forth below shall be controlling:

Proximity to Other Shelters. No emergency shelter shall be closer than 300 feet to another emergency shelter.

Vehicle Parking. An emergency shelter shall provide one parking space for every four beds and one parking space for every employee.

Bicycle Parking. An emergency shelter shall provide at least one bicycle space for every five beds.

Shelter Capacity. No emergency shelter shall contain more than 30 beds. The city council may establish a maximum number of beds to be allowed in all emergency shelters in the city by resolution. The maximum number of beds in all emergency shelters in the city shall not be less than the number of unsheltered homeless persons in Lafayette as determined in the biannual homeless count conducted by the Contra Costa Homeless Program.

Length of Stay. The length of stay per individual in an emergency shelter shall not exceed six months in a consecutive 12-month period.

Screening of Outdoor Uses. An emergency shelter shall not allow or include any of the following to occur in front of an emergency shelter or in any other location incidental to the shelter that is visible from adjoining properties or the public right-of-way, unless the same is entirely screened from public view:

Designated outdoor smoking area;
Outdoor waiting and client intake area;
Outdoor public telephones; and
Outdoor refuse area.

Exterior Lighting. Lighting in or on an emergency shelter shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and of an intensity that is consistent with existing lighting in the neighborhood in which the shelter is located.

Laundry Facilities. An emergency shelter shall provide laundry facilities to serve the number of residents.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (9)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
Personal Property Storage. An emergency shelter shall provide secure areas for temporary storage of personal property of the persons residing in the emergency shelter.

Management Standards. An emergency shelter shall conform to the management standards set forth below:

Emergency Shelter Management Plan. The operator of an emergency shelter shall prepare and submit a management plan to the Zoning Administrator that includes, as applicable, the following: established staff training program to meet the needs of emergency shelter residents; adequate security measures to protect emergency shelter residents and the neighboring land uses; a list of services provided to assist emergency shelter residents with obtaining permanent shelter and income; and a method of screening emergency shelter residents to ensure compatibility with services provided at or through the emergency shelter prior to admittance to the shelter.

On-Site Management and Security Plan. Security measures shall be sufficient to protect clients and neighboring land uses. On-site management and on-site security shall be provided during the hours when the emergency shelter is in operation and at all times that clients are present on-site. An on-site staff person shall be designated as a neighborhood liaison to respond to, and address, any questions or concerns from surrounding residents regarding facility operations. Clients shall be screened for compatibility with shelter resources and for compliance with applicable State and Federal laws prior to admittance to the emergency shelter.
(Ord. No. 610, § 1(exh. A), 9-10-2012)
6-3506 - Appeals.

An appeal of a decision made pursuant to this chapter shall be brought and governed as set forth in Section 6-232 of this code.
(Ord. No. 610, § 1(exh. A), 9-10-2012)
Chapter 6-36 - DENSITY BONUS
Sections:
6-3601 - Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

Facilitate the production of affordable housing by providing incentives; H.3.f
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (c)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(A)
(B)
(C)
Implement the goals, policies and programs of the Housing Element of the Lafayette General Plan; and Comply with Government Code Section 65915.
(Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3602 - Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
"Affordable rent" means a rent, including a reasonable utility allowance as determined by the planning and building department director, for rental target units that does not exceed the following calculations pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50053:

Very low income: Fifty percent of the AMI, adjusted for household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12.

Low income: Sixty percent of the AMI, adjusted for household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12.
"Affordable sales price" means a sales price at which very low, low, or moderate income households can qualify for the purchase of target units, taking into account available financing, number of bedrooms and assumed household size, reasonable down payment, and affordable housing costs as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5. The affordable sales price shall not exceed a price affordable to households based on the following calculations:

Very low: household income at or below 50 percent of the AMI.

Low: household income at or below 70 percent of the AMI.

Moderate: household income at or below 110 percent of the AMI. "AMI" mean the area median income for Contra Costa County. "Child care facility" means a child care facility other than a family day care home, including not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school-age child care centers, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(h)(4). "Concession or incentive" means any of the following, pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(k):

A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Health and Safety Code Sections 18901 et seq., including, but not limited to:

Reduced minimum lot sizes and/or dimensions.

Reduced minimum lot setbacks.

Increased maximum lot coverage.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (D)
I.

II.

III.
(2)
(3)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
Reduced On-site Parking Standards. Upon the request of the developer, the City shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking,:

In the following ratios:

Zero to one bedroom: One onsite parking space.

Two to three bedrooms: Two onsite parking spaces.

Four and more bedrooms: Two and one-half parking spaces.

If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide "onsite parking" through covered parking or uncovered off-street parking, but not through on-street parking.

Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost and are compatible with the housing units and the existing or planned development in the area where the housing project will be located.

Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or the City that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions.
"Condominium project" has the same meaning as set forth in Civil Code Section 1351(f) for moderate income households.
"Density bonus" is defined as a density increase of at least five percent, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the applicant, and no more than 35 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan as of the date of application by the applicant to the city. "Density bonus housing agreement" means a legally binding agreement between an applicant and the city to ensure that the requirements of this chapter are satisfied and that establishes, among other things, the number, size, location, terms and conditions of affordability, and production schedule of target units.
"Density bonus units" means those residential units approved pursuant to the provisions of this chapter that exceed the otherwise maximum residential density for the proposed housing development site.
"Development standard" means any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, or other city condition, law, policy, resolution or regulation, as set forth in Government Code Section 65915(o)(1).
"Housing cost" means the sum of actual or projected monthly payments for all of the following associated with for-sale target units: principal and interest on a mortgage loan, property taxes and assessments, fire and casualty insurance, and homeowner association H.3.f
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
fees.
"Low income household" means persons and families whose income does not exceed the low income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. "Maximum residential development" means the maximum number of residential units permitted by the general plan and applicable zoning district at the time of application, except for the provisions of this chapter.
"Moderate income household" means persons and families whose income does not exceed the moderate income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. "Non-restricted unit" means any unit within a housing development that is not a target unit. "Qualifying resident" means a senior citizen or other person eligible to reside in senior citizen housing as defined under Civil Code Section 51.3.
"Senior housing" means a housing development consistent with the State Fair Employment and Housing Act which has been designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens and which otherwise qualifies as housing for older persons as defined in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.
"Target unit" means a dwelling unit within a housing development that is affordable to and will be reserved for sale or rent to very low, low, or moderate income households, or to qualifying residents.
"Very low income household" means persons and families whose income does not exceed the very low income limits applicable to Contra Costa County, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. (Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3603 - Granting of density bonuses and incentives.

The city shall either grant a density bonus and at least one concession or incentive, or provide other concessions or incentives of equivalent financial value (based on the land cost per dwelling unit) when the applicant for a housing development agrees or proposes to construct at least any one of the following:

Ten percent of the total dwelling units for very low income households.

Twenty percent of the total dwelling units for low income households.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (4)
(b)
(a)
Fifty percent of the total dwelling units for qualifying residents.

Twenty percent of the total dwelling units in a condominium project for moderate income households.

The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zoning change or other discretionary approval by the city. (Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3604 - Number of density bonus units.

The city shall grant a density bonus, and incentives or concessions described in Section 6-3611, when an applicant for a residential development project seeks and agrees to construct at least any one of the following:

Ten percent of the total dwelling units of a residential development project for low income households; or
Density Bonus Calculation
Percentage Low-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10% 20%
11% 21.5%
12% 23%
13% 24.5%
14% 26%
15% 27.5%
16% 29%
17% 30.5%
18% 32%
19% 33.5%
H.3.f
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (b)
(c)
(d)
20% 35%
Five percent of the total dwelling units of a residential development project for very low income households; or
Density Bonus Calculation
Percentage Very Low-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5% 20%
6% 22.5%
7% 25%
8% 27.5%
9% 30%
10% 32.5%
11% 35%
A residential development project meeting the requirements of a senior citizen housing development or a mobile home park as defined under state law; or Density Bonus Calculation: Twenty percent
Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, for persons and families of moderate income, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase.

Density Bonus Calculation
Percentage Moderate-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus H.3.f
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) 1 0%5%
11%6%
12%7%
13%8%
14%9%
15%10%
16%11%
17%12%
18%13%
19%14%
20%15%
21%16%
22%17%
23%18%
24%19%
25%20%
26%21%
27%22%
28%23%
H.3.f
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) 29% 24%
30% 25%
31% 26%
32% 27%
33% 28%
34% 29%
35% 30%
36% 31%
37% 32%
38% 33%
39% 34%
40% 35%
The applicant shall elect whether the density bonus shall be awarded on the basis of subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) above. All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The density bonus shall not be included when determining the number of dwelling units that is equal to five or ten percent of the total dwelling units. (Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3605 - Land donation.

When an applicant donates land to the city, the applicant shall be entitled to a 15 percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the entire residential development project as follows:

Density Bonus Calculation
H.3.f
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) P
ercentageVeryLow-IncomeUnitsPercentageDensityBonus
10%15%
11%16%
12%17%
13%18%
14%19%
15%20%
16%21%
17%22%
18%23%
19%24%
20%25%
21%26%
22%27%
23%28%
24%29%
25%30%
26%31%
27%32%
H.3.f
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(d)
28% 33%
29% 34%
30% 35%
This increase shall be in addition to any density bonus mandated in Section 6-3604(a) through (d) above, up to a maximum combined increase of 35 percent if the applicant seeks both the increase required under this section and the increase under Sections 6-3604(a) through (d). All density bonuses resulting in fractional numbers of .5 or higher shall be rounded up to the next whole number. An applicant shall be eligible for the increased density bonus described in this section if all of the following conditions are met:

The applicant donates and transfers the land to the city no later than the date of approval by the city of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application of the residential development project seeking the density bonus.

The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very low income households in an amount not less than ten percent of the number of residential units of the proposed residential development project seeking the density bonus.

The transferred land:

Is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units; and
Has the appropriate general plan designation and is appropriately zoned for affordable housing based on a density of at least the minimum default density as established by the State Department of Housing and Community Development; and Is or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure; and Has appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development of the affordable units feasible; and
Has all of the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development of the very low income housing units on the transferred land no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or of the residential development project seeking the density bonus, except that the city may subject the proposed residential development project to subsequent design review, if the design is not reviewed by the city prior to the time of transfer.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a deed restriction, which shall be recorded on the property at the time of dedication, ensuring continued affordability of the units for a term of at least 30 years.

The land is transferred to the city or to another housing developer approved by the city.

The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed residential development project or, if the city agrees, within one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed residential development project.
(Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3606 - Child care facilities.

When an applicant proposes to construct a residential development project that conforms to the requirements of Sections 6-3604(a) through (d) and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the residential development project, the city shall grant either of the following:

An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child care facility; or An additional concession or incentive designated by the city to contribute to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility.

The city shall require, as a condition of approving the residential development project, that the following occur:

The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the affordable housing units are required to remain affordable pursuant to this chapter; and
Of the children who attend the child care facility, the children of very low income households, low income households, and moderate income households shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are made affordable to very low income households, low income households, or families of moderate income households pursuant to Sections 6-3604(a) through (d).

Notwithstanding any requirement of this chapter, the city shall not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate child care facilities.
(Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3607 - Condominium conversions.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to provide at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to households earning between 80 percent and 120 percent of median income, or 15 percent of the total units of the proposed condominium project to households earning less than 80 percent of median income, and agrees to pay for the reasonably necessary administrative costs incurred by the city, the city shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value.

For purposes of this section, "density bonus" means an increase in units of 25 percent over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion.

For purposes of this section, "other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be construed to require the city to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation but may include the reduction or waiver of requirements which the city might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval.

An applicant shall be ineligible for a condominium conversion density bonus or other incentives under this section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a residential development project for which a density bonus or other incentives were previously provided under this chapter. (Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3608 - Design, distribution and timing of affordable housing.

Affordable housing units must be constructed concurrently with market-rate units. The affordable units shall be integrated into the residential development project and be comparable in infrastructure (including sewer, water and other utilities), construction quality and exterior design to the market-rate units. The affordable units must also comply with the following criteria:

Rental Residential Development Projects: When affordable units are required in rental residential development projects, the units should be integrated with the project as a whole.

All affordable units shall reflect the range and numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole, and shall not be distinguished by design, construction, or materials. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project.

Owner-Occupied Residential Development Projects: When affordable units are required in owner-occupied residential development projects, the units should be integrated with the project as a whole. Affordable units may be smaller in aggregate size and have different interior finishes and features than market-rate units so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
All affordable units shall reflect the range and numbers of bedrooms provided in the project as a whole, except that if the market-rate units provide more than four bedrooms, the affordable units need not provide more than four bedrooms.

No building permits will be issued for market-rate units until permits for all affordable units have been obtained, unless affordable units are to be constructed in phases pursuant to a plan approved by the city.

Market-rate units will not be inspected for occupancy until all affordable units have been constructed, unless affordable units are to be constructed in phases pursuant to a plan approved by the city. (Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3609 - Requests for incentives or concessions.

The applicant must submit a density bonus application, as described in Section 6-3614 below, for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests. The city shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following:

The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs; The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the Federal Register of Historic Resources, or the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate income households. (Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3610 - Granting of incentives or concessions.

If the conditions of Sections 6-3604(a), (b), (c) or (d) are met by applicant, the following incentives or concessions may be granted:

One incentive or concession for a residential development project that makes:

At least ten percent of the total units affordable to lower income households; or At least five percent of the total units affordable to very low income households; or At least ten percent of the total units affordable to persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development.

Two incentives or concessions for a residential development project that makes:

At least 20 percent of the total units affordable to lower income households; or At least ten percent of the total units affordable to very low income households; or H.3.f
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
At least 20 percent of the total units affordable to persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development.

Three incentives or concessions for a residential development project that makes:

At least 30 percent of the total units to lower income households; or At least 15 percent of the total units to very low income households; or At least 30 percent of the total units affordable to persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development.
(Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3611 - Types of incentives or concessions.

Incentives (or concessions) are broken down into three tiers depending on their level of impact on residents of the project and/or the surrounding community. Concessions with an anticipated greater impact require a higher level of review and approval which encourages least impactful concessions/incentives through a simplified review process. The three tiers of approval are zoning administrator (administrative), planning commission, and city council as outlined below.

If a single project requests concessions from different tiers, all requested concessions would be subject to the highest tier's review and approval. For example, if a proposed project requested two Tier 1 concessions and one Tier 2 concession, all concessions, including those from Tier 1, would be subject to hearing body approval under Tier 2.

Tier 1: Zoning Administrator Action.

Waiving the public art requirement.

Reducing processing fees.

Deferring collection of impact fees to certificate of occupancy.

Tier 2: Planning Commission Action.

Reduction in building setbacks.

Reduction of lot area standards, including allowing private streets to be included in the lot calculation.

Reduction in open space/landscaping requirements.

Reducing impact fees.

Direct financial assistance through funding grants.

Tier 3: City Council Action.

Any additional reductions or variations not specifically covered in Tiers 1 and 2.

Deviation from any other development standards not addressed in Tiers 1 and 2.

Density bonuses in excess of what is provided for under state law.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3612 - Compliance.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all agents, successors and assignees of an applicant, developer, builder or property owner proposing a residential development project governed by this chapter.

No tentative map, use permit, special development permit or occupancy permit shall be issued for any residential development project unless exempt from or in compliance with the terms of this chapter.

The city may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including but not limited to actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit or development approval.
(Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3613 - Density bonus application.

In order to receive the concessions and/or incentives described in Section 6-3611, the applicant must submit to the city a density bonus application which will be reviewed concurrent with the development application.

At any time during the review process, the planning and building department director may require from the applicant additional information reasonably necessary to clarify and supplement the application or to determine the consistency of the proposed density bonus application with the requirements of this chapter.

The density bonus application should include, but not be limited to, the following:

A description of the residential development project including the proposed total number of affordable housing units, senior housing units or mobile home park units; The zoning, general plan designations, and assessor's parcel number(s) of the project site; A vicinity map and preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, including building footprints, driveway and parking layout.

A description of the concessions or incentives requested.

If an additional incentive(s) is requested, the application should describe why the additional incentive(s) is necessary to provide the affordable housing units. (Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3614 - Siting.

Any affordable units constructed under the provisions of this ordinance shall be built on-site, unless otherwise waived by the city council.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
6-3615 - Appeal.

An appeal of a decision made pursuant to this chapter is governed by Sections 6-217 through 6-238 or Section 8-2110.
(Ord. No. 637, § 4(exh. A), 11-10-2014)
Chapter 6-37 - INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Sections:
6-3701 - Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households of various income levels and sizes in Lafayette. This chapter is intended to:

Implement state policy that declares local governments have a responsibility to facilitate development to provide for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; Implement the housing element of the general plan, which calls for the adoption of an inclusionary housing program;
Facilitate the development of affordable housing units within a project; and Assist in the dispersal of affordable housing units throughout the downtown. (Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3702 - Definitions.

In this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:
"Affordable rent" means a rental rate that results in monthly housing costs, including utilities, that collectively do not exceed the following:

For a very low-income household, one-twelfth of the product of 30 percent times 50 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit.

For a low-income household, one-twelfth of the product of 30 percent times 80 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. "Affordable sales price" means a sales price that results in monthly housing costs, including mortgage (principle and interest), property taxes, utilities, property insurance and homeowner association fees, that collectively do not exceed the following:

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
For a very low-income household, one-twelfth of the product of 35 percent times 50 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit.

For a low-income household, one-twelfth of the product of 35 percent times 80 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit.

For a moderate-income household, one-twelfth of the product of 35 percent times 110 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. "Area median income" means the combined salaries, wages or other sources of income of a single household, based upon household size, for Contra Costa County as published annually by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development. "Downtown" means the area within the boundaries of the downtown specific plan map. "First time homebuyer" means a household that has had no ownership in a principal residence during the three-year period ending on the date of purchase of the affordable unit. "Inclusionary housing agreement" means a document that has been reviewed and approved by the planning and building director that delineates the exact requirements that a developer shall meet to fulfill the requirements under this chapter. "Inclusionary unit" means a dwelling unit that has an affordable sales or rental price for households for a household at the applicable income level under the requirements of this chapter.
"Large family" means a household with five or more members. "Low-income household" means a household whose annual income does not exceed 80 percent of area median income, adjusted for household size as published by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for Contra Costa County. "Moderate-income household" means a household whose annual income does not exceed 110 percent of area median income, adjusted for household size as published by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for Contra Costa County, and would apply to for-sale moderate income housing.
"Project" means a residential or mixed-use development creating a net increase of two or more for sale or rental dwelling units. This excludes a legal second unit unless that unit is built to satisfy the requirements of this chapter.
"Very low-income household" means a household whose annual income does not exceed 50 percent of area median income, adjusted for household size as published by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development for Contra Costa County. (Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3703 - Basic provisions.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Geographic Area. The provisions of this chapter apply to the downtown.

Development Size Threshold. The provisions of this chapter apply to all projects creating a net increase of two or more residential units.

Income Calculations. The State of California calculates annual income limits for very low-, lowand moderate-income households that may vary from the definitions for such households contained in this chapter. In applying Sections 6-3702(a), (b), (g), (h) and (j) above to a proposed project, applicants may use the higher of the household income limits established in this chapter (50 percent of area median income for very low, 80 percent of area median income for low, and 110 percent of area median income for moderate), or the household income limits established by the State of California for the same income categories. (Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3704 - Inclusionary percentage.

Single-Family. For projects in the downtown creating single-family dwellings, 15 percent of the units must be inclusionary units sold or rented at an affordable price to moderate-income households.

Multi-Family. For projects in the downtown creating multiple for sale family dwellings, 15 percent of the total units must be inclusionary units, with nine percent sold at an affordable sales price to low or moderate-income households and six percent sold to an affordable sales price of very lowincome households.

For projects in the downtown that are multi-family rental dwellings, 15 percent of the total units must be inclusionary units, with nine percent rented at an affordable price to low-income households and six percent rented at an affordable price to very low-income households. (Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3705 - Calculation of inclusionary units.

To calculate the number of inclusionary units required, multiply 15 percent with the total number of units in the project.

When six percent and nine percent are multiplied with the total units to determine the number for each respective income category and the result is less than one unit for each income category, then the total combined percentage may be affordable to low or moderate-income households.

Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) above, a project with two to six units may elect to pay the H.3.f
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (d)
(a)
applicable in-lieu fees and is not required to build inclusionary units.

Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) above, a project with seven to 20 for-sale units may elect to make all of the inclusionary units affordable at moderate-income. Similarly, a project with seven to 20 rental units may elect to make all of the inclusionary units affordable at low-income. (Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3706 - Fractional units.

If multiplying the required 15 percent with the total number of units results in other than a whole number, a result equal to or greater than one-half shall be rounded up to the next whole unit. An in-lieu fee shall be paid for a result less than one-half.
(Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3707 - In-lieu fee.

This chapter establishes provisions under which an in-lieu fee is collected for inclusionary units. The city council shall establish the amount based on an appropriate fee study and shall update the fee over time.

The in-lieu fee requirements of this chapter shall be effective only after the city council has adopted or updated the fee by resolution.
(Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3708 - Segmentation.

Segmentation of a project in order to avoid the requirements of this chapter is not permitted.

Construction of proximate dwelling units within any five-year period for which there is evidence of common ownership, control or interest, and whether or not covered by the same land use entitlements, shall be subject to the regulations of this chapter. However, nothing herein shall prohibit the phased development of a project, as approved by the city.
(Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3709 - Term of affordability.

For-sale inclusionary units shall be restricted to the applicable income level for a period not less than 45 years.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (b)
(c)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Rental inclusionary units shall be restricted to the applicable income level for a period not less than 55 years, including inclusionary units proposed as rentals under Section 6-3712 of this chapter.

The term of for-sale units' affordability resets upon sale of the unit(s). (Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3710 - Design.

Inclusionary units must be dispersed throughout the project and be comparable in terms of bedroom count and exterior design to the market rate units. The inclusionary units must have access to all amenities available to the market rate units.
(Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3711 - Timing.

Inclusionary units must be constructed prior to or concurrently with the construction of the market rate units. The developer shall complete construction of all inclusionary units prior to final inspection of the final market rate unit. In phased developments, inclusionary units may be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase.
(Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3712 - Alternatives.

Off-site Development. Instead of providing inclusionary units on-site to satisfy the requirements of this chapter, a developer may propose providing all or a portion of the inclusionary units offsite, including for-sale housing or rental housing (see subsection (b) for-rent alternative to fee or sale, below).

In order to approve such a proposal, the city council must find that on-site production of such units is infeasible or that greater public benefit will result from the units being off-site.

The city council shall require the provision of a minimum of one and may require up to two off-site units for every unit not provided on-site.

Regardless of the number of off-site for-sale units that are required, 40 percent of the off-site units shall be affordable to very low-income households and 60 percent shall be affordable to low- or moderate-income households.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (5)
(6)
(7)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Regardless of the number of off-site rental units that are required, 40 percent of the off-site units shall be affordable to very low-income households and 60 percent shall be affordable to low-income households.

Nothing in this section shall obligate the council to allow any off-site units.

A developer proposing to provide the inclusionary units off-site must provide a relocation plan for any current tenants that may be displaced by the development of affordable units at the off-site location.

All other provisions of this chapter apply, whether the units are produced on-site or off-site.

For-Rent Alternative to Fees or Sale.

Ownership Projects. An applicant for a residential ownership project may elect to provide all or a portion of the inclusionary units required for the residential project at affordable rent to lower income households rather than provide for-sale units. Fifteen percent of the total units must be affordable to lower incomes, with nine percent rented at an affordable rent to low income households and six percent rented at an affordable rent to very low income households. If the applicant proposes to provide rental units off-site, 40 percent of the off-site rental units shall be affordable to very low-income households and 60 percent shall be affordable to low-income households.

Sales of Affordable Rental Units. If the owner of the ownership project later determines to offer the affordable rental units in the project for sale at an affordable sales price, any subsequent regulatory agreement shall include provisions for sale of the affordable units, as well as relocation benefits for tenants of the affordable rental units.

All other provisions of Section 6-3712(a) apply, except Section 6-3712(a)(3). (Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3713 - Inclusionary housing agreement.

An inclusionary housing agreement between the developer and the city shall be required for any project subject to the provisions of this chapter in a form approved by the planning and building director. The agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of a building permit.

The inclusionary housing agreement shall contain the following information:

The location, tenure (rental or ownership) and size of the proposed market rate and inclusionary units;
The calculations used to determine the number of inclusionary units; A floor plan or site plan depicting the location of the inclusionary units; The affordability level for each inclusionary unit;
The term of affordability;
H.3.f
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
A phasing plan for phased developments;
A description and details of any requested incentives, waivers or exemptions; For projects including a density bonus, documentation that the density bonus is requested for units provided that are inclusive of the city's inclusionary requirements; The process by which eligibility of qualified households will be reviewed and selected to rent or purchase affordable units;
An annual reporting schedule and requirements;
In for-sale housing, priority to first time home buyers and/or large families and in for-rent housing, priority to large families;
Additional information as requested by the planning and building director. (Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3714 - Allowances.

In approving an inclusionary housing agreement, the city may, at its sole discretion, include one or more of the following allowances:

Unit Size Reduction. The size of the required inclusionary units may be smaller than the market rate units, consistent with all other provisions herein.

Interior Finishes. Inclusionary units may have different interior finishes than market rate units so long as the interior features are durable, of good quality and consistent with current state building code standards for new housing.

Accessory Dwelling Units. Projects consisting of single-family detached units may meet the inclusionary unit requirements by providing an accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of the city's accessory dwelling unit regulations on a one-for-one basis. All other requirements of this chapter, including income restrictions and term of affordability, shall be applied to second units.
(Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
6-3715 - Reductions, adjustments, or waivers.

A developer of a project subject to the requirements in this chapter may petition the city council for a reduction, adjustment, or waiver of these requirements based upon substantial evidence showing the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impact of the development and the inclusionary requirements.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (c)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(f)
A project subject to the requirements of this chapter and which has received approval for a tentative subdivision or parcel map, use permit or other discretionary approval and submits a new or revised application for the same property may petition for a reduction, adjustment or waiver of the requirements with respect to the number of lots or square footage of construction previously approved.

Any such petition shall be made in writing and filed with the planning and building department, along with the required fee established by city council resolution, not later than ten days before the first public hearing on any discretionary approval or permit for the development, or if no such discretionary approval or permit is required, or if the developer is protesting an action taken pursuant to this ordinance after the first public hearing on such permit or approval, then the petition shall be filed within ten days after the date of the action objected to by the developer.

The petition shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim of waiver, reduction, or adjustment.

The city council shall consider the petition at the public hearing on the permit application or at a separate hearing within sixty days after the filing of the petition, the appellant shall bear the burden of presenting substantial evidence to support the petition including comparable technical information to support petitioner's position.

No waiver shall be granted by the city council for a new project where a prior project was approved within the last three years unless the city council finds that:

The new project is superior to the approved project both in its design and its mitigation of environmental impacts,
Adequate affordable housing already exists in that the aggregate of new or substantially rehabilitated dwelling units within the downtown makes available more than 15 percent of such units at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families of low and moderate income, and of such 15 percent, not less than 40 percent thereof is available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low-income households, or Exceptions to the affordable housing requirements will result in a better project that better meets the city's housing goals.

The decision of the city council shall be final. If a reduction, adjustment, or waiver is granted, any change in the project shall invalidate the waiver, adjustment, or inclusionary requirements unless such change is approved by the city in advance.
(Ord. No. 645, § 4(exh. A), 6-13-2016; Ord. No. 659, § 4(exh. A), 9-25-2017; Ord. No. 663, § 1(exh. A), 6-25- 2018)
Chapter 6-38 - HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND URBAN LOT SPLITS Sections:

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) 6-3801 - Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide objective zoning standards for housing developments and urban lot splits within single-family residential zones, to implement the provisions of state law as reflected in Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, and to facilitate the development of new residential housing units in a manner compatible with existing single-family residential uses and ensure sound standards of public health and safety.
(Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3802 - Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:
"Adjacent parcel" means a parcel sharing any portion of its property line(s) with the parcel being subdivided using the provisions of an urban lot split.
"Person acting in concert" means a person that has common ownership of the adjacent parcel with the owner of the subject parcel, or a person acting on behalf of, acting for the predominant benefit of, acting on the instructions of, or actively cooperating with, the owner of the parcel being subdivided. "Hillside overlay district" means the area shown on the map entitled Hillside Overlay District dated July 8, 2002, adopted by Ordinance 528, a copy of which is on file at the city offices. "Housing development" means one or two residential units on a single parcel within a single-family residential zone.
"Building footprint" means the area within the exterior walls of a building. "Lafayette area ridge map" means the map entitled Lafayette Area Ridge Map, dated July 8, 2002 adopted by Ordinance 528, a copy of which is on file at the city offices. "Natural contours" mean those contours existing on January 1, 2022 created through natural processes or pursuant to a valid permit to alter the grades on the site. "Light reflectance value" (LRV) means the percentage of light a color reflects and is measured on a scale that ranges from zero (absolute black, absorbing all light) to 100 percent (pure white, reflecting all light). "Percent slope" means the slope ("S") calculated for an area using either of the following formulas:

S = 0.002296 i L / A or S = 100 i L / a
Where S = average percent slope
i= contour interval in feet
H.3.f
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
L = summation of length of all contours in feet
A = area in acres of parcel being considered
a = area in square feet of parcel being considered
"Protected tree" means a tree that is defined as a protected tree in Chapter 6-17 of the Lafayette Municipal Code.
"Urban lot split" means a subdivision of an existing legal lot of record into no more that two separate parcels meeting the objective standards set forth in this chapter and the Subdivision Map Act. "Viewing evaluation map" means the map entitled Viewing Evaluation Map, dated March 1, 1993, as amended by Ordinance 558 on September 25, 2006, a copy of which is on file at the city offices. (Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3803 - Eligibility.

To be eligible for a housing development or urban lot split as specified under state law and this chapter, the proposed housing development or urban lot split shall meet all of the following criteria:

The parcel is located within a single-family residential district as provided for in Chapter 6-7 of the Lafayette Municipal Code.

The parcel is not located on either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction.

The parcel is not located on wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).

The parcel is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (6)
(7)
(A)
(B)
(8)
The parcel is not located within a hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses.

The parcel is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part

2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.

The parcel is not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site. A development may be located on a site described in this subparagraph if either of the following are met:

The site has been subject to a letter of map revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the local jurisdiction.

The site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The parcel is not located within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined H.3.f
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(1)
approval under this section, a local government shall not deny the application on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by that local government that is applicable to that site.

The parcel is not located within lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan.

The parcel is not located on lands with habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).

The parcel or any portion thereof is not under a conservation easement, which shall include conservation easements, scenic deed easements, and open-space easements.

The parcel is not included on the state historic resources inventory.

The urban lot split or housing development would not require demolition or alteration of:

Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.

Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control though a public entity's valid exercise of its police power.

Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

The parcel is not a parcel on which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner's rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.

In addition, to be eligible for a housing development, the proposed housing development:

Creates one or two new dwelling units, and
Does not allow the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls unless the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

In addition, to be eligible for an urban lot split the proposed urban lot split shall meet all of the following criteria:

The new created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (2)
(3)
(4)
The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.

The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this chapter.

Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split. (Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3804 - Application procedure.

All housing developments and urban lot splits as permitted under state law and this chapter shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.

A proposal for a housing development or urban lot split under this chapter shall be initiated by an application on a form prescribed by the city together with the required fees as adopted by city council resolution.
(Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3805 - Permit expiration.

A permit approval automatically expires if the use or action authorized is not started or construction incident thereto is not begun on or before the time limit specified in the permit, and thereafter diligently pursued. If no time is specified, the permit expires 12 months after the date of approval. The manager may grant one 12-month extension of time upon written request if the city has not made applicable changes to the Lafayette Municipal Code and the development is not changed. (Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3806 - Application of this chapter.

The requirements of this chapter are in addition to other applicable provisions of the Lafayette Municipal Code. Where there is a conflict between this chapter and other sections of the Lafayette Municipal Code, this chapter shall prevail.
(Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3807 - Construction of up to two units of at least 800 square feet.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
The standards set forth in this chapter shall not physically preclude the construction of up to two units per parcel and shall not preclude each unit from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, unless otherwise precluded by law. If the housing project cannot be designed to meet the objective standards and the objective standards would preclude two 800-square foot units, the city will provide relief from one or more of the objective standards set forth in this chapter and as prioritized by the city council. The city shall determine the extent of relief necessary to allow two 800-square foot units. The purpose of this section is for the housing development and/or urban lot split to comply with the objective standards, general plan and Lafayette Municipal Code to the maximum extent.

The city council hereby lists the following objective standards from lowest-to-highest priority. Encroach into 1) side yard, 2) rear yard, 3) front yard, 4) creek setback, and 5) ridgeline setback in that order. (Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3808 - Number and type of units allowed.

No more than two total units on each parcel, including accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, shall be allowed on parcels that have been created by an urban lot split pursuant to state law and this chapter.

No more than four dwelling units, including accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, shall be allowed on a parcel that has utilized the housing development provisions pursuant to state law and this chapter.
(Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3809 - Owner occupancy.

For a housing development, one of the two units shall be the property owner(s)' principal residence.

An applicant for an urban lot split shall sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. This does not apply to a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation.
(Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3810 - Deed restriction.

The property owner must record a deed restriction, acceptable to the city, that does each of the following:

Documents the parcel or housing development was created using the provisions of SB 9.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Expressly prohibits any rental of any dwelling on the property for a term of 30 days or less.

Expressly prohibits any non-residential use of the lots.

Expressly requires the property owner(s) to occupy one of the dwelling units on the lot as the property owner(s)' principal residence. This provision does not apply to dwelling units on parcels created pursuant to an SB 9 urban lot split.
(Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
6-3811 - Objective standards.

Housing development. The following objective standards shall be complied with.

The front setback, side yard setback, rear yard setback and secondary front setback shall be those established by the zoning district in which the property is located pursuant to Chapter 6-7 of the Lafayette Municipal Code. If one or more of those setbacks would preclude construction of two units of 800 square feet each, then the city will relax one or more setbacks to allow two units of 800 square feet each. At no time shall the side yard setback or rear yard setback be reduced to less than four feet for new construction.

Nonconforming setbacks shall be permitted to be maintained for an existing structure or structures constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. Increased non-conforming setbacks are not permitted.

Building height shall not exceed 35 feet as defined in Section 6-313 and two and one-half stories. Building height for accessory dwelling units where permitted shall not exceed 17 feet.

One off-street parking space per unit shall be provided, unless the parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. The parking space shall have minimum dimensions of at least ten feet by 20 feet, either covered or open, and shall not be located within the required setback or side yard.

Import and off-haul shall be limited to a maximum of 200 cubic yards combined for grading outside the building footprint.

Retaining walls outside the building footprint shall not exceed four feet in height. Multiple four-feet walls are permissible if they are separated by a minimum of four feet. Walls shall be constructed of natural stone or concrete and/or masonry with a cultured stone or stucco finish with a light reflectance value not to exceed 50 percent. Cut and fills shall be balanced so that off-hauling is maintained under 200 cubic yards.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Grade changes outside a building footprint within the dripline of protected trees are prohibited. If required to comply with state law, building footprints within the dripline of protected trees shall be drilled pier construction.

Building footprints shall not encroach in creek setbacks as calculated using the formula in Section 6-1841 LMC.

No protected tree shall be removed. If a protected tree must be removed in order to comply with state law, the applicant shall replace the removed tree pursuant to the tree mitigation calculations in Chapter 6-17, Tree Protection.

Driveways shall be constructed with permeable pavers where slope is under five percent.

Impermeable paving is permissible where the driveway is over five percent slope.

Patios and walkways shall be constructed with permeable pavers, decomposed granite or other permeable materials and applicant shall provide a permeability certificate.

Impermeable surfaces adjacent to pools shall be limited to a ten-feet radius outboard.

A stormwater control plan on a form established by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program shall be completed for each project demonstrating compliance by the Municipal Regional Water Quality Permit 3.0 established by the CA Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Detention basins for regulating stormwater shall not be constructed within ten feet of downhill adjoining properties.

Windows facing side property lines shall have a five-feet minimum sill height, except as otherwise required by fire code. This requirement does not apply to ground floor windows.

Compressors, pumps and HVAC equipment shall not be located between the front of residence and the front property line or secondary frontage and shall not be located within ten feet of a side or rear property line.

Applicant shall submit a water budget consistent with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) demonstrating water use of no more than 500 gallons per 10,000 square feet of lot area per day. The landscape area of single-family residence, or duplexes shall be designed with no more than 20 percent of the landscaped area planted in turf or plants that are not water-wise as defined as needing "low" or "very low" water per Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) established by the Water Use Efficiency Office of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) or other sources as verified by a licensed landscape architect.

Each dwelling unit must demonstrate legal access meeting current fire district standards which shall be demonstrated by a sign off from the fire district prior to application submittal.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (18)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with applicable underground utility ordinances and with the rules and regulations of the state Public Utilities Commission (6-2053).

Electric, gas and water utilities shall be separately metered for energy conservation purposes except for ADUs under 800 square feet and shall be subject to grading requirements of this section unless superseded by state standards.

Hillside development. For properties located in the mapped Hillside Overlay District (HOD), the following standards shall apply in addition to those listed above in Section 6-3811(a)(1)—(17).

No portion of a structure may be erected within a mapped ridgeline setback as shown on the Lafayette Area Ridge Map (LARM).

Specifically, no development may take place within 400 feet (measured in plan view) of a Class 1 ridgeline; no development may take place within 250 feet (measured in plan view) of a Class II ridgeline and no portion of a structure may be erected within 250 feet of a class III ridge that is higher than a horizontal plane that intercepts the ridgeline. The horizontal plane shall be at the nearest point of the structure to the ridgeline and perpendicular to the ridgeline or have an arc of 90 degrees from the endpoint of the ridgeline.

Each structure in the hillside overlay district shall not be visible when viewed from lower elevations using the adopted viewing evaluation map showing the streets/locations from which views are considered. If a structure permitted under state law is visible, the applicant shall plant and maintain a minimum of one 15-gallon tree along each five linear feet of visible structure to screen the structure. The trees shall be of a species listed in Chapter 6-17, Tree Protection. Trees for this purpose shall be planted on the side of the residence that is visible and the exterior colors of the residence must have a light reflectance value below 50.

Buildings shall be designed to have their longest dimensions parallel the natural contours.

Beyond 30 feet from a house any new tree species planted shall be one of the species listed in Chapter 6-17, Tree Protection.

Grading located outside a building footprint shall be limited to an aggregate maximum of cut and fill of 200 cubic yards.

No portion of a lot which has a ground slope in excess of 35 percent may be altered by grading.

Urban Lot Split.

Size. Each new parcel shall be a minimum of 1,200 square feet in area.

Number. Each parcel shall not be split into more than two parcels.

Fire safety. Each new parcel must demonstrate legal access meeting current fire district standards which shall be demonstrated by a sign off from the fire district prior to application submittal.

H.3.f
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) (4)
(5)
(6)
(A)
(B)
Depth. Minimum lot depth requirements shall be that established by zoning district in which the parcel is located.

Width. Average lot width requirements shall be that established by zoning district in which the parcel is located.

Slope. Each lot in the hillside overlay district will have a naturally contoured (not manmade) building site of 30 percent slope or less. All construction on each building site shall take place within the designated 30 percent slope area with the exception of:

An access road or driveway (not parking area) that does not require grading; An ancillary structure, such as a deck supported by posts or cantilevered, and where the natural grade is undisturbed.
(Ord. No. 681 , § 3(exh. A), 12-13-2021)
H.3.f
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment f - Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance (3098 : Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: May 2, 2023 Staff Report with Attachments (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Jurisdictions Links to Inclusionary
Ordinance
In Lieu Language Threshold Number of Units for
Inclusionary Requirement
% of Onsite Units
Required by Income
Category
Threshold that allows for InLieu Fees
Antioch n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Brentwood Brentwood
Inclusionary
Ordinance
Section 17.725.004
A. Approval of Payment of In-Lieu Fees. In-lieu fees may be paid for residential developments consisting of between five and nine dwelling units. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be adopted by resolution of the city council, and may be amended from time to time.

1. In-lieu fees for custom home developments shall be paid at time of building permit issuance for each custom home. For each permit pulled, the developer shall pay either the divided in-lieu fee or in a lump sum with the total fee, as elected by the developer.

2. In-lieu fees for all other residential developments shall be paid at building permit issuance for each market-rate unit constructed within the development. For each permit pulled, the developer shall pay either the divided in-lieu fee or in a lump sum as with the total fee, as elected by the developer.

3. Except as may otherwise be required by law, the amount of the fee shall be as set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of payment. In-lieu fees paid to the city shall be deposited into the affordable housing in-lieu fee fund in accordance with Section 17.725.007.

4. The in-lieu fee paid by the developer of an ownership development shall be calculated using a market rate median sales price based in-lieu fee.

This fee is based on the twelve-month median sales price for a three-bedroom, one thousand five hundred to one thousand seven hundred square foot, market-rate home in Brentwood, minus the current affordable housing cost as defined in the California Health and Safety Code for owner-occupied units for the applicable household income level. The amount of the in-lieu fee for each affordable unit shall be the difference between the market rate median sales price, calculated as above, and the affordable housing cost for a for-sale three-bedroom unit.

5. Developers of rental developments must construct affordable units on site or satisfy the affordable requirements through an alternative equivalent proposal other than payment of in-lieu fees.

Five or more lots or units Ownership and Rental–
3% Very Low Income
4% Low Income
6% Moderate Income
Projects of 5-9 units may
either construct one low
income affordable unit or pay
a fee equal to fifty percent of
the low-income in-lieu fee
Clayton Clayton Inclusionary
Ordinance

17.92.040 - Alternatives.

In lieu of including the Inclusionary Units in the Residential Development pursuant to Section 17.92.030, the requirements of this chapter may be satisfied through the following alternatives set forth in this section.

B.In Lieu Fee. For Residential Developments proposing ten (10) or more units, the Developer may request within the proposed Inclusionary Housing Plan to pay a fee in lieu of all or some of the Inclusionary Units otherwise required by the Ordinance in lieu of developing Inclusionary Units on-site.

Developer's request may be approved or denied by the Council in its sole discretion. The fee shall be charged for each unit or fraction of a unit as set forth in Section 17.92.030(c), and the fee shall be paid as follows:

1.The amount of the fee to be paid by Developer pursuant to this subsection shall be the fee schedule established by Resolution of the City Council, and as adjusted from time to time by Resolution of the City Council.

2.One-half (1/2) of the in-lieu fee required by this subsection shall be paid (or a letter of credit posted) prior to issuance of a building permit for all or any part of the Residential Development. The remainder of the fee shall be paid before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any unit in the Residential Development.

3.The fees collected shall be deposited in the Inclusionary Housing Fund.

4.No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any corresponding Unrestricted Units in a Residential Development unless fees required under this section have been paid in full to the City.
10 or more units Ownership only–
10% of for-sale units
provided to very low, low
or moderate income
households.

If only Low Income Units
are provided in lieu of any
Moderate Income units, a
credit of one and one-half
(1.5) units to every one
unit shall be provided.

However, the credits may
only be applied to the
extent such credit equals
a whole number.

Projects with 10 or more units
Concord Concord Inclusionary
Ordnance

18.185.040 Inclusionary housing requirements.

D. In-Lieu Fees.

1. Amount. A fee may be paid in lieu of providing inclusionary units for a residential project as provided in subsections (C)(2) (Fractional Units) and (4) (Projects of Five to Nine Units) of this section and for a residential project which contains less than 20 acres in gross land area. The fee shall be set by resolution of the city council and shall be an amount sufficient to pay the proportionate cost of providing inclusionary units elsewhere in the city. The fee may be periodically reviewed and updated by the city.

2. Use. All fee revenues shall be deposited in a restricted fund earmarked for housing developments affordable to very low, low, and/or moderate income households. Fees may also be used for administration of city affordable housing programs and to administer fair housing requirements for affordable units.

3. Timing of Payment. In-lieu fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit issuance, for projects for which a certificate of occupancy is not issued; or as otherwise provided in the conditions of approval.

4. Purpose of In-Lieu Fees. Nothing in this title shall deem or be used to deem the in-lieu fee authorized in this section as an ad hoc exaction, as a mandated fee required as a condition to developing property, or as a fee subject to the analysis in Building Industry Association of Central California v.

City of Patterson, 171 Cal.App.4th 886 (2009). Any in-lieu fee adopted by the city council is a menu option that may serve as an alternative to the provision of on-site inclusionary units as otherwise required by subsection (C) of this section.

5. The planning division or review authority may permit a developer to pay in-lieu fees rather than fulfilling the requirements of an executed inclusionary housing agreement requiring the construction of below market rate units if the reduced market price of the proposed units falls to within 15 percent of the “affordable price” for a moderate income four-person household.

Five or more units Ownership:
10% moderate income
or 6% low income
Rental:
10% low income
or 6% very low income
Projects with 5 to 9 units. Also
allowed for fractional units,
i.e. when the inclusionary
requirement results in a
fractional unit, the fraction
shall be rounded up to the
next whole number if the
fraction is one-half or more. If
the result includes a fraction
below one-half, the applicant
shall have the option of either
rounding up to the next whole
number and providing an
additional inclusionary unit, or
paying an in-lieu fee.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: C4 Summary of Contra Costa County Inclusionary Ordinances (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa County
Inclusionary
Ordinance
822-4.404 - In-lieu fee.
(a) The amount of a fee that is paid in lieu of some or all inclusionary units will be established in the community development department's fee schedule adopted by the board of supervisors.
(b) Fee amounts in the fee schedule for for-sale units will be calculated to be equivalent to the difference between the affordable sales price for a targeted household and the median price, as determined by the county, of all single family home sales in the county within the previous twelve months. Fee amounts in the fee schedule for rental units will be calculated to be equivalent to the difference over a fifty-five-year period between the average rent, as determined by the county, of a two-bedroom, one-and-a-half-bathroom apartment in the county and the annual affordable rent for a targeted household.

Fee amounts will be calculated annually.
(c) All fee revenues will be deposited in a restricted fund earmarked to provide housing opportunities for extremely low, very low, lower, and moderate income households.
(d) Funds will be appropriated for expenditures authorized by law that make housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, lower, and moderate income households and for costs associated with administering the restricted fund. (e) In-lieu fees shall be paid before the first building permit is issued for any portion of the residential development.

Five or more units Ownership: 15% of forsale developments of which 20% of the total
inclusionary units shall be
for low income
households with
remaining units affordable
rate to moderate income
households.

Rental: 15% of rental
developments of which
20% of the total
inclusionary units shall be
for very low income
households with
remaining units rented at
affordable rate to lower
income households.
n/a
Danville Danville Inclusionary
Ordinance
32-73.8 In Lieu Participation Fees.

In lieu participation fees may be appropriate for particular projects not suitable for inclusionary affordable units due to factors including, but not limited to, location, availability of services, extreme topography, development density, and environmental constraints. In such cases the applicant, upon approval of the Town Council, may contribute fees in lieu of providing inclusionary affordable units. Such fees shall be known as "in lieu participation fees." Applicants may make payment of in lieu participation fees in residential developments except that in lieu participation fees may not be authorized for residential developments with densities of thirteen (13) units or more per acre. a. The in lieu fee shall be calculated based on the subsidy differential between what a moderate income household (earning one hundred ten percent (110%) of current area median income), adjusted for expected household size and appropriate unit size, can afford to pay for housing and the estimated total cost of a new, non-BMR unit of appropriate size, as determined to the satisfaction of the Town. The in lieu fee shall be calculated on a project-byproject basis with the per unit fee paid subject to review and approval by the Chief of Planning. b. The in lieu fee for the entire residential development shall be due prior to occupancy of the first unit. (Ord. #2014-08, § 2)
8 or more lots or dwelling units Ownership and Rental–
Up to 20 units per
acre– 10% for lower or
moderate income income
households
21+ units per acre – 15%
for lower or moderate
income households
Applicants may make
payment of in lieu
participation fees in
residential developments
except that in lieu
participation fees may not be
authorized for residential
developments with densities
of thirteen (13) units or more
per acre.

El Cerrito El Cerrito ORDINANCE NO. 2018-02
B. In lieu fee.

1. The inclusionary housing requirement in Section 19.30.040 for For-Sale Residential Development must be satisfied by the provision of the required inclusionary Units, except when the number of required lnclusionary Units includes a fraction less than one-half (0.5). In that case, an in-lieu fee may be paid for the fractional unit. The inclusionary housing requirement in Section 19.30.040 for Rental Residential Development may be satisfied by the payment of a fee to the City in lieu of constructing the lnclusionary Units within the Residential Development, including fractional units. In either case, any fee that the Developer chooses to pay must be received by the City upon issuance of a Building Permit for the Residential Development.

2. In lieu fees shall be as follows:
a. For-sale Residential Development: For-sale lnclusionary Unit shall be [a $ amount per square foot] multiplied by the Livable Square Footage of the entire project and divided by the number of required For-sale lnclusionary Units, including fractional units. b. Rental Residential Development: If the number of required Rental lnclusionary Units is one-half (0.5) or greater, the fraction shall be rounded to the next whole number, and the Developer may either provide the Rental lnclusionary Unit or pay a fee in lieu of the Rental lnclusionary Unit. The in-lieu fee for each Rental lnclusionary Unit shall be [a $ amount per square foot] multiplied by the Livable Square Footage

3. The amount of in lieu fees established in this Section shall be included in the City's Master Fee Schedule and may be adjusted annually for inflation each July 1 using an appropriate index, as determined by the City Council.

4. If a project amendment results in a change in the total number of Dwelling Units, the in-lieu fee will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved Residential Development.

5. No Building Permit shall be issued by the City for any Market Rate Dwelling Unit in the Residential Development prior to the payment in full of all in-lieu fees to the City. The Developer shall provide both notice by recorded document against the Residential Development and, additionally, for each For-sale Dwelling Unit therein, the Developer shall provide specific written notice to any 16purchaser of any Dwelling Unit prior to the acceptance of any offer to purchase, and shall obtain executed acknowledgment of the receipt of such notice, that purchaser shall not have any right to occupy the Dwelling Unit until such time as all in lieu fees owing for the Residential Development are paid to the City.

6. All in lieu fees collected under this section shall be deposited in the City of El Cerrito Affordable Housing Trust Fund and utilized for the development of new Affordable Housing units.

Ownership– 9 or more units
Rental– 10 or more units
All residential development and
contiguous property under common
ownership or control.

Ownership: 12% for
moderate income
households.

Rental: 5% for moderate
income households and
5% for lower income
households
Ownership: An in-lieu fee may
be paid only for fractional
units when the number of
required inclusionary units
includes a fraction less than
one-half
Rental: An in-lieu fee may be
paid for all or any portion of
inclusionary units, including
fractional units.

All new residential development
projects designed and intended for
permanent occupancy located outside a
redevelopment project area
10% of all units with the
following distribution by
income for the
inclusionary units:
-20%: Very low income
households
-20%: Low income
households
40%: Moderate income
households
20%: To meet regional
housing need
Hercules Sec. 10-19.105 Exceptions to Affordability Requirement. (a) Payment of Fees In Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. Upon request of the applicant, the City Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to forty percent (40%) of the affordable units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to Section 10-

19.104(a) of this Chapter. The amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution of the City Council, which may be amended from time to time to reflect inflation and changed conditions in the City and the region. In-lieu fees shall be paid at the time and in the amount set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit.

Hercules Inclusionary n/a
Ordinance
(Suspended)
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: C4 Summary of Contra Costa County Inclusionary Ordinances (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary -All new development projects designed
and intended for permanent occupancy
within a redevelopment project area
15% of all units with the
following distribution by
income for the
inclusionary units: 40%
very low income
households and 60%
lower or moderate income
households.

Lafayette Lafayette Inclusionary
Ordinance
6-3707 - In-lieu fee.

This chapter establishes provisions under which an in-lieu fee is collected for inclusionary units. The city council shall establish the amount based on an appropriate fee study and shall update the fee over time. The in-lieu fee requirements of this chapter shall be effective only after the city council has adopted or updated the fee by resolution.
2 or more units in the downtown Single-Family–
15% for moderate-income
households
Multifamily ownership–
15% for lower or
moderate income
households with 9% for
lower and moderateincome households and
6% for very low-income
households
Multifamily rental–
15% for lower or
moderate income
households with 9% for
lower income households
and 6% for very lowincome households
Downtown projects of 2 to 6
units
Martinez n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Moraga Moraga Inclusionary
Ordinance
D. In-Lieu Fees. The Town Council shall, by resolution or other action, establish an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee.

Fees may be based on a fee per Market-Rate unit, fee per square foot, or any other reasonable basis. The fees may be periodically adjusted based on the annual percentage increase or decrease int he construction cost index since the last update. (1) For-Sale Units. The fee amount should represent a reasonable portion of the gap between the Affordable Sales Price at the corresponding income level and the Market-Rate sales price of for-sale housing of a similar product type. (2) Rental Units, the fee amount should represent a reasonable portion of the gap between the Affordable Rent at the corresponding income level and the market-rate rent for a similar product type over the lifetime of the affordability term. (3) Affordable Housing Fund. All fees collected shall be deposited in an Affordable Housing Fund. The monies deposited in the Affordable Housing Fund must be used to increase or maintain the supply of housing affordable to very low-,low-, and moderate-income Households, including reasonable administrative or related expenses.
(4) Applicability to Fractional Units. The In-Lieu Fee shall be applied to Fractional Units that result when the inclusionary requirements are applied to Residential Development when the Applicant chooses not to build an additional Inclusionary Unit. (5)Timing of Payment. Payment of In-Lieu Fees is due as follows:
a. For custom lot subdivisions where lots will be sold and homes will be constructed a future date, the In-Lieu Fee shall be paid at time of Final Map approval.
b. For all other Dwelling Units, the fee shall be paid to prior to building permit issuance for the project 10 or more units Ownership: 10% for
moderate income
Rental: 10% for low
income
Projects with 6-9 units may
provide one full inclusionary
unit or pay the in-lieu fee
Oakley n/a n/a n/a n/a
Orinda n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pinole n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pittsburg Pittsburg Inclusionary
Ordinance

18.86.080 Alternatives to construction of affordable units on-site of owner projects or low-density owner projects.

C. Fee In Lieu of Construction. Subject to the discretion of the city council, a developer of a residential project is permitted to pay fees in lieu of constructing affordable units if the city council finds that the residential project site is not suitable for affordable housing. To determine suitability for affordable housing, the city will consider issues such as proximity to schools, shopping, public transportation, and recreational amenities. In lieu fees shall be paid upon issuance of the first building permit for a residential project. If building permits are issued for only part of a residential project, the fee amount shall be based only on the number of units then permitted. The in lieu fee shall be set by the city by fee resolution or other action of the city council so that the fee amounts are equal to the cost of developing a comparable market rate unit on-site. The city council may annually review the fee authorized by this subsection, and may, based on that review, adjust the fee amount by resolution. 5 or more units Rental
Option 1– 9% for lower
income and 6% for very
low-income or
Option 2– 10% for very
low-income or
Option 3– 6% for
extremely low-income
renter units.

Owner (Low Density)
Option 1– 9% for
moderate-income and 6%
for very low-income or
Option 2– 20% for
moderate-income owner
units.

Owner (All Other)
Option 1– 9% for lowerincome and 6% for very
low-income
Option 2– 20% for lowerincome
n/a
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: C4 Summary of Contra Costa County Inclusionary Ordinances (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill
Inclusionary
Ordinance

18.20.060 Inclusionary housing.

G. In-lieu fees.

1. Approval criteria. In extraordinary circumstances, the approving body may authorize the payment of a fee in lieu of providing the inclusionary units required under subsection A of this section as follows: (a) for projects of nine units or less; (b) for any fractional unit in projects of 10 or more units; or (c) if the developer demonstrates, in connection with the first approval for the development (tentative subdivision map, or development plan if no subdivision is involved), that specific characteristics of the development site make the site unsuitable for households at the required income levels. Whenever the approving body authorizes the payment of an in-lieu fee, the in-lieu fee determination shall be automatically referred to the city council or redevelopment agency, as appropriate, for review and approval.

2. Calculation of fee. The in-lieu fee shall be established annually by resolution of the city council in an amount sufficient to represent a reasonable portion of the gap between the affordable sales price (at the low income level of affordability) and the market-rate sales price for single-family housing.

In order to determine the in-lieu fee, the following amounts shall be calculated: (a) a developer’s cost to construct a dwelling less the affordable sales price (the “developer’s difference”) and (b) the market-rate purchase price less the affordable sales price (the “market-rate difference”). The in-lieu fee shall be based upon the average of the developer difference and the market-rate difference for each of the following home sizes: a 1,200 square foot, twobedroom home; an 1,800 square foot, three-bedroom home; and a 2,200 square foot, four-bedroom home. The in-lieu fee can be expressed as follows:

Developer Difference + Market-Rate Difference then divide by 2 = In-lieu fee 5 or more units Rental or ownership–
Option 1.10% for lowincome households or
Option 2. 5% for very lowincome households or
Option 3. 25% for
qualifying senior residents
as defined in California
Civil Code sections 51.2
and 51.3 or
Option 4. 20% of
accessory dwelling units
for occupancy by lowincome households.

Projects of 9 units or less
Richmond Richmond Inclusionary
Ordinance
10 or more units Ownership
Option 1– 7% for lowincome households or
Option 2– 10% for
moderate-income
households.

Rental
Option 1– 9% for very lowincome households or
Option 2– 10% for lowincome households.
n/a
San Pablo n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
San Ramon San Ramon
Inclusionary
Ordinance
Section C4 -177. Inclusionary Housing Requirements.

For -Sale Projects. The following basic requirements apply to all new for -sale projects unless an alternative is provided by this Chapter:

1. Fewer than Ten Dwelling Units. All for -sale single- family and multi - family residential development projects between two ( 2) and nine ( 9) dwelling units may pay an affordable housing fee in -lieu of construction of affordable units. The fee shall be equivalent to 25 percent of the development' s total new residential livable square footage ( excluding garages) multiplied by the City' s cost per square foot rate as set forth in the City' s Fee Resolution. The formula below shall be used in calculating the amount of the affordable housing in -lieu fee:
25 percent of the total livable residential square footage, excluding garage) multiplied by (per square foot fee) equals ( total affordable housing in -lieu fee). The City shall deposit these fees into an Affordable Housing Fund as set forth in Section C4 -180 to mitigate the impact of the project on the need for affordable housing units.

3. Single - Family Detached Residential Developments. All for - sale single - family detached residential development projects of ten ( 10) dwelling units or more shall develop and reserve 10 percent or more of all for - sale units as affordable units to be sold to moderate - income households.

Construction of accessory dwelling units would not satisfy the Inclusionary Requirement of the project. Alternatively, the single - family detached residential project can opt to pay an affordable housing fee equivalent to 10 percent of the development' s total new residential livable square footage ( excluding garages) multiplied by the City' s cost per square foot rate as set forth in the City' s Fee Resolution. The formula below shall be used in calculating the amount of the affordable housing in - lieu fee: 10 percent of the total livable residential square footage, excluding garage) multiplied by ( per square foot fee) equals ( total affordable housing in - lieu fee). The City shall deposit these fees into an Affordable Housing Fund as set forth in Section C4 - 180 to mitigate the impact of the project on the need for affordable housing units 2 or more units Ownership: 15% with
inclusionary units
allocated by income level
as follows
20% Very Low
30% Low Income
50% Moderate income
Rental: 15% with
inclusionary units
allocated by income level
as follows:
50% Very Low
50% Low Income
Projects between 2-9 units
Walnut Creek Walnut Creek
Inclusionary
Ordinance
Sec. 10-2.3.905. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees.

A. As provided in Section 10-2.3.904, a fee may be paid in lieu of providing (1) inclusionary units in an ownership project (other than condominium conversion), (2) inclusionary units in a rental project, (3) inclusionary units in a condominium conversion project of fewer than seven (7) units, and (4) fractional inclusionary units below seven-tenths (0.7) of a unit.

B. For residential development projects constructed in phases, in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit in the proportion that the phase bears to the overall residential development project.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, to the extent that an ownership project (other than condominium conversion) or a rental project involves the demolition of existing dwelling units at a ratio of one-half (0.5) or greater to the construction of new dwelling units, the affordable housing inlieu fee and the requirements to provide inclusionary units shall be based upon the number of net new dwelling units to be constructed.

D. The City Council shall, from time to time, adopt a resolution setting forth the amount of the inlieu fees.

E. Fractional in-lieu fees shall be calculated as follows: The per square foot in-lieu fee divided by the applicable inclusionary requirement times the average square feet of a unit in the development times the fractional unit.

F. All fees shall be paid by the developer prior to issuance of a building permit for any residential structure in the development project or as determined by the residential development project's adopted conditions of approval.

G. The in-lieu fees shall not exceed the average estimated cost of otherwise providing the required inclusionary units affordable to a very low income household, a low income household or a moderate income household, as applicable, including but not limited to: (1) estimated construction costs, (2) the cost of land, (3) financing costs, (4) consultant costs (including without limitation architecture, engineering, and other costs), and (5) any indirect costs. (§4, Ord. 2025, eff. 3/18/04; §5, Ord. 2077, eff. 5/8/09; §1, Ord. 2085, eff. 2/20/10; §1, Ord. 2095, eff. 1/15/11; §4, Ord. 2178, eff. 1/5/18) No specific threshold; depends upon
the total number of dwelling units in the
project and the type of inclusionary
units being included
Ownership:

Option 1– 10% for
moderate income or
Option 2– 7% for low
income
Option 3– 6% for very low
income
Rental:

Option 1– 10% for low
income rental units or
Option 2– 6% for very low
income
n/a
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: C4 Summary of Contra Costa County Inclusionary Ordinances (3218 : Inclusionary Housing) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary From: David Biggs
To: Inga Miller; Darlene Gee; Latika Malkani; Brandyn Iverson; Janet Riley Cc: Osa L. Wolff; Sheri Smith
Subject: FW: Inclusionary Housing Item
Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:58:00 PM
Attachments: ab_1505_final (1).pdf
May 9 2023 Minutes Excerpt - Inclusioary Housing.pdf
Hello All –
Thank you to the City Attorney for noting that the information for your item tonight on inclusionary housing did not include one supplemental item from staff for the May 9th meeting and that is included below. In addition, I have attached an excerpt from the minutes for that meeting as well in case it is helpful.

David Biggs
City Manager
From: David Biggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:10 PM
To: Inga Miller <[email protected]>; Darlene Gee <[email protected]>; Latika Malkani <[email protected]>; Brandyn Iverson <[email protected]>; Janet Riley <[email protected]>
Cc: Sheri Smith <[email protected]>; Osa L. Wolff <[email protected]>; dbuckley <[email protected]>
Subject: Supplemental Information - Agenda Item H.2 Inclusionary Housing I would like to note one correction to information in the staff report as discussed in the Parameters section on Packet Pg. 214 under item 3. The illustration there refers to an 80-unit project, and the unit mix should be 20 studios, 40 one-bedroom, and 20 two-bedrooms.

Also, I have attached as an additional reference point, a State Department of Housing and Community (HCD) publication from 2019 which discusses the requirements for HCD review of inclusionary ordinances immediately after adoption if certain thresholds are exceeded. This is also insightful because it identifies the types of issues with which HCD would be concerned. That publication refers to their “Building Blocks” section of their website, and the link below takes you to where inclusionary programs are discussed.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/buildingblocks/fees-and-exactions A key consideration of HCD is how an inclusionary ordinance would interact with State laws like the Density Bonus provisions for affordable housing. For instance, under State law, any units required by an inclusionary ordinance that meet State Density Bonus criteria would also count toward Density H.2.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Bonus provisions such as a concession, waiver and, per the State formula, an increase in allowable density based on the affordability of the units and the overall proportion of affordable units in a housing project.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options)

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
October 21, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR: Planning Directors and Interested Parties FROM: Zachary Olmstead, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development
SUBJECT: Rental Inclusionary Housing
Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill 1505)
This memorandum provides guidance regarding Assembly Bill (AB) 1505 (Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017), effective January 1, 2018.

AB 1505 authorizes the legislative body of any city or county to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households (Government Code, § 65850, subd. (g).) Among other things, this bill specifies:
• requirements for alternative means of compliance for inclusionary ordinances, • parameters for the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review of inclusionary housing ordinances, under limited circumstances, by requesting the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure the ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing, and • criteria for HCD to review economic feasibility studies.

Copies of bills and other materials from the 2017-2018 session can be obtained at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ or the legislative Bill Room at 916-445-2323. For additional information or questions, please contact the Division of Housing Policy Development at (916) 263-2911.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options)

Rental Inclusionary Housing
Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill 1505)

BACKGROUND AND INTENT OF AB 1505
Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution grants each city and county the power “to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” This is generally referred to as the police power of local governments. The Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65000 to 66035) sets forth minimum standards for cities and counties to follow in land use regulation, but the law also establishes the Legislature’s intent to “provide only a minimum of limitation in order that counties and cities may exercise the maximum degree of control over local zoning matters.” (Government Code § 65800).

Many jurisdictions, pursuant to their police power,
adopted inclusionary housing requirements that
require developers to ensure that a certain
percentage of housing units in a new development
be affordable to moderate- and lower-income
households. Most, if not all, of such requirements
applied to both rental and ownership housing.

Despite the many local inclusionary requirements,
court decisions changed the environment regarding
rental inclusionary requirements. In 2009, in
Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los
Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1396, the Second
District California Court of Appeal opined that the
city’s inclusionary housing requirements associated
with a specific plan, as applied to rental housing, conflicted with, and were preempted by, a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. (Civil Code, §§ 1954.50 to 1954.535.)
The Costa-Hawkins Act, adopted in 1995, allows landlords to set the initial rent for a new unit and to increase the rent to market levels whenever a unit is vacated. The Court of Appeal concluded that the city’s inclusionary requirement clearly conflicted with Palmer’s right to set the rental rate for his units because the City would limit the rent that he could charge for the affordable units. After the Palmer decision, most jurisdictions with inclusionary housing ordinances that included rental housing stopped applying the inclusionary requirements on rental housing development.

In response to the court cases, AB 1505 supersedes the holding and dicta in the Palmer/Sixth Street Properties case to the extent that the decision conflicts with a local jurisdiction’s authority to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances on residential rental unit developments. The enactment of AB 1505 reaffirms the authority of local governments to include rental units within inclusionary ordinance requirements and adds a limited HCD review, under certain circumstances, of economic feasibility studies to demonstrate the ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing.

Legislative Findings on AB 1505
“Inclusionary housing ordinances
have provided quality affordable
housing to over 80,000
Californians, including the
production of an estimated 30,000
units of affordable housing in the
last decade alone. Since the
1970s, over 170 jurisdictions have
enacted inclusionary housing
ordinances to meet their
affordable housing needs.”
H.2.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options)

Rental Inclusionary Housing
Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill 1505)

LOCAL AUTHORITY
While local governments have long held the authority to adopt ordinances and regulate land use, recent court cases made that authority relative to rental inclusionary housing less clear. In response, AB 1505
provides clear authority that all
cities and counties, including
charter cities and counties, may
adopt ordinances that require,
as a condition of development, a
certain percentage of rental
units affordable to lower- or
moderate-income households,
including very low and
extremely low- income
households, and to reaffirm
adoption of the same be
conducted openly, consistent
with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

In clarifying this authority,
AB 1505 also recognizes the
importance of flexibility and
mitigating development costs in
meeting inclusionary
requirements. The law states
that inclusionary ordinances
with rental housing must provide
alternative means for
compliance. Local governments
may seek alternative means of compliance such as in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units. This list of alternative means is not exhaustive, and a local government could include additional means. A local government may also wish to consider other factors when allowing alternative means such as land dedication, off-site construction, and acquisition and rehabilitation.

Examples include strategic locations that minimize displacement, improve access to jobs and transportation, or improve a community’s inclusiveness.

California Building Assn. V. of San Jose
(2015) 61 Cal.4th 435
In 2010, the City of San Jose adopted an
inclusionary housing ordinance that applied a
15 percent inclusionary requirement for lowerand moderate-income households. The California Building Industry Association
(CBIA) filed a lawsuit alleging that
inclusionary requirements were an “exaction"
that needed to be justified by the impact of the
project, like traffic fees. The California
Supreme Court ruled that inclusionary
requirements are not “exactions.” Rather, the
ruling stated that enforcing affordable housing
requirements to address a growing housing
problem is “constitutionally legitimate” so long
as it "bears a real and substantial relationship
to the public interest", and cited the need to
increase the number of affordable units given
the severe scarcity of affordable housing in
California, and the desirability of having
economically diverse communities.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options)

Rental Inclusionary Housing
Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill
1505) Page 4

HCD REVIEW AUTHORITY
Since 1969, California has required that all jurisdictions (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting Housing Elements as part of their general plan pursuant to Gov. Code section 65580. Housing Elements are adopted every five to eight years and are subject to HCD review.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583(a)(5), a jurisdiction’s Housing Element must include an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including, but not limited to, land use controls, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. The element must also address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. As an inclusionary ordinance falls under this requirement, the Housing Element must include a description and analysis of the inclusionary housing ordinance framework, which would then be subject to HCD review. For more guidance on this analysis, please see the HCD’s Building Blocks Webpage.

AB 1505 provides HCD authority to review economic feasibility studies related to rental inclusionary housing ordinances. However, HCD is not required to review these economic feasibility studies and local governments are only required to submit the studies upon HCD request after meeting several other conditions (see below). Further, HCD will not review the actual inclusionary ordinance pursuant to AB 1505. HCD’s review is limited to a review of an economic feasibility study that provides evidence that the ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing. AB 1505 did not alter HCD’s review authority of inclusionary ordinances, rental and owner, as part of its obligation to review Housing Elements of the general plan.

CONDITIONS TRIGGERING SUBMITTAL TO HCD
Local governments are only required to submit economic feasibility studies if specified conditions exist:
• Rental Inclusionary: AB 1505 only applies to ordinances with rental inclusionary requirements. Ordinances with only ownership housing do not trigger requirements under AB 1505.
• Adopted or Amended Post September 15, 2017: Local governments who do not adopt or amend ordinances after September 15, 2017, do not trigger AB 1505 and are not required to prepare or submit economic feasibility studies to HCD.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Rental Inclusionary Housing
Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill
1505) Page 5

Jurisdictions adopting or amending ordinances after September 15, 2017, may consider conducting an economic feasibility study prior to the adoption or amendment of an inclusionary housing ordinance, but are not required to do so. • Level of Affordability: Only inclusionary ordinances that require more than 15 percent of the total number of units to be rented by households at 80 percent or less of area median income (AMI) are subject to AB 1505. Inclusionary ordinances that require less than 15 percent for 80 percent or less AMI household, or solely target household above 80 percent of AMI, do not trigger a submittal or review by HCD under AB 1505.
• HCD Findings: HCD may review any inclusionary rental-housing ordinance if it finds either of the following apply:
(1) The jurisdiction failed to meet at least 75
percent of its share of its above-moderate
income Regional Housing Need Allocation
(RHNA) (prorated based on the length of
time within the planning period) over at
least a five-year period, based on the
jurisdiction’s annual Housing Element
report; or
(2) The jurisdiction failed to submit the annual
Housing Element report for at least two
consecutive years.
• HCD Request and Time Limits: Local
governments are only required to submit an economic feasibility study upon HCD request. HCD cannot request to review an economic feasibility study for an ordinance if more than 10 years have passed since the adoption or amendment of that ordinance, whichever is later.

Examples of when the review provisions of AB 1505 apply:
• Jurisdiction adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance for both ownership and rental units in 2003. Due to the results of the Palmer/Sixth Street Properties case, the jurisdiction deleted the reference to rental units in the inclusionary housing ordinance. In 2019, the jurisdiction amends the inclusionary housing ordinance to reinstate its application to rental units.
• Jurisdiction adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance for both ownership and rental units in 2003. The ordinance requires on-site construction of the affordable rental units and does not provide for alternative means of compliance to the on-site requirement for rental units. In 2019, the jurisdiction amends the inclusionary Annual Progress Reports
Local governments are required to
submit Annual Progress Reports
on implementation of the general
plan pursuant to Gov. Code
section 65400. The report includes
progress toward the RHNA by
income group. HCD makes that
data available through interactive
maps at Interactive RHNA Maps.

For assistance on annual reports,
contact [email protected].

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Rental Inclusionary Housing
Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill
1505) Page 6

housing ordinance to include alternative means of compliance to the on-site requirement for rental units.
• Jurisdiction adopts a new inclusionary housing ordinance for rental units in 2018.

Examples of when the review provisions of AB 1505 do not apply:
• Enforcement of a preexisting ordinance: A jurisdiction with an inclusionary housing ordinance adopted in 2003 for both ownership and rental units did not enforce the inclusionary requirement for rental units due to the results of the Palmer/Sixth Street Properties case. Now, the jurisdiction is enforcing the inclusionary requirement for rental units without adopting or amending the ordinance. • Reinstatement of a previously suspended ordinance: A jurisdiction with an inclusionary housing ordinance adopted in 2008 for both ownership and rental units suspended the inclusionary requirement for rental units due to the results of the Palmer/Sixth Street Properties case. Now, the jurisdiction is reinstating the suspended inclusionary requirement for rental units without adopting an, or amending the, inclusionary housing ordinance.

HCD REVIEW PROCESS, CRITERIA AND TIMING
Review Process
Step 1: Evaluate applicability of AB 1505 review to subject inclusionary ordinance.

Third parties can request HCD’s evaluation of a jurisdiction’s rental inclusionary housing ordinance by submitting a request to the HCD’s accountability and enforcement email address, [email protected]. HCD may also initiate an evaluation of an inclusionary housing ordinance based on information contained within a Housing Element, Annual Progress Report, stakeholder comment letter, phone call, news article, or additional source.

Step 2: If HCD requests evidence that the ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing, the jurisdiction must submit an economic feasibility study to HCD within 180 days from its receipt of HCD’s request. When complying with the HCD request, the jurisdiction should submit sufficient information to demonstrate how the study meets the specified criteria below.

Step 3: Upon submission of an economic feasibility study, HCD has 90 days to issue a finding as to whether or not the study meets all specified criteria. During its review, HCD may consult with any local government, agency, group, or person prior to issuance of its findings.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options)

Rental Inclusionary Housing
Chapter 486, Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill
1505) Page 7
Specified Criteria
• A qualified entity with demonstrated expertise in the preparation of economic feasibility studies prepared the economic feasibility study. • The study methodology followed best professional practices and was sufficiently rigorous to allow an assessment of whether the rental inclusionary requirement, in combination with other factors that influence feasibility, is economically feasible. • If the economic feasibility study was prepared after September 15, 2017, the jurisdiction must have made it available on its website for at least 30 days. After the 30-day period expired, the study must have been placed on the agenda of a regularly scheduled meeting of the jurisdiction’s legislative body for consideration and approval.

The economic feasibility study should not be confused with a “nexus study” required when a jurisdiction seeks to justify impact mitigation fees, such as commercial linkage fees, prepared pursuant to Government Code section 66000. Inclusionary requirements may be based on the existing and projected housing needs of the region and other factors reasonably related to the regional welfare. They need not be based on a demonstration of the additional need for affordable housing generated by new residential development.

If a jurisdiction fails to submit an economic feasibility study to HCD within 180 days of receiving HCD’s request, or if HCD makes a final decision that the economic feasibility study does not meet the statutory requirements, the jurisdiction’s rental inclusionary requirement cannot require more than 15 percent of the total number of units in a development be affordable to households at 80 percent of the area median income. The jurisdiction may continue implementing a requirement at more than 15 percent once it has submitted an economic feasibility study to HCD providing evidence that the inclusionary housing ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production, and HCD makes a finding that the study meets the statutory requirements.

APPEALS
A jurisdiction can appeal HCD’s finding that the economic feasibility study does not meet the statutory requirements by submitting an appeal to the Director of HCD. Once HCD receives the appeal, it has 90 days to issue a final decision, unless the timeline is extended by a mutual agreement between the jurisdiction and HCD.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Attachment A
AB 1505 Revisions to Sections 65850, 65850.01, and Section 3 SECTION 1. Section 65850 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65850. The legislative body of any county or city may, pursuant to this chapter, adopt ordinances that do any of the following:
(a) Regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land as between industry, business, residences, open space, including agriculture, recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, use of natural resources, and other purposes.
(b) Regulate signs and billboards.
(c) Regulate all of the following:
(1) The location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and structures. (2) The size and use of lots, yards, courts, and other open spaces. (3) The percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or structure. (4) The intensity of land use.
(d) Establish requirements for off street parking and loading. (e) Establish and maintain building setback lines.
(f) Create civic districts around civic centers, public parks, public buildings, or public grounds, and establish regulations for
those civic districts.
(g) Require, as a condition of the development of residential rental units, that the development include a certain percentage of residential rental units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households specified in Sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. The ordinance shall provide alternative means of compliance that may include, but are not limited to, in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units.

SECTION. 2.

Section 65850.01 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65850.01. (a) The Department of Housing and Community Development, hereafter referred to as “the department” in this section, shall have the authority to review an ordinance adopted or amended by a county or city after September 15, 2017, that requires as a condition of the development of residential rental units that more than 15 percent of the total number of units rented in a development be affordable to, and occupied by, households at 80 percent or less of the area median income if either of the following apply:
(1) The county or city has failed to meet at least 75 percent of its share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Sections 65584.04, 65584.05, and 65584.06, as applicable for the abovemoderate income category specified in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, prorated based on the length of time within the planning period pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 65588, over at least a five-year period. This determination shall be made based on the annual housing element report submitted to the department pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
(2) The department finds that the jurisdiction has not submitted the annual housing element report as required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 for at least two consecutive years.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options)

(b) Based on a finding pursuant to subdivision (a), the department may request, and the county or city shall provide, evidence that the ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing by submitting an economic feasibility study. The county or city shall submit the study within 180 days from receipt of the department’s request. The department’s review of the feasibility study shall be limited to determining whether or not the study meets the following standards:
(1) A qualified entity with demonstrated expertise preparing economic feasibility studies prepared the study.
(2) If the economic feasibility study is prepared after September 15, 2017, the county or city has made the economic feasibility study available for at least 30 days on its Internet Web site. After 30 days, the county or city shall include consideration of the economic feasibility study on the agenda for a regularly scheduled meeting of the legislative body of the county or city prior to consideration and approval. This paragraph applies when an economic feasibility study is completed at the request of the department or prepared in connection with the ordinance. (3) The study methodology followed best professional practices and was sufficiently rigorous to allow an assessment of whether the rental inclusionary requirement, in combination with other factors that influence feasibility, is economically feasible.
(c) If the economic feasibility study requested pursuant to subdivision (b) has not been submitted to the department within 180 days, the jurisdiction shall limit any requirement to provide rental units in a development affordable to households at 80 percent of the area median income to no more than 15 percent of the total number of units in a development until an economic feasibility study has been submitted to the department and the department makes a finding that the study meets the standards specified in paragraphs (1), (3), and, if applicable, (2), of subdivision (b). (d) (1) Within 90 days of submission, the department shall make a finding as to whether or not the economic feasibility study meets the standards specified in paragraphs (1), (3), and, if applicable, (2), of subdivision (b).
(2) If the department finds that the jurisdiction’s economic feasibility study does not meet the standards in paragraphs (1), (3), and, if applicable, (2), of subdivision (b), the jurisdiction shall have the right to appeal the decision to the Director of Housing and Community Development or his or her designee. The director or his or her designee shall issue a final decision within 90 days of the department’s receipt of the appeal unless extended by mutual agreement of the jurisdiction and the department.
(3) If in its final decision the department finds that jurisdiction’s economic feasibility study does not meet the standards in paragraphs (1), (3), and, if applicable, (2), of subdivision (b), the jurisdiction shall limit any requirement to provide rental units in a development affordable to households at 80 percent of the area median income to no more than 15 percent of the total number of units in a development until such time as the jurisdiction submits an economic feasibility study that supports the ordinance under review and the department issues a finding that the study meets the standards in paragraphs (1), (3), and, if applicable, (2), of subdivision (b). (e) The department shall not request to review an economic feasibility study for an ordinance more than 10 years from the date of adoption or amendment of the ordinance, whichever is later. (f) The department shall annually report any findings made pursuant to this section to the Legislature.

The report required by this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795. (g) The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section shall apply to an ordinance proposed or adopted by any city, including a charter city.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options)

SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Inclusionary housing ordinances have provided quality affordable housing to over 80,000 Californians, including the production of an estimated 30,000 units of affordable housing in the last decade alone.
(b) Since the 1970s, over 170 jurisdictions have enacted inclusionary housing ordinances to meet their affordable housing needs.
(c) While many of these local programs have been in place for decades, a 2009 appellate court decision has created uncertainty and confusion for local governments regarding the use of this tool to ensure the inclusion of affordable rental units in residential developments. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature to reaffirm the authority of local jurisdictions to include within these inclusionary housing ordinances requirements related to the provision of rental units. (e) The Legislature declares its intent in adding subdivision (g) to Section 65850 of the Government Code, pursuant to Section 1 of this act, to supersede the holding and dicta in the court decision of Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1396 to the extent that the decision conflicts with a local jurisdiction’s authority to impose inclusionary housing ordinances pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 65850 of the Government Code, as added pursuant to Section 1 of this act.
(f) In no case is it the intent of the Legislature in adding subdivision (g) to Section 65850 of the Government Code, pursuant to Section 1 of this act, to enlarge, diminish, or modify in any way the existing authority of local jurisdictions to establish, as a condition of development, inclusionary housing requirements, beyond reaffirming their applicability to rental units. (g) This act does not modify or in any way change or affect the authority of local jurisdictions to require, as a condition of the development of residential units, that the development include a certain percentage of residential for-sale units affordable to, and occupied by, households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households.
(h) It is the intent of the Legislature to reaffirm that existing law requires that the action of any legislative body of any city, county, or city and county to adopt a new inclusionary housing ordinance be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly consistent with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code).
(i) Except as provided in subdivision (e), in no case is it the intent of the Legislature in adding subdivision (g) to Section 65850 of the Government Code, pursuant to Section 1 of this act, to enlarge, diminish, or modify in any way the existing rights of an owner of residential real property under Sections 1954.50 to 1954.535, inclusive, of the Civil Code and Sections 7060 to 7060.7, inclusive, of the Government Code.

H.2.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Inclusionary Housing SR (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Minutes Excerpt - 10032023 (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Jurisdictions Links to Inclusionary Ordinance In Lieu Language Threshold Number of Units for Inclusionary Requirement % of Onsite Units Required by Income Category Threshold that allows for In-Lieu Fees In-Lieu Fee Calculations Antioch n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Brentwood Brentwood Inclusionary
Ordinance
Section 17.725.004 A. Approval of Payment of In-Lieu Fees. In-lieu fees may be paid for residential developments consisting of between five and nine dwelling units. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be adopted by resolution of the city council, and may be amended from time to time.

1. In-lieu fees for custom home developments shall be paid at time of building permit issuance for each custom home. For each permit pulled, the developer shall pay either the divided in-lieu fee or in a lump sum with the total fee, as elected by the developer.

2. In-lieu fees for all other residential developments shall be paid at building permit issuance for each market-rate unit constructed within the development. For each permit pulled, the developer shall pay either the divided in-lieu fee or in a lump sum as with the total fee, as elected by the developer.

3. Except as may otherwise be required by law, the amount of the fee shall be as set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of payment. In-lieu fees paid to the city shall be deposited into the affordable housing in-lieu fee fund in accordance with Section 17.725.007.

4. The in-lieu fee paid by the developer of an ownership development shall be calculated using a market rate median sales price based in-lieu fee. This fee is based on the twelve-month median sales price for a three-bedroom, one thousand five hundred to one thousand seven hundred square foot, market-rate home in Brentwood, minus the current affordable housing cost as defined in the California Health and Safety Code for owner-occupied units for the applicable household income level. The amount of the in-lieu fee for each affordable unit shall be the difference between the market rate median sales price, calculated as above, and the affordable housing cost for a for-sale three-bedroom unit.

5. Developers of rental developments must construct affordable units on site or satisfy the affordable requirements through an l l l h h f l f
Five or more lots or units Ownership and Rental–
3% Very Low Income
4% Low Income
6% Moderate Income
Projects of 5-9 units may either
construct one low income affordable
unit or pay a fee equal to fifty percent
of the low-income in-lieu fee
The City of Brentwood’s affordable housing in-lieu fee is calculated based on the weighted average of the monthly median sales price for a 3-bedroom home in Brentwood, sized between 1500-1700 sq. ft., that was sold between May to April in the prior year minus the current affordable housing cost as defined in the California Health and Safety Code for owner-occupied units for the applicable household income level.

See the 'Brentwood' Sheet for current information and in-lieu fees Clayton Clayton Inclusionary Ordinance 17.92.040 - Alternatives.

In lieu of including the Inclusionary Units in the Residential Development pursuant to Section 17.92.030, the requirements of this chapter may be satisfied through the following alternatives set forth in this section.

B.In Lieu Fee. For Residential Developments proposing ten (10) or more units, the Developer may request within the proposed Inclusionary Housing Plan to pay a fee in lieu of all or some of the Inclusionary Units otherwise required by the Ordinance in lieu of developing Inclusionary Units on-site. Developer's request may be approved or denied by the Council in its sole discretion. The fee shall be charged for each unit or fraction of a unit as set forth in Section 17.92.030(c), and the fee shall be paid as follows:

1.The amount of the fee to be paid by Developer pursuant to this subsection shall be the fee schedule established by Resolution of the City Council, and as adjusted from time to time by Resolution of the City Council. 2.One-half (1/2) of the in-lieu fee required by this subsection shall be paid (or a letter of credit posted) prior to issuance of a building permit for all or any part of the Residential Development. The remainder of the fee shall be paid before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any unit in the Residential Development.

3.The fees collected shall be deposited in the Inclusionary Housing Fund. 4.No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any corresponding Unrestricted Units in a Residential Development unless fees required under this section have been paid in full to the City. 10 or more units Ownership only–
10% of for-sale units provided to very low, low or
moderate income households.

If only Low Income Units are provided in lieu of
any Moderate Income units, a credit of one and
one-half (1.5) units to every one unit shall be
provided. However, the credits may only be
applied to the extent such credit equals a whole
number.

Projects with 10 or more units Information not found
Concord Concord Inclusionary Ordnance 18.185.040 Inclusionary housing requirements.

D. In-Lieu Fees.

1. Amount. A fee may be paid in lieu of providing inclusionary units for a residential project as provided in subsections (C)(2) (Fractional Units) and (4) (Projects of Five to Nine Units) of this section and for a residential project which contains less than 20 acres in gross land area. The fee shall be set by resolution of the city council and shall be an amount sufficient to pay the proportionate cost of providing inclusionary units elsewhere in the city. The fee may be periodically reviewed and updated by the city. 2. Use. All fee revenues shall be deposited in a restricted fund earmarked for housing developments affordable to very low, low, and/or moderate income households. Fees may also be used for administration of city affordable housing programs and to administer fair housing requirements for affordable units.

3. Timing of Payment. In-lieu fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit issuance, for projects for which a certificate of occupancy is not issued; or as otherwise provided in the conditions of approval. 4. Purpose of In-Lieu Fees. Nothing in this title shall deem or be used to deem the in-lieu fee authorized in this section as an ad hoc exaction, as a mandated fee required as a condition to developing property, or as a fee subject to the analysis in Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, 171 Cal.App.4th 886 (2009). Any in-lieu fee adopted by the city council is a menu option that may serve as an alternative to the provision of on-site inclusionary units as otherwise required by subsection (C) of this section.

5. The planning division or review authority may permit a developer to pay in-lieu fees rather than fulfilling the requirements of an executed inclusionary housing agreement requiring the construction of below market rate units if the reduced market price of the proposed units falls to within 15 percent of the “affordable price” for a moderate income four-person household.

Five or more units Ownership:
10% moderate income
or 6% low income
Rental:
10% low income
or 6% very low income
Projects with 5 to 9 units. Also allowed
for fractional units, i.e. when the
inclusionary requirement results in a
fractional unit, the fraction shall be
rounded up to the next whole number if
the fraction is one-half or more. If the
result includes a fraction below onehalf, the applicant shall have the option of either rounding up to the next
whole number and providing an
additional inclusionary unit, or paying
an in-lieu fee.

Project size 5-9 units: $8 per square foot of livable space Project size 10 for more units: $10 per square foot of livable space The In-Lieu Fee is calculated (per market rate unit) by multiplying the total livable square footage of all market reate housing units in the entire project by the fee amounts listed above.

See the 'Concord' Sheet for a calculation example
*The City is currently in the process of updating its inclusionary housing requirements and the associated in-lieu fee, but it has yet to be considered by the City Council.

Contra Costa
County
Contra Costa County Inclusionary
Ordinance
822-4.404 - In-lieu fee.
(a) The amount of a fee that is paid in lieu of some or all inclusionary units will be established in the community development department's fee schedule adopted by the board of supervisors. (b) Fee amounts in the fee schedule for for-sale units will be calculated to be equivalent to the difference between the affordable sales price for a targeted household and the median price, as determined by the county, of all single family home sales in the county within the previous twelve months. Fee amounts in the fee schedule for rental units will be calculated to be equivalent to the difference over a fifty-five-year period between the average rent, as determined by the county, of a two-bedroom, one-and-a-halfbathroom apartment in the county and the annual affordable rent for a targeted household. Fee amounts will be calculated annually. (c) All fee revenues will be deposited in a restricted fund earmarked to provide housing opportunities for extremely low, very low, lower, and moderate income households.
(d) Funds will be appropriated for expenditures authorized by law that make housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, lower, and moderate income households and for costs associated with administering the restricted fund. (e) In-lieu fees shall be paid before the first building permit is issued for any portion of the residential development.

Five or more units Ownership: 15% of for-sale developments of which 20% of the total inclusionary units shall
be for low income households with remaining
units affordable rate to moderate income
households.

Rental: 15% of rental developments of which 20%
of the total inclusionary units shall be for very
low income households with remaining units
rented at affordable rate to lower income
households.

Developments may pay an in-lieu fee
for projects with 5 through 125 units
only. Paying a fee is not allowed for
projects with more than 125 units,
except for fractional units. Specifically,
fees may be paid on a fraction of a unit
if the calculation of the required
number of inclusionary units in a
project results in a fraction of a unit
For Sale Housing:
$6,600.06 per market rate unit
*Fee amounts in the fee schedule for for-sale units will be calculated as the difference between the affordable sales price for a targeted household and the median price, as determined by the county, of all single-family home sales in the county within the previous twelve months.

Rental Housing:
$24,200.55 per market rate unit OR
$130,350 per lower income unit and
$285,285 per very low income unit
*Fee amounts in the fee schedule for rental units will be calculated as the difference over a fifty-five-year period between the average annual rent, as determined by the county, of a two-bedroom, one-anda-half-bathroom apartment in the county and the annual affordable rent for a targeted household.

Please see the 'Contra Costa County' Sheet for calculation examples Danville Danville Inclusionary Ordinance 32-73.8 In Lieu Participation Fees.

In lieu participation fees may be appropriate for particular projects not suitable for inclusionary affordable units due to factors including, but not limited to, location, availability of services, extreme topography, development density, and environmental constraints. In such cases the applicant, upon approval of the Town Council, may contribute fees in lieu of providing inclusionary affordable units. Such fees shall be known as "in lieu participation fees." Applicants may make payment of in lieu participation fees in residential developments except that in lieu participation fees may not be authorized for residential developments with densities of thirteen (13) units or more per acre.
a. The in lieu fee shall be calculated based on the subsidy differential between what a moderate income household (earning one hundred ten percent (110%) of current area median income), adjusted for expected household size and appropriate unit size, can afford to pay for housing and the estimated total cost of a new, non-BMR unit of appropriate size, as determined to the satisfaction of the Town. The in lieu fee shall be calculated on a project-by-project basis with the per unit fee paid subject to review and approval by the Chief of Planning.
b. The in lieu fee for the entire residential development shall be due prior to occupancy of the first unit. (Ord #2014-08 § 2)
8 or more lots or dwelling units Ownership and Rental–
Up to 20 units per acre– 10% for lower or
moderate income income households
21+ units per acre – 15% for lower or moderate
income households
Applicants may make payment of in
lieu participation fees in residential
developments except that in lieu
participation fees may not be
authorized for residential
developments with densities of
thirteen (13) units or more per acre.

Information not found
El Cerrito El Cerrito ORDINANCE NO. 2018-02
B. In lieu fee.

1. The inclusionary housing requirement in Section 19.30.040 for For-Sale Residential Development must be satisfied by the provision of the required inclusionary Units, except when the number of required lnclusionary Units includes a fraction less than one-half (0.5).

In that case, an in-lieu fee may be paid for the fractional unit. The inclusionary housing requirement in Section 19.30.040 for Rental Residential Development may be satisfied by the payment of a fee to the City in lieu of constructing the lnclusionary Units within the Residential Development, including fractional units. In either case, any fee that the Developer chooses to pay must be received by the City upon issuance of a Building Permit for the Residential Development. 2. In lieu fees shall be as follows:
a. For-sale Residential Development: For-sale lnclusionary Unit shall be [a $ amount per square foot] multiplied by the Livable Square Footage of the entire project and divided by the number of required For-sale lnclusionary Units, including fractional units. b. Rental Residential Development: If the number of required Rental lnclusionary Units is one-half (0.5) or greater, the fraction shall be rounded to the next whole number, and the Developer may either provide the Rental lnclusionary Unit or pay a fee in lieu of the Rental lnclusionary Unit. The in-lieu fee for each Rental lnclusionary Unit shall be [a $ amount per square foot] multiplied by the Livable Square Footage 3. The amount of in lieu fees established in this Section shall be included in the City's Master Fee Schedule and may be adjusted annually for inflation each July 1 using an appropriate index, as determined by the City Council. 4. If a project amendment results in a change in the total number of Dwelling Units, the in-lieu fee will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved Residential Development. 5. No Building Permit shall be issued by the City for any Market Rate Dwelling Unit in the Residential Development prior to the payment in full of all in-lieu fees to the City. The Developer shall provide both notice by recorded document against the Residential Development and, additionally, for each For-sale Dwelling Unit therein, the Developer shall provide specific written notice to any 16purchaser of any Dwelling Unit prior to the acceptance of any offer to purchase, and shall obtain executed acknowledgment of the receipt of such notice, that purchaser shall not have any right to occupy the Dwelling Unit until such time as all in lieu fees owing for the Residential Development are paid to the City. 6. All in lieu fees collected under this section shall be deposited in the City of El Cerrito Affordable Housing Trust Fund and utilized for the development of new Affordable Housing units.

Ownership– 9 or more units
Rental– 10 or more units
All residential development and contiguous property
under common ownership or control.

Ownership: 12% for moderate income
households.

Rental: 5% for moderate income households
and 5% for lower income households
Ownership: An in-lieu fee may be paid
only for fractional units when the
number of required inclusionary units
includes a fraction less than one-half
Rental: An in-lieu fee may be paid for
all or any portion of inclusionary units,
including fractional units.
$19.00 per square foot for rental projects
For for-sale projects. The City will collect an in-lieu fee only for the fractional unit owed if less than 0.5. The fee shall be equal to $24.00 per square foot.

See the 'El Cerrito' Sheet for a calculation example
Hercules Hercules Inclusionary Ordinance
(Suspended)
Sec. 10-19.105 Exceptions to Affordability Requirement. (a) Payment of Fees In Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. Upon request of the applicant, the City Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing up to forty percent (40%) of the affordable units that the developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to Section 10-19.104(a) of this Chapter. The amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a resolution of the City Council, which may be amended from time to time to reflect inflation and changed conditions in the City and the region. In-lieu fees shall be paid at the time and in the amount set forth in the in-lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit.

All new residential development projects designed and
intended for permanent occupancy located outside a
redevelopment project area
10% of all units with the following distribution
by income for the inclusionary units:
-20%: Very low income households
-20%: Low income households
40%: Moderate income households
20%: To meet regional housing need
n/a No fee
City Council suspended IHO in 2012
-All new development projects designed and intended for permanent occupancy within a redevelopment project
area
15% of all units with the following distribution
by income for the inclusionary units: 40% very
low income households and 60% lower or
moderate income households.

Lafayette Lafayette Inclusionary Ordinance 6-3707 - In-lieu fee.

This chapter establishes provisions under which an in-lieu fee is collected for inclusionary units. The city council shall establish the amount based on an appropriate fee study and shall update the fee over time. The in-lieu fee requirements of this chapter shall be effective only after the city council has adopted or updated the fee by resolution. 2 or more units in the downtown Single-Family–
15% for moderate-income households
Multifamily ownership–
15% for lower or moderate income households
with 9% for lower and moderate-income
households and 6% for very low-income
households
Multifamily rental–
15% for lower or moderate income households
with 9% for lower income households and 6% for
very low-income households
Downtown projects of 2 to 6 units No fee established yet; it is a proposed action in the Housing Element
Martinez n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Moraga Moraga Inclusionary Ordinance D. In-Lieu Fees. The Town Council shall, by resolution or other action, establish an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee.

Fees may be based on a fee per Market-Rate unit, fee per square foot, or any other reasonable basis. The fees may be periodically adjusted based on the annual percentage increase or decrease int he construction cost index since the last update. (1) For-Sale Units. The fee amount should represent a reasonable portion of the gap between the Affordable Sales Price at the corresponding income level and the Market-Rate sales price of for-sale housing of a similar product type. (2) Rental Units, the fee amount should represent a reasonable portion of the gap between the Affordable Rent at the corresponding income level and the market-rate rent for a similar product type over the lifetime of the affordability term. (3) Affordable Housing Fund. All fees collected shall be deposited in an Affordable Housing Fund. The monies deposited in the Affordable Housing Fund must be used to increase or maintain the supply of housing affordable to very low-,low-, and moderateincome Households, including reasonable administrative or related expenses. (4) Applicability to Fractional Units. The In-Lieu Fee shall be applied to Fractional Units that result when the inclusionary requirements are applied to Residential Development when the Applicant chooses not to build an additional Inclusionary Unit. (5)Timing of Payment. Payment of In-Lieu Fees is due as follows:
a. For custom lot subdivisions where lots will be sold and homes will be constructed a future date, the In-Lieu Fee shall be paid at time of Final Map approval.
b. For all other Dwelling Units, the fee shall be paid to prior to building permit issuance for the project 10 or more units Ownership: 10% for moderate income
Rental: 10% for low income
Projects with 6-9 units may provide one
full inclusionary unit or pay the in-lieu
fee
Per Habitable Square Foot (1) in Projects with 6-9units For-Sale Units
6-unit projects $13.00 /SF
7-unit projects $22.30 /SF
8-unit projects $29.30 /SF
9-unit projects $34.70 /SF
Rental Units
6-unit projects $8.30 /SF
7-unit projects $14.30 /SF
8-unit projects $18.80 /SF
9-unit projects $22.20 /SF
For projects with more than 10 units
$39/SF for for-sale units
$25/SF for rental units
Oakley n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Orinda n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pinole n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pittsburg Pittsburg Inclusionary Ordinance 18.86.080 Alternatives to construction of affordable units on-site of owner projects or low-density owner projects.

C. Fee In Lieu of Construction. Subject to the discretion of the city council, a developer of a residential project is permitted to pay fees in lieu of constructing affordable units if the city council finds that the residential project site is not suitable for affordable housing. To determine suitability for affordable housing, the city will consider issues such as proximity to schools, shopping, public transportation, and recreational amenities. In lieu fees shall be paid upon issuance of the first building permit for a residential project. If building permits are issued for only part of a residential project, the fee amount shall be based only on the number of units then permitted.

The in lieu fee shall be set by the city by fee resolution or other action of the city council so that the fee amounts are equal to the cost of developing a comparable market rate unit on-site. The city council may annually review the fee authorized by this subsection, and may, based on that review, adjust the fee amount by resolution. 5 or more units Rental
Option 1– 9% for lower income and 6% for very
low-income or
Option 2– 10% for very low-income or
Option 3– 6% for extremely low-income renter
units.

Owner (Low Density)
Option 1– 9% for moderate-income and 6% for
very low-income or
Option 2– 20% for moderate-income owner units.

Owner (All Other)
Option 1– 9% for lower-income and 6% for very
low-income
Option 2– 20% for lower-income
n/a Low Density Owner Project
Moderate Income: $34,200 per unbuilt inclusionary unit
Very Low Income: $288,900 per unbuilt inclusionary unit Owner Project
Low Income: $146,600 per unbuilt inclusionary unit
Very Low Income: $206,500 per unbuilt inclusionary unit Rental Project
$154,000 (multiplied by fraction, less than 0.5, of inclusionary unit required)
Inclusionary Housing Monitoring Fees
Owner Projects: $100 per inclusionary unit at close of escrow Rental Projects: $35 per inclusionary unit annually
Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill Inclusionary
Ordinance

18.20.060 Inclusionary housing.

G. In-lieu fees.

1. Approval criteria. In extraordinary circumstances, the approving body may authorize the payment of a fee in lieu of providing the inclusionary units required under subsection A of this section as follows: (a) for projects of nine units or less; (b) for any fractional unit in projects of 10 or more units; or (c) if the developer demonstrates, in connection with the first approval for the development (tentative subdivision map, or development plan if no subdivision is involved), that specific characteristics of the development site make the site unsuitable for households at the required income levels. Whenever the approving body authorizes the payment of an in-lieu fee, the in-lieu fee determination shall be automatically referred to the city council or redevelopment agency, as appropriate, for review and approval.

2. Calculation of fee. The in-lieu fee shall be established annually by resolution of the city council in an amount sufficient to represent a reasonable portion of the gap between the affordable sales price (at the low income level of affordability) and the market-rate sales price for single-family housing.

In order to determine the in-lieu fee, the following amounts shall be calculated: (a) a developer’s cost to construct a dwelling less the affordable sales price (the “developer’s difference”) and (b) the market-rate purchase price less the affordable sales price (the “market-rate difference”). The in-lieu fee shall be based upon the average of the developer difference and the market-rate difference for each of the following home sizes: a 1,200 square foot, two-bedroom home; an 1,800 square foot, three-bedroom home; and a 2,200 square foot, four-bedroom home. The in-lieu fee can be expressed as follows:

D l Diff + M k t R t Diff th di id b 2 I li f
5 or more units Rental or ownership–
Option 1.10% for low-income households or
Option 2. 5% for very low-income households or
Option 3. 25% for qualifying senior residents as
defined in California Civil Code sections 51.2 and

51.3 or
Option 4. 20% of accessory dwelling units for
occupancy by low-income households.

Projects of 9 units or less Information not found
Richmond Richmond Inclusionary Ordinance 10 or more units Ownership Option 1– 7% for low-income households or
Option 2– 10% for moderate-income households.

Rental
Option 1– 9% for very low-income households or
Option 2– 10% for low-income households.
n/a (1)Developments South of I-580 and San Pablo Peninsula $12/SF for rental projects or if inclusionary units are built on-site for a for-sale project
(2) Developments North of I-580
For net new residential floor are
0-370SF: no fee
371 - 741 SF: $3/SF
742 - 1,111 SF: $6/SF
1,112 - 1,482 SF: $9/SF
>1,482 SF: $12/SF
Non-residential project >5,000 sf of net new gross floor area: $2/SF San Pablo n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
San Ramon San Ramon Inclusionary
Ordinance
Section C4 -177. Inclusionary Housing Requirements.

For -Sale Projects. The following basic requirements apply to all new for -sale projects unless an alternative is provided by this Chapter:

1. Fewer than Ten Dwelling Units. All for -sale single- family and multi - family residential development projects between two ( 2) and nine ( 9) dwelling units may pay an affordable housing fee in -lieu of construction of affordable units. The fee shall be equivalent to 25 percent of the development' s total new residential livable square footage ( excluding garages) multiplied by the City' s cost per square foot rate as set forth in the City' s Fee Resolution. The formula below shall be used in calculating the amount of the affordable housing in -lieu fee:
25 percent of the total livable residential square footage, excluding garage) multiplied by (per square foot fee) equals ( total affordable housing in -lieu fee). The City shall deposit these fees into an Affordable Housing Fund as set forth in Section C4 -180 to mitigate the impact of the project on the need for affordable housing units.

3. Single - Family Detached Residential Developments. All for - sale single - family detached residential development projects of ten ( 10) dwelling units or more shall develop and reserve 10 percent or more of all for - sale units as affordable units to be sold to moderate - income households. Construction of accessory dwelling units would not satisfy the Inclusionary Requirement of the project.

Alternatively, the
single - family detached residential project can opt to pay an affordable housing fee equivalent to 10 percent of the development' s total new residential livable square footage ( excluding garages) multiplied by the City' s cost per square foot rate as set forth in the City' s Fee Resolution. The formula below shall be used in calculating the amount of the affordable housing in - lieu fee: 10 percent of the total livable residential square footage, excluding garage) multiplied by ( per square foot fee) equals ( total affordable housing in - lieu fee). The City shall deposit these fees into an Affordable Housing Fund as set forth in Section C4 - 180 to mitigate the impact of the project on the need for affordable housing units
2 or more units Ownership: 15% with inclusionary units
allocated by income level as follows
20% Very Low
30% Low Income
50% Moderate income
Rental: 15% with inclusionary units allocated by
income level as follows:
50% Very Low
50% Low Income
Projects between 2-9 units Commercial – Office, Retail, Hotel (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.) $4.68 per gross square foot
Commercial – Industrial (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.)
$3.51 per gross square foot
Residential – Single-Family or Multi-Family, under 10 units $14.63 per gross livable square foot
Requirement: 25% of the total livable residential square footage (excluding garage) multiplied by $14.63 per gross livable square foot.

Residential – Single-Family detached 10+ units – on-site construction of units or $15.70 per gross livable square feet
Requirement: 10% of the total livable residential square footage (excluding garages) multiplied by $15.70 per gross livable square foot.

Residential – Multi-Family, 10+ units – On-site construction of units.

No in-lieu fee option except as allowed as part of an approved alternative to compliance (Section C4-179.E).

Note:

Livable square foot: residential square footage excluding garages.

Accessory dwelling units and density bonus units are excluded when calculating the number of affordable units required for the project.

Current Fee Schedule: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10826046/File/Our%20C ity/Fee%20Resolution/feeresolution.pdf
Walnut Creek Walnut Creek Inclusionary
Ordinance
Sec. 10-2.3.905. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees.

A. As provided in Section 10-2.3.904, a fee may be paid in lieu of providing (1) inclusionary units in an ownership project (other than condominium conversion), (2) inclusionary units in a rental project, (3) inclusionary units in a condominium conversion project of fewer than seven (7) units, and (4) fractional inclusionary units below seven-tenths (0.7) of a unit.

B. For residential development projects constructed in phases, in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit in the proportion that the phase bears to the overall residential development project.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, to the extent that an ownership project (other than condominium conversion) or a rental project involves the demolition of existing dwelling units at a ratio of one-half (0.5) or greater to the construction of new dwelling units, the affordable housing in-lieu fee and the requirements to provide inclusionary units shall be based upon the number of net new dwelling units to be constructed.

D. The City Council shall, from time to time, adopt a resolution setting forth the amount of the inlieu fees.

E. Fractional in-lieu fees shall be calculated as follows: The per square foot in-lieu fee divided by the applicable inclusionary requirement times the average square feet of a unit in the development times the fractional unit.

F. All fees shall be paid by the developer prior to issuance of a building permit for any residential structure in the development project or as determined by the residential development project's adopted conditions of approval.

G. The in-lieu fees shall not exceed the average estimated cost of otherwise providing the required inclusionary units affordable to a very low income household, a low income household or a moderate income household, as applicable, including but not limited to: (1) estimated construction costs, (2) the cost of land, (3) financing costs, (4) consultant costs (including without limitation architecture, engineering, and other costs), and (5) any indirect costs. (§4, Ord. 2025, eff. 3/18/04; §5, Ord. 2077, eff. 5/8/09; §1, Ord. 2085, eff. 2/20/10; §1, Ord. 2095, eff. 1/15/11; §4, Ord. 2178, eff. 1/5/18) No specific threshold; depends upon the total number of dwelling units in the project and the type of inclusionary units being included
Ownership:

Option 1– 10% for moderate income or
Option 2– 7% for low income
Option 3– 6% for very low income
Rental:

Option 1– 10% for low income rental units or
Option 2– 6% for very low income
A fee may be paid in-lieu of providing
1) inclusionary units in an ownership
project (other than condominium
conversion), 2) inclusionary units in a
rental project, and 3) inclusionary units
in a condominium conversion projects
of fewer than seven (7) units.

Beginning in January 2019 and every January thereafter, staff shall adjust the in-lieu fee by an amount equal to the Construction Price Index of the “Engineering News Record” for the preceding 12-month period from November 1 to October 31, provided that the resulting annual in-lieu fee does not exceed the average estimated cost of otherwise providing the required inclusionary units.

As of 2023, the in-lieu fee is $23.39 per square feet.

The in-lieu fee for any fractional unit shall be calculated as follows:

The per square foot in-lieu fee divided by the applicable inclusionary requirements times the average square feet of a unit in the development times the fractional unit
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: C4 Inclusionary Ord In-Lieu Fee Table 10.10.2023 Update (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Brentwood
3-Bedroom Affordability Affordable Home Price Market Median Sales Price In-Lieu Fee (per unit not built) Moderate Income $579,000 $621,000 $42,000
Low Income $252,000 $369,000
Very Low Income $139,000 $482,000
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: C4 Inclusionary Ord In-Lieu Fee Table 10.10.2023 Update (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options)

FEE CALCULATION EXAMPLE
A) Calculating Total In-Lieu Fee
26 total ownership units; $9/SF in-lieu fee; 2,800 average SF/unit 26 total units X $9/SF X 2,800 average SF/unit = $655,200 total In-Lieu Fee B) Calculating Fractional In-Lieu Fee
26 total ownership units; $9/SF in-lieu; 2,800 average SF/unit; Moderate-Income Units 26 x 10% = 2.6 inclusionary units Building 2 units; calculating in-lieu fee on .6 units
26 total units X $9/SF X 2,800 average SF/unit= $655,200 total In-Lieu Fee $655,200 /2.6 BMR units = $252,000 per BMR unit cost
$252,000 X .6 = $151,200 fractional In-Lieu Fee
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: C4 Inclusionary Ord In-Lieu Fee Table 10.10.2023 Update (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) EXAMPLES:

Scenario (I) For Sale Project
A developer proposes to build 9 units.

Total in-lieu fee calculation: 9 units x 6600.06 = $59,400.54 Scenario (II) Partial Fee Calculation – For Sale Project 100 (total number of units) x 15% = 15 total inclusionary units required 3 units / 15 units = 20 % of the total calculation
Total in-lieu fee calculation: 100 units x 6600.06 = $660,006 Partial in-lieu fee calculation: $660,006 x 20% = $132,001.20 Scenarior (III) Rental Project
A developer proposed to build 100 units.

Total in-lieu fee calculation: 100 units x $24,200.55 = $2,420,055 OR
100 (total number of units) x 15% = 15 total required inclusionary units 15 units x 80% = 12 lower income inclusionary units required 15 units x 20% = 3 very-low-income inclusionary units required 12 lower income inclusionary units x 130,350 = $1,564,200 3 very-low-income inclusionary units x 285,285 = $855,855 Total in-lieu fee calculation: $1,564,200 + $855,855 = $2,420,055 A developer proposed to build 100 units, requiring the construction of 15 inclusionary units. The developer proposes to build 12 moderate income units on-site and pay an in-lieu fee for 3 units.

H.2.c
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: C4 Inclusionary Ord In-Lieu Fee Table 10.10.2023 Update (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) El Cerrito In-Lieu Fee Formula
Formula Base Data
A Number of Units 63
B Average Unit Size 644
C Total Project SF C = (A x B) 40,577
D Total BMR Units Owed D = (A x 10%) 6.3
E Maximum In-Lieu Fee if No on-site BMR Units E = (C x $19 per sf) $770,963 F In-Lieu Fee Per BMR Unit Owed F = (E /D) $122,375
G BMR Units to be Built On-site G = Developer Election 0 H In-Lieu Fee Owed H = (F x (D-G)) $770,963
In-lieu fee for rentals: $19 psf; If less than 0.5, calculate fractional fee or round up to another unit.

Example (Rental)
H.2.c
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: C4 Inclusionary Ord In-Lieu Fee Table 10.10.2023 Update (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Jurisdiction Policy Project Size Threshold
Rental
On-site Income
Requirements
Ownership
On-site Income
Requirements
Alternatives In-Lieu Fee Levels When are in lieu fees
required?
For owernship, do you tend
to get more units or fees?
For rental - do you tend to
get more units or fees? Term of Affordability
On an ongoing basis, do you
monitor rental units (e.g.
rents, income verification)?
How are you at providing
stewardship to ownership
units?
Do you collect a fee charged
to apartment owners to
monitor the status of the
How many FTEs manage the
program (after initial
construction/lease
Approximate number of
affordable units produced
by the program
Last time you updated your
ordinance, did you do a
feasbility study?
Info Last
Updated/Reviewed Additional Notes
Fill in this sheet with information
for your jurisdiction
Which policy is used the most? If
you would like to describe a
second policy add another row
Number of units that trigger each
policy (ie. projects with fewer
units are exempt)
Income requirements for rental
units
Income requirements for for-sale
units
Other options besides building
onsite units (alternative
compliance options)
If a fee is allowed, how is it
calculated?
If there are times when a
developer MUST pay the fee
instead of providing units, explain
when. Leave blank if the
developer always has the option
to build.

All units, mostly units, about
equally split, mostly fees, all fees
All units, mostly units, about
equally split, mostly fees, all fees Length in years
e.g. We don't do stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners yearly;
monitor to ensure units don't sell
at market prices, etc.

Yes, no, planning on starting Combined rental and ownership, don't look it up just guess..

Date that this sheet was updated
or reviewed by jurisdiction (e.g.
today's date)
Include any additional comments,
relevant policy updates in the
prospective future etc.

Sample Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units 5% @ 50% AMI, 5% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 100% AMI

10% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 120% AMI
in lieu fee
off site
non-profit partnerships
land dedication, etc.

Rental: $20/s.f. for both single
family and multi-family housing
projects.

Ownership: $200,000 per market
Under 10 units 99 years for rental, 99 years
renew at resale for ownership Yes but it is basic Yes 0.20% 11-100 units Yes 6/1/2023 Different policies apply around
transit center, will reconsider fees
in 2024.

Alameda Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 units
4% @ 30-50% AMI
4% @ 50-80% AMI
7% @ 80-120% AMI
In-lieu fee
Off-site $25,352 per Residential Unit Under 9 units 59 years Albany Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 7 units 7.5% at 50%

7.5% @ 80%

7.5% at 50%

7.5% @ 80% In-lieu fee TBD Less that 7 units Units Units Perpetuity Yes but it is basic Basic No 0% 11-100 units No 7/24/23 Berkeley Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning Projects 5,000 square feet and above
10% at 50% AMI
10% at 80% AMI 20% at 80% AMI
In-lieu fee
Land dedication (at City's
discretion)
Residential Unit Floor Fee per
Square Foot
Area (conducting fee study to
update fees expected Spring 24)
>12,000 $56.25
11,000-11,999 $53.75
10,000-10,999 $51.25
9,000-9,999 $48.75
8 000 8 999 $46 25
n/a
Recently changed regulations to
normalize fees for rental and
ownership; less than five
ownership projects over the last
ten years
Combo: Most projects provide VLI
units to access the Density Bonus
(11-15%) and pay a prorated in
lieu fee for the remaining required
Perpetuity Yes it is well developed Basic Yes 1.5 500+ units No 7/24/23 Ordinance was updated in Feb 23
to transition from a mitigation fee
to an inclusionary policy (post
Palmer fix), transition per unit fee
to a square footage based fee; and
establish the same fees for rental
and ownership (ownership were
previously higher). A fee study is
l d d d
Dublin Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 20 units
30% @ 50% AMI
20% @ 80% AMI
50% @ 110% AMI
40% @ 80% AMI,
60% @ 110% AMI
In-lieu fee (up to 40% of
Mandatory build requirement), or
an Alternative approach may be
approved by the City Council
$241,131 per Inclusionary unit. Usually the maximum In-Lieu fee is used then the rest are built
Usually the maximum In-Lieu fee
is used, then the rest are built out 55 years Yes but it is basic Basic Yes > 1 FTE Currently working with a
consultant to possibly update the
fees and structure of the
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.

Emeryville Impact Fee
All projects based on project
evaluation. Changes in use that
are less impactful than
previous/existing use do not
trigger impact fees.
? ?
Emeryille Other (Explain in additional notes) 10 units 20% at 120% AMI NA NA 45 years Resales, Monitor NA > 1 FTE Not Sure 8/2/23 Affordable Housing Program (2014) Fremont Other (Explain in additional notes) 2 units 10% at 80%AMI 5% @ 120% AMI 10% @ 80% AMI Numerous alternatives provided
$44/ s.f. for-sale units except
stacked flats
$27/ s.f. for stacked flats
$17.50 s.f. rental units over 700
s.f.
$8.75 s.f. rental units up to 700
s.f.

N/A Mostly fee Mostly fee but see additional
notes
55 years rental
30 years ownership Yes but it is basic
We don't do stewardship, Basic
(do resales, etc.) Contact
homeowners yearly; monitor to
ensure units don't sell at market
prices, etc.

No 1 FTE 500+ units Yes 7/26/23
Ordinance updated November
2021. The fee has historically been
paid more often, but we are
starting to see a trend towards
more on site, often to take
advantage of density bonus.

Hayward 2 units 3% @ 30% AMI
3% @ 50% AMI
6% @ 50% AMI
6% @ 80% AMI
In-lieu fee
Off-site
$17.85/sqft (high density condos
w/ 35 units per acre or more)
$21.6/sqft
Livermore Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
11 units (General Plan, Downtown
Specific Plan, Isabel Neighborhood
Plan)
10 or fewer units (South
Livermore Valley Specific Plan)
General plan area: 15% affordable
Downtown: 10% affordable
Isabel neighborhood: 20%
affordable
10 units or less, 15% of difference
between: development cost for
market-priced unit; and max
affordable purchase price for
housing unit with same # of
bedrooms as per market priced
unit. Fee per market-priced unit
shall not exceed 15% of estimated
development cost of constructing
3-bedroom detached house
meeting affordability standards
In-lieu fee
Land dedication
Off-site
Difference between the
development cost for a marketpriced residence and the
maximum affordable purchase
price
11+ units:

Difference between base market
rate sales price for unit to the onsite affordability requirement minus max affordable purchase
price, multiplied by total # of units
to be paid in fee
Newark Impact Fee All; the first 200 sqft of a
residential addition
(Outside Downtown Specific Plan)

7.5% @ 120% AMI

7.5% @ 80% AMI
(Downtown Specific Plan)
10% @ 50% AMI
N/A
May propose on-site affordable
based on standards in the impact
fee resolution.

Resi: >+1,000 sqft/unit,
$24.95/sqft; >1,000 sqft/unit,
$10.00. Comm: $4.48/sqft. Indust:
$0.84
Mostly fees Mostly units 55-years No We don't do stewardship No <1% FTE 100-500 units Yes N/A Newark is considering a change to
inclusionary requirements over
the next year. We will also hire a
FTE housing programs manager to
actively oversee agreements and
expectations.

Oakland Impact Fee
10% @ 80-120% AMI
10% @ 50-80% AMI
5% @ 30-50% AMI
On-site
Off-site
Res Impact Fees Zone 1 (per unit):

Multifamily: $32,355.73,
Townhouse: $32,355.57, SingleFamily: $37,746.81
Zone 2: Multifamily: $25,952.72,
Townhouse: $23,254.81, Singlefamily: $27,637.94
Zone 3: Multifamily: $17,525.94,
T h $13 482 63 Si l
55 years
Piedmont Other (Explain in additional notes) 1 unit N/A N/A In-lieu fee N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Not Sure N/A 6th Cycle Housing Element
includes policies and programs to
support inclusionary zoning and
we are just starting to develop the
amendments. We want to explore
requiring an ADU with every new
SFR/Duplex.

Pleasanton Other (Explain in additional notes) 15 units Case by case, wanting to codify and make objectivve
Case by case, wanting to codify
and make objective In-lieu fee Will need to look up NA Fee Mixed Perpetuity We have one staff person in Housing Considered policy as part of 6th
Cycle HEU; update is part of
upcoming workplan
San Leandro Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 2 units for ownership, 4 units for rental
15% (60% for 50% AMI & 40% for
60% AMI)
15% (60% for 120% AMI and 40%
for 80% AMI)
In-lieu fee limited to small range
of for sale units: Formula 2-6 for sale unit projects only Units Units 55 years for rental45 years for sale Yes but it is basic Annual primary ownership check, resales
No. In process of doing a fee
study.

We current have 2 Housing staff &
2 vacancies. 11-100 units Not Sure 8/8/23
Union City Other (Explain in additional notes) In-lieu fee Units
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Jurisdiction Policy Project Size Threshold Rental
On-site Income Requirements
Ownership
On-site Income Requirements Alternatives In-Lieu Fee Levels When are in lieu fees required? For ownership, do you tend to
get more units or fees?
For rental - do you tend to get
more units or fees? Term of Affordability
On an ongoing basis, do you
monitor rental units (e.g.
rents, income verification)?
How are you at providing
stewardship to ownership
units?
Do you collect a fee charged
to apartment owners to
monitor the status of the
inclusionary units?
How many FTEs manage the
program (after initial
construction/lease up/sale)? If
you outsource it, who do you
contract with?
Approximate number of
affordable units produced by
the program
Last time you updated your
ordinance, did you do a
feasbility study?
Info Last Updated/Reviewed Additional Notes
Fill in this sheet with information
for your jurisdiction
Which policy is used the most? If
you would like to describe a second
policy add another row
Number of units that trigger each
policy (ie. projects with fewer units
are exempt)
Income requirements for rental
units
Income requirements for for-sale
units
Other options besides building
onsite units (alternative
compliance options)
If a fee is allowed, how is it
calculated?
If there are times when a developer
MUST pay the fee instead of
providing units, explain when.

Leave blank if the developer always
has the option to build.

All units, mostly units, about
equally split, mostly fees, all fees
All units, mostly units, about
equally split, mostly fees, all fees Length in years
e.g. We don't do stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners yearly;
monitor to ensure units don't sell at
market prices, etc.

Yes, no, planning on starting Combined rental and ownership, don't look it up just guess..

Date that this sheet was updated
or reviewed by jurisdiction (e.g.
today's date)
Include any additional comments,
relevant policy updates in the
prospective future etc.

Sample Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units 5% @ 50% AMI, 5% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 100% AMI

10% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 120% AMI
in lieu fee
off site
non-profit partnerships
land dedication, etc.

Rental: $20/s.f. for both single
family and multi-family housing
projects.

Ownership: $200,000 per market
rate unit
Under 10 units 99 years for rental, 99 years renew
at resale for ownership Yes but it is basic Yes 0.20% 11-100 units Yes 6/1/2023 Different policies apply around
transit center, will reconsider fees
in 2024.

Antioch No Existing Policy
Brentwood Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5
3% @ 30-50% AMI
4% @ 50-80% AMI
6% at 80-120% AMI
3% @ 30-50% AMI
4% @ 50-80% AMI
6% at 80-120% AMI
In-lieu fee
Land dedication
Off-site
Dedication of affordable units
5-9 units pay a fee equal to 50% of
the low-income in lieu fee
55 years rental,
45 years ownership
Clayton Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 10
10% of new units in project (can be
any VL, L or Mod, or any
combination thereof)
Same as Rental
In-lieu fee
Land dedication
Off-site construction
Project-by-project Mostly units
All units (note: there has only been
1 rental project approved under the
ord.)
55 years Yes but it is basic Contact homeowners annually to self-certify No 0.10% Under 10 units No 7/14/2023
New HE policy adopted to consider
additional compliance alternatives
(e.g., ADUs)
Concord Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5
Current: 6% @ 50% AMI
or 10% @ 80% AMI;
Proposed for 9/12 Council meeting:
1% @ 50% AMI,
1% @ 80% AMI,
4% @ 120% AMI
Current: 6% @ 80% AMI
or 10% @ 120% AMI;
Proposed for 9/12 Council meeting:

7.5% @ 80% AMI,

7.5% @ 120% AMI
In-lieu fee
Off-site
$20/s.f. for ownership; $15/s.f. for
rental (proposed for Council
adoption on 9/12; let me know if
you want the current fees)
More or less equal Not enough data to say, rental units have been exempt until now 45 for ownership, 55 for rental Contra Costa County Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 5% @ 50% AMI 10% @ 80% AMI
5% @ 80% AMI
10% @ 120% AMI
In-lieu fee
Off-site
Land donation
Other
Flat fee per unit within the project fee fee 55 years rental 3 years (ownership) Yes but it is basic Yes, will be doing so 11-100 units No 8/22/2023 Danville Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 7 or more
7 or less: 10% BMR units
20: 10% BMR units
21: 15% BMR units
Max sale @110% AMI In-lieu fee
Subsidy differential between what a
moderate income household an
afford to pay for housing and the
estimated total cost of a new, nonBMR unit of appropriate size 20 years
El Cerrito Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning All 10 or more: 5 @ 80-120% AMI 5% of total units @ 50-80% AMI 9 or more: 12% @ 80-120% AMI In-lieu fee Rental: $19/sqft
For-sale: 12% of total # of units, if
less than .5 fractional unit $24/sqft
Don't provide units on site 55 years rental, 45 years owner Hercules Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning All 10 or more: 5% @ 80-120% AMI, 5% @ 50-80% AMI
Non-development project area:
10% units affordable
Redevelopment project area: 20%
@ 30-50*% AMI, 20% @ 50-80%
AMI, 40% @ 80-120% AMI, 20% to
meet regional need
Credit transfers
In-lieu fee
Land dedication
Off-site
Up to forty percent 40% of the
affordable units that the developer
would otherwise be required to
construct
Does not develop 10% affordable
units
Fractional units
55 years (rental)
45 years (owner occupied)
Lafayette Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning All
6% and 9% * total $ of units results
in less than on per category, total
combined % may be affordable to
50-100% AMI households
7-20 units, 100% at 100% AMI or
100% at 50% AMI
Downtown: 15% of units
Off-site
For-Rent alternative to Fees or Sale:

Ownership projects, Sales of
Affordable Rental units
Decided by City Council Upon request of developer 55 years (rental) 45 years (ownership)
Martinez No Existing Policy
Moraga Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
5 or more
6-9 units: option of providing one
full inclusionary unit or paying fee
equal to fractional unit x in-lieu fee
10% at 50-80% AMI or
Proposed alternative low and very
low income units
10% @ 80-120% AMI
R-6 densities or lower: ADUs in 25%
of units
ADU development
Agreement with non-profit
developer
Acquisition, rehabilitation, deed
restriction of existing multi-family
In-lieu
Off-site
Other methods suggested by
For-sale units: gap between
affordable sales price and the
market-rate sales price of similar
product type
Rental units: gap between
affordable rent at corresponding
income level and market-rate rent
for a similar product type over
Opts out of affordable units
Fractional units
55 years for rentals, 45 years for
ownership
Oakley No Existing Policy
Orinda Other (Explain in additional notes) No inclusionary ordinance.

Pinole Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 4 or more units
(Within City)
15% affordable:
40% @ 30-50% AMI
60% @ 50-80%
(Outside City)
4 or more: alternative compliance
15% @ 100% AMI Discretion and required finding
Off-site
Pittsburg Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
9% @ 50-80% AMI & 6% @ 30-50%
or 10% @ 30-50% AMI or
6% @ 15-30% AMI
Low density: 9% @ 80 120% AMI &
6% @ 30-50% AMI or 20% @ 80-
120% AMI
Owner projects: 9% @ 50-80% AMI
& 6% @ 30-50% AMI or
20% @ 50-80% AMI
In-lieu fee
Land dedication
Off-site
Purchase of off-site convenants
Set by City Council Developer doesn't agree to other
alternatives 55 years
Pleasant Hill Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 units
5% @ 50% AMI; 10% @ 80% AMI;
25% for qualifying seniors; 20% @
80% AMI if ADUs
In-lieu
Off site mostly units mostly units 55 years for both rental and ownership
Richmond Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning Any 9% @ 30-50% AMI 10% @ 50-80% AMI
7% @ 50-80% AMI
10% @ 80-120% AMI Off-site
Property dedication
South of I-580:
$12/sqft for rental
North of I-580:
0-$12/sqft (dependent on when
applied after Dec. 2020)
May not pay in-lieu fee
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) San Pablo No Existing Policy
San Ramon Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
2 or more units: payment of in-lieu
fee; 10 or more units: 10% or 15%
must build depending on housing
type
10 or more units: 15% must build
inclusionary requirement: 7.5%
very low, 7.5% low
MFDU: 15% must build: 3% very
low, 4.5% low, 7.5% moderate;
SFDU: 10% must build or fee out:
10% moderate* In process of
update ordinance for SFDU to
match MFDU
In-lieu fee
Land dedication
Off-site
Partnership
Yes, for project 2-9 units: fee shall
be equivalent to 25 percent of the
development's total new residential
livable square footage (excluding
garages) multiplied by the City's
cost per square foot rate, for SFDU
with 10+ units: fee shall be
Projects with 2 to 9 units Mostly fees for SFDU Mostly units Rental: 55 years, For-Sale: 30
years* In process of update
ordinance to require 55 years for
for-sale
It's complicated - see additional
notes for more details Basic No, but would like to start 0.5 500+ units Yes 08/18/2023 Update to IHO in progress; working
on adopting updated IHO by end of
2023. A majority of apt. rental units
in SR are managed by CC County
due to Development Agreement.

Walnut Creek Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning In-lieu fee
Off-site 1 unit or more more units 55 years for both rental and ownership Yes it is well developed Basic No, but would like to start 0.05 Yes 2015 H.2.d
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) Jurisdiction Policy Project Size Threshold Rental
On-site Income Requirements
Ownership
On-site Income Requirements Alternatives In-Lieu Fee Levels When are in lieu fees required? For owernship, do
you tend to get more
units or fees?
For rental - do you
tend to get more
units or fees?
Term of
Affordability
On an ongoing basis, do
you monitor rental units
(e.g. rents, income
verification)?
How are you at
providing
stewardship to
ownership units?
Do you collect a fee
charged to apartment
owners to monitor the
status of the
How many FTEs manage the
program (after initial
construction/lease up/sale)?
If you outsource it, who do
Approximate
number of
affordable units
produced by the
Last time you
updated your
ordinance, did you
do a feasbility study?
Info Last
Updated/Reviewed Additional Notes
Fill in this sheet with
information for your
jurisdiction
Which policy is used the most?
If you would like to describe a
second policy add another row
Number of units that trigger
each policy (ie. projects with
fewer units are exempt)
Income requirements for rental units Income requirements for for-sale units
Other options besides building onsite units
(alternative compliance options) If a fee is allowed, how is it calculated? If there are times when a
developer MUST pay the fee
instead of providing units, explain
when. Leave blank if the
developer always has the option
to build
All units, mostly units,
about equally split, mostly
fees, all fees
All units, mostly units,
about equally split,
mostly fees, all fees
Length in years
e.g. We don't do
stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners
yearly; monitor to
ensure units don't sell at
Yes, no, planning on
starting
Combined rental and
ownership, don't look it
up just guess..

Date that this sheet was
updated or reviewed by
jurisdiction (e.g. today's
date)
Include any additional comments, relevant policy updates in the prospective future etc.

Sample Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units 5% @ 50% AMI, 5% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 100% AMI

10% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 120% AMI
in lieu fee
off site
non-profit partnerships
land dedication, etc.

Rental: $20/s.f. for both single family and multifamily housing projects.

Ownership: $200,000 per market rate unit
Under 10 units
99 years for rental, 99
years renew at resale
for ownership
Yes but it is basic Yes 0.20% 11-100 units Yes 6/1/2023 Different policies apply around transit center, will reconsider fees in 2024.

Belvedere No Existing Policy
Corte Madera Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 2 units
Option 1:
2 - 10 units: 10% at 50% & 10% in lieu; 11-29
units: 10% at 50% & 10% at 100%; 30 or more
units: 15% at 50% & 5% in-lieu
Option 2:
2-10 units: 15% at 65% & 5% in-lieu; 11-29
units: 15% at 65% & 5% at 100%; 30 or more
units: 10% at 50%, 5% at 65% & 5% at 100%
2-4 units:
20% at 135%
5-29 units:
5% at 65%, 5% at 100% & 10% at
135%
30 or more units:
5% at 65%, 10% at 100% & 5% at
135%
In-lieu fees
Land dedication
Per unit fee:

Multiple-dwelling rental unit: $362,817
Single-family detached for-sale: $289,905
Multiple-house for-sale: $203,088
In-lieu fees paid for fractional
units Units Units
In perpetuity; except
that the Town Council
may reduce the
affordability time
frame to not less than
55 years.

Yes its outsourced N/A Yes 0 11-100 units Yes 6/7/2022
Fairfax No Existing Policy
Larkspur Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 2
10 units or less:
10% at 50% AMI and 10% inlieu fee OR 15% at
65% AMI and 5% in-lieu fee
11-29 units: 10% at 50% AMI and 10% at 100%
AMI OR 15% at 65% AMI and
5% at 100% AMI
30 or more units:
4 units or less:
20% at 135% AMI
5-29 units:
5% at 65% AMI, 5% at 100% AMI, 10%
at 135% AMI
30 or more units:
5% at 65% AMI 10% at 100% AMI 5%
In-lieu fee in some instances
Land donation
Second dwelling units for a portion
Transfer of Inclusionary Units credit
Per unit fee:

Single-Family Subdivision - $377,042
Condominium $288,650
Rental Gap $422,760
Units Units
in perpetuity, unless
reduced by the City
Council to a specific
term to meet the
requirements of a
financing institution or
subsidy program with
Yes its outsourced MHA No 11-100 units Yes 8/8/23 We also adopted commercial linkage fee Marin County Other (Explain in additional
notes)
Commercial Linkage - no
applicable unit threshold N/A N/A Provide affordable units Development Type Fee per square foot
Manufacturing/Light Industry/Assembly $3.74
Office /Research and Development $7.19
Warehouse $1.94
Hotel/Motel $1,745 per room
Retail/Restaurant $5.40
Residential Care Facility $24 81
Fees always required unless
choosing to provide units N/A N/A N/A No N/A N/A 0 0 Units Yes 7/19/2023 Commercial Linkage Fee Marin County Impact Fee 1 N/A N/A None
Conditioned Floor Area Fee per square foot
New ADU, JADU, or Ag. Worker Unit concurrent
≥ 3,000 $17.22
$8.61
> 2,000 and < 3,000 $8.61
$0.00
≤ 2 000 $0 00
Fee is always required N/A N/A N/A No N/A N/A 0 0 Units Yes 7/19/2023 Affordable Housing Impact fee Marin County Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 2 20% at 60%AMI 20% at 60%AMI In-lieu fee
Land donation
Off site
$399,654/unit % of unit Units Units 99 years/in perpetuity Yes its outsourced MHA No 0.3 100-500 units Yes 7/19/2023 Updating with September Approval Timeline Mill Valley Impact Fee
Any residential development
> $105K and not providing
inclusionary units
1% of the construction valuation ADUs exempt Yes 2017
Mill Valley Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 4 25% at 50-80% AMI 25% at 50-80% AMI Impact fee
Land donation
Off-site units
Impact fee is based on construction valuation N/A Units Units In perpetuity Yes but it is basic MHA No 11-100 units Yes 2017 We don't have a commercial linkage fee Novato Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 7
Up to 20% split between (10%) at 50% of AMI
Low & (10%) 30% of AMI, depending on project
size
Up to 20% split equally between Low
and Moderate (90% of AMI)
In-lieu fee
Land dedication
Off-site
3-7 units or as allowed by City
Council
Ross No Existing Policy
San Anselmo Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 2 units 20% at 60%AMI 20% at 60%AMI In-lieu Off site $362,817 per unit Option to either build or pay an in lieu fee
N/A- Just adopted
ordinance in June 2023
N/A- Just adopted
ordinance in June 2023 Yes its outsourced MHA Not currently Unknown. New ordinance. 0 Units Yes 6/21/2023 Used information generated from the Marin County multijurisdictional efforts.

San Rafael Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 2 All listed in samples Untill 2020 all on site - now 50-50 allowed 30-55 Yes its outsourced
Sausalito Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 4 units 15% at 80-120% AMI 15% at 80-120% AMI Off-site Land donation N/A N/A N/A N/A In perpetuity No N/A No 0 0 Units Not Sure 7/25/2023 Tiburon Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 3 units
7-12 units:
15% @ 30 - 120% AMI
15% @ 30-50% AMI
12+ units:
20% @ 30 - 120% AMI
Based on requirement of 15% of units being
affordable Developing 3-6 unit building

H.2.d
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Jurisdiction Policy Project Size Threshold Rental
On-site Income Requirements
Ownership
On-site Income Requirements Alternatives In-Lieu Fee Levels When are in lieu fees required? For owernship, do you tend to get more units or fees? For rental - do you tend to get more
units or fees? Term of Affordability
On an ongoing basis, do you monitor
rental units (e.g. rents, income
verification)?
How are you at providing stewardship
to ownership units?
Do you collect a fee charged to
apartment owners to monitor the
status of the inclusionary units?
How many FTEs manage the program
(after initial construction/lease
up/sale)? If you outsource it, who do
you contract with?
Approximate number of affordable
units produced by the program
Last time you updated your ordinance,
did you do a feasbility study? Info Last Updated/Reviewed Additional Notes Fill in this sheet with information
for your jurisdiction
Which policy is used the most? If you
would like to describe a second policy
add another row
Number of units that trigger each policy
(ie. projects with fewer units are
exempt)
Income requirements for rental units Income requirements for for-sale units Other options besides building onsite units (alternative compliance options) If a fee is allowed, how is it calculated? If there are times when a developer
MUST pay the fee instead of providing
units, explain when. Leave blank if the
developer always has the option to
build.

All units, mostly units, about equally
split, mostly fees, all fees
All units, mostly units, about equally
split, mostly fees, all fees Length in years
e.g. We don't do stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners yearly; monitor to
ensure units don't sell at market prices,
etc.

Yes, no, planning on starting Combined rental and ownership, don't look it up just guess..

Date that this sheet was updated or
reviewed by jurisdiction (e.g. today's
date)
Include any additional comments,
relevant policy updates in the
prospective future etc.

Sample Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units 5% @ 50% AMI, 5% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 100% AMI

10% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 120% AMI
in lieu fee
off site
non-profit partnerships
land dedication, etc.

Rental: $20/s.f. for both single family
and multi-family housing projects.

Ownership: $200,000 per market rate
unit
Under 10 units 99 years for rental, 99 years renew at
resale for ownership Yes but it is basic Yes 0.20% 11-100 units Yes 6/1/2023 Different policies apply around transit center, will reconsider fees in 2024.

American Canyon Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5
5% @ 30-50%
5% @ 50-80%
5% @ 80-120%
10% @ 50-80% AMI
Off site
Land dedication
Rehab
ADUs
15% of units 55+ year affordability
15%+ # of bedrooms in inclusionary
units
55 years or longer if required by
mortgage or rental subsidy
Calistoga Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 or more rental units 20 or more ownership
10% @ 50-80% AMI
20% @ 80-120% AMI
10% @ 50-80% AMI
20% @ 80-120% AMI
In lieu fee
Land dedication
Off-site
Decided by City Council 5-19 unit ownership project 55 year or longer City of Napa Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 10% of units shall be affordable Convert existing units to affordable
In lieu
Land dedication
Off-site
Charged on a percentage basis of the
projected construction costs of market
rate dwelling units
Napa County Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
Single-family detached:
20% @ 80-120% AMI
Attached single-family and common
interest:
17% @ 80-120% AMI
Housing fees Planning director decides Any residential project, unless equivalency proposal approved
St. Helena Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
3 or fewer units:
1 unit: @ 30-50% AMI
2 units: 1 @ 30-50% AMI, 50-80% AMI
3 units: above requirements and 1 @ 80-
120% AMI
4+ units:

Decided by ratio of units needed in each
category to satisfy city’s housing goals
50% @ 100% AMI
ADU
Land dedication
Off site
Percentage basis of the projected
construction costs of market rate
dwelling units
Perpetuity 30 years renew at resale for ownership
Yountville Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 or more 15% @ 30-120% AMI, evenly divided between 3 income categories
15% @ 30-120% AMI, evenly divided
between 3 income categories
In lieu
Land dedication
Off site
55 years for rental, 45 years for
ownership Yes
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Jurisdiction Policy Project Size Threshold Rental
On-site Income Requirements
Ownership
On-site Income Requirements Alternatives In-Lieu Fee Levels When are in lieu fees required? For owernship, do you tend to get more units or fees?
For rental - do you tend to get
more units or fees? Term of Affordability
On an ongoing basis, do you
monitor rental units (e.g. rents,
income verification)?
How are you at providing
stewardship to ownership
units?
Do you collect a fee charged to
apartment owners to monitor
the status of the inclusionary
units?
How many FTEs manage the
program (after initial
construction/lease up/sale)? If
you outsource it, who do you
contract with?
Approximate number of
affordable units produced by
the program
Last time you updated your
ordinance, did you do a
feasbility study?
Info Last Updated/Reviewed Additional Notes
Fill in this sheet with information for your
jurisdiction
Which policy is used the most? If you
would like to describe a second policy
add another row
Number of units that trigger each policy
(ie. projects with fewer units are
exempt)
Income requirements for rental units Income requirements for for-sale units Other options besides building onsite units (alternative compliance options) If a fee is allowed, how is it calculated? If there are times when a developer
MUST pay the fee instead of providing
units, explain when. Leave blank if the
developer always has the option to build.

All units, mostly units, about equally split,
mostly fees, all fees
All units, mostly units, about equally split,
mostly fees, all fees Length in years
e.g. We don't do stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners yearly; monitor to
ensure units don't sell at market prices,
etc.

Yes, no, planning on starting Combined rental and ownership, don't look it up just guess..

Date that this sheet was updated or
reviewed by jurisdiction (e.g. today's
date)
Include any additional comments,
relevant policy updates in the
prospective future etc.

Sample Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units 5% @ 50% AMI, 5% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 100% AMI

10% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 120% AMI
in lieu fee
off site
non-profit partnerships
land dedication, etc.

Rental: $20/s.f. for both single
family and multi-family housing
projects.

Ownership: $200,000 per market
rate unit
Under 10 units 99 years for rental, 99 years renew
at resale for ownership Yes but it is basic Yes 0.20% 11-100 units Yes 6/1/2023 Different policies apply around
transit center, will reconsider fees
in 2024.

Atherton No Existing Policy
Belmont Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units
25+ units:
15% @ 50-80% AMI
>25 units:

Housing impact fees
25< units:
15% @ 120% AMI
>25 units:

Pay housing impact fees
Off-site
For-sale:
>24 units, 15% @ 80-120% AMI
For-rent:
>24 units: 15% @ 50-80% AMI
Brisbane Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 6
5-17% @ 80% AMI (sliding scale
based on total units)
4-9% @ 50% AMI (silding scale
based on total units)
7-10% @ 120% AMI (sliding scale
based on total units)
4-9% @ 80% AMI (sliding scale
based on total units)
For-sale: smaller lots, ADUs.

Rental: smaller unit size, different
interior finishes and features
Not currently allowed (update
pending) n/a n/a n/a
For-sale: 45, renews at resale of
unit
Rental: 55, renews at resale of
property
Yes its outsourced Basic (resales, annual occupancy
verification) No
.25 FTE in-house staff
BRIDGE manages rental; staffing
unknown
11-100 units Yes 8/18/2023
We are considering an update to
our IHO presently, and preparing
an in-lieu fee feasibility
component.

Burlingame No Existing Policy
Colma Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 or more units 40% of IU @ 30-50% AMI 20% of IU 50-80% AMI
Fee is gap between development
capital typically expected to be
available based on the amount to
be received by a Developer or
owner from Affordable Sales Price
or Affordable Rent and anticipated
cost of constructing Inclusionary
Land donation
Off site
Combination
Make up the gap between the
amount of development capital
typically expected to be available
based on the amount to be
received by a Developer or owner
from Affordable Sales Price or
Affordable Rent and anticipated
Yes
Daly City Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 20 rental; 15 ownership 10% at 10% AMI 20% at 120% AMI In-lieu fee Alternative for rental only: $48/s.f. ;
required for rental: $35sf; required
for ownership: $45/sf
rental: 5-20 units; ownership: 5-14
units
no alternative if required to build
units
no projects since IZ amended
11/18. 55 years Yes but it is basic monitor for primary occupancy yes 0.75 11-100 units Yes 8/21/23 we want to update our fees and
hope to work regionally with 21
elements
East Palo Alto Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 2 or more
5+: 20% of net new
10% @ 80% AMI
10% @ 120% AMI
5+: 20% of net new
5% @ 35% AMI
10% @ 50% AMI
5% @ 60% AMI
In-lieu fee
Off site
Other
Rental: $273,400
Ownership: $259,600 >5 units Perpetuity Yes
Foster City Other (Explain in additional notes) 5+ In-lieu fee Rental: $75.32/sq ft ; Sale:
$48.21/sq ft
There are some other disclaimers in
the fee schedule here:
https://www.fostercity.org/sites/de
fault/files/fileattachments/financial
services/page/3691/fy 2023-
9 and under
Half Moon Bay Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 10 or more
4% @ 30-50% AMI
7% @ 50-80% AMI
Hillsborough No Existing Policy
Menlo Park Other (Explain in additional notes) 5-100
5-100 units:
21% @ 50-80% AMI or
12% @ 30-50% AMI
100+ units:
21% @ 50-80% AMI or
12% @ 30-50% AMI
55 years for rental Affordable housing overlay
Millbrae Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 10 units 5% @ 30-50% AMI 10% @ 50-80% AMI 15% @ 80-120% AMI
As an alternative to the fee
payment, may be able to provide
an additional on-site inclusionary
unit
may be allowed for fractional units
less than 0.5 or residential
developments four to nine units
Residential developments with four
to nine units
Inclusionary housing ordinance
requires units to be provided
onsite
Inclusionary housing ordinance
requires units to be provided
onsite
55 years rental; 45 years ownership It's complicated - see additional notes for more details No 1 FTE; work with BAHA Yes 8/18/23 Relatively new program Pacifica Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 8+ units
15% of all units:
(In redevelopment area)
40% @ 30-50% AMI
30% @ 50-80% AMI
(Outside redevelopment area)
50% @ 30-50% AMI
Each subsequent purchaser shall be
limited to the lesser of:

Original purchase price, plus the
percentage increase AMI from date
of original purchase, plus cost of
any capital improvement
expenditures greater than 1% of
Off site
Land dedication
In lieu
Combination
55 years rental;
45 years renew at resale for
ownerships
Portola Valley No Existing Policy
Redwood City Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 20+ units 10% @ 80-120% AMI 5% @ 30-50% AMI 15% @ 80-120% AMI
In lieu
Unit size (affordable units may be
20% smaller than MR units)
Other
Payment for fractional units 55 years for rental
30 years for ownership
San Bruno Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5+ units
15% of units:
5% @ 30-50% AMI
5% @ 50-80% AMI
5% @ 80-120%
15% of units:
5% @ 30-50% AMI
10% @ 80-120% AMI
In lieu
Off site
Convert owner units to rentals:
5% @ 30-50%
5% @ 50-80%
5% @ 80-120%
In-lieu fee will provide at least
an equivalent number of
affordable units at the same or
lower income levels as required
55 years for rental,
45 years renew at release for
ownership
Yes
San Carlos Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5+ units
15% of units:
10% @ 30-50% AMI
5% @ 50-80% AMI
5-7 units:
20% @ 50-80% AMI
7+ units:
15% @ 30-80% AMI
Difference between affordable
sales price or rent and the fair
market value for the unit: no event
shall the in lieu fee exceed cost of
mitigating the impact of marketrate units
Perpetuity;
Perpetuity renewal at resale for
ownership
Yes
San Francisco
San Mateo Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 11 units 15% @ 50-80% AMI 15% @ 80-120% AMI Rental:
(.1-.4) units: 33,452 - $133,807
(5-10) units: 167,259 - $334,517
Owner:
(.1-.4) units: 30,701 - $122,802
(5-10) units: 153,503 - $307,005
San Mateo County
South San Francisco
Woodside No Existing Policy
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Jurisdiction Policy Project Size Threshold Rental
On-site Income Requirements
Ownership
On-site Income Requirements Alternatives In-Lieu Fee Levels When are in lieu fees required? For owernship, do you tend to get more units or fees?
For rental - do you tend to get
more units or fees? Term of Affordability
On an ongoing basis, do you
monitor rental units (e.g. rents,
income verification)?
How are you at providing
stewardship to ownership units?
Do you collect a fee charged to
apartment owners to monitor the
status of the inclusionary units?
How many FTEs manage the
program (after initial
construction/lease up/sale)? If
you outsource it who do you
Approximate number of
affordable units produced by the
program
Last time you updated your
ordinance, did you do a feasbility
study?
Info Last Updated/Reviewed Additional Notes
Fill in this sheet with information
for your jurisdiction
Which policy is used the most? If
you would like to describe a
second policy add another row
Number of units that trigger each
policy (ie. projects with fewer units
are exempt)
Income requirements for rental
units
Income requirements for for-sale
units
Other options besides building
onsite units (alternative
compliance options)
If a fee is allowed, how is it
calculated?
If there are times when a
developer MUST pay the fee
instead of providing units, explain
when. Leave blank if the developer
always has the option to build.

All units, mostly units, about
equally split, mostly fees, all fees
All units, mostly units, about
equally split, mostly fees, all fees Length in years
e.g. We don't do stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners yearly;
monitor to ensure units don't sell
at market prices, etc.

Yes, no, planning on starting Combined rental and ownership, don't look it up just guess..

Date that this sheet was updated
or reviewed by jurisdiction (e.g.
today's date)
Include any additional comments,
relevant policy updates in the
prospective future etc.

Sample Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units 5% @ 50% AMI, 5% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 100% AMI

10% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 120% AMI
in lieu fee
off site
non-profit partnerships
land dedication etc
Rental: $20/s.f. for both single
family and multi-family housing
projects.

Ownership: $200 000 per market
Under 10 units 99 years for rental, 99 years renew
at resale for ownership Yes its outsourced Yes 0.20% 11-100 units Yes 6/1/2023 Different policies apply around
transit center, will reconsider fees
in 2024.

Campbell Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 10 units 40% at very-low income, 60% to lower-income
40% at very-low income, 60% to
lower-income
In lieu fee for low-density
residential only (<6 du acre)
$34.50 per sq. ft. for owner units,
$21.50 per square foot for rental
Not required; provided as an
option for low-density residential Units Units
45-year restriction for owner; 55
year for rental (renewed on 45
years for change of ownership)
It's complicated - see additional
notes for more details
We've hired HouseKeys to help
administer. No Soon to be 1 + HouseKeys Under 10 units No 6/2/2023 We do annual income verification
for rental units; but do not monitor
rental rates in the community.

Cupertino Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 6+ Units 15% at Low Income 20% at Median Income Alternatives available as an option
subject to discretion e.g. eq. land
donation or off-site BMR etc.

Residential ‐ Ownership (per sq.
ft.)
Detached Single Family
Residence $20.29
Small Lot Single Family
Residence or Townhome $22.31
Multi‐family Attached
In-lieu of 1 unit, fee is an option
under 6 net new units;
Discretionary option for larger
projects
Units Very few rental projects getting
developed. Program requires units. 99 years Yes its outsourced Covenants recorded with property. Involved in resales Considering this option wiht this
HE update due to large number of
units anticipated to be added to
program

0.25 100-500 units Yes 8/18/2023
Gilroy No Existing Policy n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a housekeys 7-5-23 gilroy does not have a city-wide
inclusionary ordinance. Our RHNA
units come from TCAC projects and
Specific Plan projects that require
affordable units.

Los Altos Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 or more
5-9 units:
15% @ 30-120% AMI
10+ units:
20% @ 50-80% AMI
15% 30-50% AMI
15% affordable: majority at
moderate, remaining low and/or
very-low income
In lieu
Los Altos Hills Other (Explain in additional notes)
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
proposed to be established in
latest Housing Element
Los Gatos Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5
100 % at 80%-120%AMI (10-20%
set aside based on development
size)
50% at 80% and 50% at 80%-120%
(10-20% set aside based on
development size)
In-Lieu for Hillside property 6% of Building Valuation of all other units Units Units In perpetuity for most owner and rental Yes its outsourced Do resales, yearly monitoring outsourced For new units that are built HouseKeys 100-500 units No 7-13-23 Milpitas Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 10 units or more 15% @ 30-80% AMI 15% @ 30-120% AMI Off site Land dedication
Gross square footage constructed
for each new residential use Fractional units
Monte Sereno No Existing Policy
Morgan Hill Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning Projects with 2 or more units 15% of units outside of downtown
and then 50% of those units must
be LI and 50% VLI downtown is
10% total requirement and then
income split the same
Moderate 110%
In-Lieu fee, land dedication, rental
units in for sale projects, off-site
construction,
if 15% commitment requires below
.5 BMR, then a fractional fee is
paid - developers can choose to
build 1/2 of IHO requirement and
pay 1/2 of requirement
More Units More units 55 years It's complicated - see additional notes for more details
e.g. We don't do stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners yearly;
monitor to ensure units don't sell
at market prices, etc.

Yes, our Administrator charges a
fee for our BMR rental units
administration
HouseKeys 500+ units No Jul 2023
Feasibility study done every 2-3
years - HOuskeys monitors BMR
rental units but we do not annually
monitor 100% affordable rentals
outside of collecting rent amount
info and vacancy info
Mountain View Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 1 unit
15% @ 50-120% AMI
- units must be providied at at least
two income levels with resulting
income level no greater than
weighted average of 65% AMI
15% @ 80-120% AMI
- units must be provided at at least
two income levels with resulting
income level no greater than
weighted average of 100% AMI
Rowhomes & Townhomes 25%
Developers of market-rate
residential developments may
submit a request to meet their
affordable housing obligations
through other means, such as the
dedication of land, off-site
affordable units the provision of
Based on net new square footage
being built and what the annual
fee per square foot is.

On-site units is the requirement
and objective standard of the
program. In-lieu fees must be
requested as an alternative
mitigation and approved by the
City. It is not automatically
granted However a project with
Fees Units In perpetuity Yes its outsourced The third party administrator completes. No
1 employee to oversee third party
administration. Current third party
administrator is House Keys
100-500 units Yes 7/21/2023
Palo Alto Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 2 or more
>4: 1 inclusionary unit or in lieu
5+ units, 20% of net new:
5% @ 35% AMI
10% @ 50% AMI
5% @ 60% AMI
20% of net new:
10% @ 80% AMI
10% @ 120% AMI
Off site
In lieu
Other
2-4 units
San Jose Other (Explain in additional notes) 10 units of more Complicated. Refer to Cities IHO website. See website See website
To complete this survey please
send it to Kristen Clements in the
Housing Department at
[email protected]
City has an Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance that requires 15% of the
units are affordable;however per
court ruling the City has to allow
altrernative compliance, such as
paying an en lou fee.

Santa Clara Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 3 units 15% at average 100% AMI, certain specific plans are different 15% at average of 100%AMI
City Council may authorize
alternatives including land
dedication for affordable housing,
off-site development accessible to
transit, or a combination.

Residential Rental fee = $28.70 /sq
ft.

Residential Ownership is the
difference between unrestricted
appraised market value and
affordable sales price.

Commercial Impact fee varies by
In-lieu fees are optional for
fractional units or for projects with
less than 10 units.

Units (does not allow fee, only for
fractional units or project with less
than 10 units)
Units 55 Years rental Yes its outsourced Housekeys annual occupancy surveys Yes for monitoring
Manager and Analyst spend some
time reviewing projects,
negotiating AHA/DBA, and
overseeing compliance
administrator (HouseKeys).
100-500 units Yes 8/10/23
We are planning to update the
ordinance in 2024 to require
deeper levels of affordability.

Link here to see the ordinance.

Saratoga No Existing Policy
Sunnyvale Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning Rental: 3 units Ownership: 7 units
5% @ 50% AMI,
10% @ 80% AMI 15% @ 120% AMI
In-lieu fee; Partnership w/
affordable housing developer to
develop units in another project;
Conversion or preservation of
affordable housing in another
project; Land dedication (must
meet inclusionary requirement
Rental (3-6 units): $14/net new sf;
Rental (7+ units): $28.50/net new
sf;
Ownership: 7% of contract sales
price or appraised market value
(whichever is higher) of all marketrate units in project Units, although developers usually
pay fees for fractional units
Units, although developers usually
pay fees for fractional units
Rental: 55 years;
Ownership: 30 years Yes it is well developed Resales, annual audits and monitoring No 2 FTEs (1 Affordable Housing
Manager and 1 Housing Program
Technician)
500+ units No 8/10/2023
Considering increasing inclusionary
requirement to 20% for both rental
and ownership. Feasibility study to
be complete by July 2024.

H.2.d
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Jurisdiction Policy Project Size Threshold
Rental
On-site Income
Requirements
Ownership
On-site Income
Requirements
Alternatives In-Lieu Fee Levels When are in lieu fees
required?
For owernship, do
you tend to get
more units or
fees?
For rental - do you
tend to get more
units or fees?
Term of
Affordability
On an ongoing basis,
do you monitor
rental units (e.g.
rents, income
verification)?
How are you at
providing
stewardship to
ownership units?
Do you collect a fee
charged to apartment
owners to monitor the
status of the
inclusionary units?
How many FTEs manage the
program (after initial
construction/lease up/sale)? If
you outsource it, who do you
contract with?
Approximate
number of
affordable units
produced by the
program
Last time you
updated your
ordinance, did you
do a feasbility study?
Info Last
Updated/Reviewed Additional Notes
Fill in this sheet with
information for your
jurisdiction
Which policy is used the most?
If you would like to describe a
second policy add another row
Number of units that trigger
each policy (ie. projects with
fewer units are exempt)
Income requirements for rental
units
Income requirements for
for-sale units
Other options besides building onsite units
(alternative compliance options) If a fee is allowed, how is it calculated? If there are times when a
developer MUST pay the fee
instead of providing units,
explain when. Leave blank if the
developer always has the option
to build.

All units, mostly units,
about equally split,
mostly fees, all fees
All units, mostly units,
about equally split,
mostly fees, all fees
Length in years
e.g. We don't do
stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners
yearly; monitor to
ensure units don't sell at
market prices, etc.

Yes, no, planning on starting
Combined rental and
ownership, don't look it
up just guess..

Date that this sheet was
updated or reviewed by
jurisdiction (e.g. today's
date)
Include any additional comments, relevant policy updates in the prospective future etc.

Sample Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units 5% @ 50% AMI, 5% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 100% AMI

10% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 120% AMI
in lieu fee
off site
non-profit partnerships
land dedication, etc.

Rental: $20/s.f. for both single family and multifamily housing projects.

Ownership: $200,000 per market rate unit
Under 10 units
99 years for rental, 99
years renew at resale
for ownership
Yes but it is basic Yes 0.20% 11-100 units Yes 6/1/2023 Different policies apply around transit center, will reconsider fees in 2024.

Benicia Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
1 unit: @ 60% AMI
2 unit: 1 @ 45% AMI, 1 @ 75%
AMI
Odd number: odd unit @ 60%
AMI
10% @ 30-80% AMI, 1/2
30-50% AMI, 1/2 @ 50-
80% AMI
1 unit: 60% AMI
2 unit: 75% AMI
Odd unit: 60% AMI
Off site
Transfer extra unit credits
Land dedication
Case-by-case basis: shall be sufficient to provide
the same number, type, and bedroom distribution
of inclusionary units at the same affordability
levels
30 years for rental
30 years renew at
resale for ownership
Yes
Dixon No Existing Policy
Fairfield No Existing Policy
Rio Vista No Existing Policy
Solano County
Suisun City No Existing Policy
Vacaville No Existing Policy
Vallejo No Existing Policy
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Jurisdiction Policy Project Size Threshold Rental
On-site Income Requirements
Ownership
On-site Income
Requirements
Alternatives In-Lieu Fee Levels When are in lieu fees required? For owernship, do you
tend to get more units
or fees?
For rental - do you
tend to get more units
or fees?
Term of Affordability
On an ongoing basis, do
you monitor rental units
(e.g. rents, income
verification)?
How are you at providing
stewardship to ownership
units?
Do you collect a fee charged to
apartment owners to monitor
the status of the inclusionary
units?
How many FTEs manage the
program (after initial
construction/lease up/sale)? If
you outsource it, who do you
contract with?
Approximate number of
affordable units produced
by the program
Last time you updated
your ordinance, did you
do a feasbility study?
Info Last
Updated/Reviewed Additional Notes
Fill in this sheet with
information for your
jurisdiction
Which policy is used the most?
If you would like to describe a
second policy add another row
Number of units that trigger
each policy (ie. projects with
fewer units are exempt)
Income requirements for rental
units
Income requirements for
for-sale units
Other options besides building onsite units
(alternative compliance options) If a fee is allowed, how is it calculated? If there are times when a
developer MUST pay the fee
instead of providing units, explain
when. Leave blank if the
developer always has the option
to build.

All units, mostly units,
about equally split,
mostly fees, all fees
All units, mostly units,
about equally split,
mostly fees, all fees
Length in years
e.g. We don't do stewardship,
Basic (do resales, etc.)
Contact homeowners yearly;
monitor to ensure units don't
sell at market prices, etc.

Yes, no, planning on starting
Combined rental and
ownership, don't look it up
just guess..

Date that this sheet was
updated or reviewed by
jurisdiction (e.g. today's
date)
Include any additional comments, relevant policy updates in the prospective future etc.

Sample Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 25 units 5% @ 50% AMI, 5% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 100% AMI

10% @ 80% AMI,
10% @ 120% AMI
in lieu fee
off site
non-profit partnerships
land dedication, etc.

Rental: $20/s.f. for both single family and multifamily housing projects.

Ownership: $200,000 per market rate unit
Under 10 units
99 years for rental, 99
years renew at resale
for ownership
Yes but it is basic Yes 0.20% 11-100 units Yes 6/1/2023 Different policies apply around transit center, will reconsider fees in 2024.

Cloverdale Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 or more units 15% 30-80% AMI 15% @ 30-80% AMI Land dedication Ownership unit: applicable decimal fraction
times the established in-lieu fee for one
inclusionary unit
30+ years for rental
Cotati No Existing Policy
Healdsburg Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 or more units 5% @ 50-80% AMI 15% @ 120% AMI
15% @ 120% AMI
5% @ middle income
households
In lieu land dedicaiton
Off site
Conversion of existing market rate
Single family + ADU
Other
Petaluma Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 5 or more units 7.5% @ 30-50% AMI

7.5% @ 50-80% AMI

7.5% @ 50-80% AMI

7.5% @ 80-120% AMI
Alternative mixture of units
Alternative method
Off-site
In-lieu fee
55 years for rental
45 years for ownership
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning 6 or more
For-rent residential:
5% @ 30-50% AMI
8% @ 50-80% AMI
For-rent multifamily:
3% 30-50% AMI
4% @ 50-80% AMI or
10% @ 80-120% AMI
For-sale multifamily:
5% @ 120% AMI
55 years for rental and
ownership
Sebastopol Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning Determined by Planning Director
Planning Department shall
set maximum allowable
purchase prices
In-lieu fee
Off-site Decided by City Council
When the calculation of
inclusionary requirements yields
a fractional number
Perpetuity for rentals,
Renew at resale for
ownership
Yes
Sonoma City
Acquisition and enforcement of rental/sales price
restrictions on existing market rate units
Employer based programs providing direct
subsidy to qualified employees
Land dedication
Off-site
55 years for rental,
30 years for ownership Yes
Sonoma County
Windsor
H.2.d
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Bay Area Inclusionary Summary Matrixes (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC)
Policy Overview
Mapping a Path For Each Jurisdiction
Photo credit: Karl Nielsen
Photo credit: Noah Berger
Photo credit: Jim Maurer,
Flickr Creative Commons
H.2.e
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing TOC Policy – Overview
• Applies to areas within half-mile of existing and planned rail stations, bus rapid transit stops, and ferry terminals. • Future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding cycles will consider prioritizing investments in transit station areas that are subject to and compliant with the TOC Policy.
• Jurisdictions should anticipate demonstrating compliance prior to adoption of OBAG 4, expected in 2026.
2 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing TOC Policy – Requirements
3 1. Density
• Required minimum densities for new housing and office uses vary by level of transit service.

2. Parking management
• Parking maximums for new development vary by level of transit service. • Requirements for bicycle, shared, unbundled parking, and TDM/curb management.

3. Transit station access and circulation
• Comply with Complete Streets Policy, prioritize active transportation. • Complete an access gap analysis and identify opportunities for Mobility Hubs

4. Affordable Housing/Commercial Stabilization Policies • Jurisdiction chooses policies that best meet local needs from menu of options spanning the “3Ps.” H.2.e
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Requirements vary. Jurisdictions choose a compliance path.

Component Variability and Options
Residential and
Office Density
• Requirements vary by transit tier, reduced for smaller jurisdictions • Maximum densities is optional.

Parking
Management
• Requirements vary by transit tier.
• Parking districts qualify and parking management policies - menu of options.

Station Access
and Circulation
• MTC’s Complete Streets Policy consistent with OBAG requirements. • Variety of local plans/documents accepted to demonstrate compliance.

Housing and
Commercial
Policies
• Menu of options – jurisdictions must choose 6.
• Tiered requirements for policies that require funding. • Allow implementation through third parties.
4 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing September Administrative Guidance Update Included:

1. Density: simplified compliance verification, offer jurisdictions options.

2. Parking: clarified standards & parking districts/area-wide strategies.

3. Station access & circulation: flexibility, esp. multiple stops/stations.

4. Housing Policies:
• Incorporated tiered requirements for funding policies • Allowed for implementation by multi-jurisdictional collaboratives.

Guidance document will be finalized in Early 2024.
5 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing What Constitutes “Compliance” with TOC Policy?
• TOC Policy does not define how “compliance” will be measured for MTC funding decisions.
• Feedback from MTC Planning Committee: Maintain TOC Policy standards but allow for some flexibility in implementation.
• Conceptual proposal:
• Meet 85% of standards for density and parking; 100% for housing policies and station access. • MTC staff to develop methodology.
6 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Affordable Housing Policy Options – 2 of each P
Production Preservation Protection and Anti-Displacement Inclusionary Zoning Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing
“Just Cause” Eviction
Affordable Housing Funding Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes
Affordable Housing Overlay Zones Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Preservation Legal Assistance for Tenants Public Land for Affordable Housing Condominium Conversion Restrictions Foreclosure Assistance Ministerial Approval Public/Community Land Trusts Rental Assistance Program Public/Community Land Trusts Funding to Support Preservation Capacity Rent Stabilization Development Certainty and Streamlined
Entitlement Process
Mobile Home Preservation Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement
Activities
Preventing Displacement from Substandard
Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement
Activities
Tenant Relocation Assistance
Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
Fair Housing Enforcement
Tenant Anti-Harassment Protections
7 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Mapping a Path to Compliance
• Inventory of Existing Policies and Programs
• Many jurisdictions have 3-6 programs in effect that may comply. • Some programs may need some amendments to comply.
• Inventory of Housing Element Commitments and Work Program • TOC Compliance Considerations – some limitations
• If choosing Inclusionary cannot count in lieu fees as affordable housing dollars • Can only choose one: AHOZ, Ministerial approval, or Streamlined process • Can only select CLT for production OR preservation.
• Preventing displacement from Substandard conditions – only for preservation OR protection. • Must have relevant housing types – SRO, Mobile Home Park, Condo Conversion. 8 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Learning More About Each Policy
MTC Administrative Guidance: TOC Policy September 2023
Source for TOC compliance all elements (87 pages)
Appendix A – 51 Pages about Policies
• Production Policy # – the adopted policy language
• Purpose – few paragraphs describing whys and hows of the policy. • Relevant State Law – links to any relevant state laws • Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance – several paragraphs on specific program requirements or minimums
• Submitting Additional Required Documentation – details on materials needed to demonstrate compliance
9 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Minimum funding for various policies, four years
10 Production 2. Affordable
Housing Funding
Preservation 1. Funding
to Preserve Unsubsidized
Affordable Housing
Protection 3. Legal
Assistance for Tenants
Protection 4. Foreclosure
Assistance
Tier
Production 6.

Public/Community Land
Trusts
Preservation 5.

Public/Community Land
Trusts
Protection 5. Rental
Assistance Program
Protection 10. Fair Housing
Enforcement
A $1,000,000 $500,000 $100,000 $150,000
B $1,400,000 $600,000 $200,000 $300,000 C $2,000,000 $700,000 D $3,000,000 $900,000 $300,000 $450,000 E $4,000,000 $1,200,000 F $8,000,000 $2,400,000 $400,000 $500,000
G $20,000,000 $6,000,000 $500,000 $750,000
H.2.e
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Production
Select at least 2 policies Minimum Requirements Considerations Inclusionary Zoning 15% Inclusionary, or feasibility study 11 or more units,
Alternative compliance, fee min $100K per unit
Ordinance, New
development
Affordable Housing Overlay Zones All TOC areas
Greater incentives than SDBL
Ordinance, New
Development
Public Land for Affordable Housing One public lands project, 25-33% affordable Inventory, connected to HE inventory.

Dedicated staff or consultant time.

Program and Staff
Affordable Housing Funding Secured LOCAL funding, projected 4 year minimum. $$$$$ Public/Community Land Trusts Same as above, dedicated to CLT. $$$$$ Ministerial Approval Objective Design Standards.

Ministerial approval for 11 plus units where 15% affordable OR project exceeds inclusionary
Process Ordinance, new
development
Development Certainty and Streamlined
Entitlement Process
Provide vested rights & 5 hearing limit, Per SB 330 via local ordinance Adopt No net Loss, or otherwise demonstrate tenant displacement protections
Process Ordinance, New
Development
11 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Preservation
Select at least 2 policies Minimum Requirements Considerations Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing
Secured LOCAL funding, projected 4 year minimum.

For preserving market rate affordable housing.

Program: borrower criteria, terms and affordability.
$$$$$
Public/Community Land Trusts Same as above, dedicated to CLT. $$$$$ Funding to Support Preservation Capacity Secured LOCAL funding, projected 4 year minimum. $$ Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Establish first right of refusal.

Define timelines and eligible properties.

Ordinance
Preventing Displacement from Substandard
Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement
Activities

1. Amnesty program for unpermitted occupied units, habitability plan, right to return with fair rent OR

2. Low/No interest loan/Grant for low-income homeowners – 80% AMI, min 10K
$$, Program
Mobile Home Preservation 1. Mobile home overlay – limit or prohibit redevelopment; right to return and tenant relocation.

2. Mobile Home closure - require relocation assistance and conditional approval with hearings.

Ordinance
Condominium Conversion Restrictions 1-1 replacement required Limit conversions except 100% affordable
Ordinance
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Preservation Limit SRO conversions pending affordable production.

Require relocation plan for conversions.

Allow conversion when replacement is 100% affordable
Ordinance
12 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Protection
Select at least 2 policies Minimum Requirements
No Net Loss and Right to Return to
Demolished Homes -No net loss (SB 330) no sunset, equivalent replacements and right to return. Ordinance Preventing Displacement from
Substandard Conditions &
Associated Code Enforcement

1. Grants/loans to landlords for repairs. Relocation, right to return, & low rent for 10 years.

2. Rental Escrow program – rental income reserved to address habitability issues.

3. Require habitability plans for repairs, relocation assistance. $$
Program
Ordinance
Legal Assistance for Tenants
Secured LOCAL funding, projected 4 year minimum. $$$
Foreclosure Assistance
Rental Assistance Program
Fair Housing Enforcement
Rent Stabilization Annual increases limited to 5% or less, or 100% of CPI. - Properties with 3+ units
- Enforcement mechanism, no sunset.

Ordinance
Mobile Home Rent Stabilization - Max 5% in crease, or CPI. Vacancy control. Enforcement. Ordinance “Just Cause” Eviction - Expand AB 1482 – reduce causes for eviction OR expand eligible properties or tenants (no min lease term).
- No sunset. Evictions filed with government agency.

Ordinance
“Tenant Relocation Assistance - Require relocation payments for no-fault evictions – min 3-month fair market rent. Ordinance Tenant Anti-Harassment Protections - Define harassing behaviors, notification of rights, fines/fees, legal action by tenants or City. Ordinance 13 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Goals for Housing Policy Technical Assistance

1. Support jurisdictions with adopting impactful policies.

2. Increase rate of compliance with TOC Policy requirements.

3. Advance Housing Element implementation.
14 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing What is affordable, per TOC, generally?
• AMI targets –Max 80% AMI rental & 120% AMI owner
• Deed Restrictions generally required to establish affordability • Term: 55 years or greater.
15 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Local Sources
• Commercial Linkage Fee
• In-kind contributions – waiver of fess, not staff time. • Existing trust fund balance
• Committed funds to be expended during 4 year period.
• Local transfer, TOT or other sources.
• County bond funds expended in jurisdiction w/in planning period. • CDBG, sometimes
• NOT: State or Federal dollars except CDBG sometimes
• SOMETIMES: inclusionary in lieu fees.
16 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Local Funding
• Secured Funding: Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use for affordable housing can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle.
17 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Thank you!
TOC Policy Web Page:
https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/land-use/transit-orientedcommunities-toc-policy MTC/ABAG Staff Contacts:
• Gillian Adams, Principal Planner
[email protected]
• Eli Kaplan, Regional Planner
[email protected]
• [email protected]
Photo credit: Noah Berger 18
Urban Planning Partners Contacts
• Kearstin Dischinger, Associate Principle
[email protected]
• Emily Culling, Assistant Planner
• [email protected]
H.2.e
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Preservation: Amnesty Program
• Establish an amnesty program to waive fines and fees for property owners with occupied units constructed without the proper permits in exchange for bringing the unit into compliance with health and safety codes. o
• Prior to making repairs, the property owner must complete a tenant habitability plan describing how they will maintain habitability for the tenant and any adjacent units while repairs are being performed. If the tenant needs to be relocated for repairs, the plan discusses how the landlord will assist with temporary relocation, which must include offering a nearby available unit at same rent (if landlord owns other properties), paying for moving expenses, and providing relocation assistance to pay for the cost of temporary housing.
• As a condition of receiving amnesty for fines and fees, the property owner must agree to continue renting to the existing tenant after repairs are complete with reasonable limits on rent increases for that tenant.
19 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Preservation: Low or no interest loan or grant HOMEOWNERS • Create a low-or no-interest loan or grant program to support low-income homeowners (including seniors and people with disabilities) with making repairs or modifications to their homes. o The program must define eligibility for receiving a loan or grant, eligible uses for funds, and minimum/maximum loan or grant amounts.
• o Funding recipients must be below 80% of AMI.
• o The minimum loan/grant amount must be at least $10,000. 20 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Protection: Substandard Conditions
Offer grants or interest-free loans to landlords to repair substandard or other dangerous/inadequate conditions in exchange for keeping rents affordable for 10 years or for the duration of the loan, whichever is longer. • landlord must pay temporary moving expenses and temporary housing. • landlord must agree to continue renting to the existing tenant once repairs are complete. • Jurisdictions may set income qualifications for landlords to receive this funding.

Implement a rental escrow program where tenants experiencing persistent habitability issues receive rent reductions and rental payments are deposited into an escrow account until code violations are addressed. • landlord must pay for moving expenses and temporary housing. • landlord can request escrow funds only for repairs, tenant relocation assistance, and other qualifying expenses. • clearly define the circumstances in which a tenant can safely withhold or reduce rent without fear of eviction. • landlord is required to continue renting to the existing tenant after repairs are complete.

Require landlords to complete a tenant habitability plan as part of the permitting process for repairs to address code issues. • describe how the landlord will maintain habitability for the tenant and any adjacent units while repairs are being performed. • the plan discusses how the landlord will assist with temporary relocation, which must include offering a nearby available unit at same rent (if landlord owns other properties), paying for moving expenses, and cost of temporary housing. 21 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Anti- Harassment
• define harassing behaviors, include behaviors prohibited by state law AND the following:
o Any behavior to prevent tenant organizing
o Refusal to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant's lawful rent payment. o Requesting information or documentation relating to immigration or citizenship status. o Failing to perform repairs or maintenance or threatening to fail to perform repairs or maintenance required by law.
• city attorney or tenant may bring a civil action or request an injunction. • establish penalties for landlords found to be in violation, including fines, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.
• define a violation as an affirmative defense for a tenant in an eviction proceeding. • establish noticing requirements for landlords to provide each tenant with information 22 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Commercial Stabilization Policies
Commercial Stabilization Policy
Select at least
1 policy
Small Business and Non-Profit Overlay Zone
Small Business and Non-Profit Preference Policy
Small Business and Non-Profit Financial Assistance Program Small Business Advocate Office
23 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Densities in a Nutshell
Photo credit: Karl Nielsen
Photo credit: Noah Berger
Photo credit: Jim Maurer,
Flickr Creative Commons
H.2.e
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Density Calculations in a Nutshell
• Step 1: Identify parcels for the calculation
• Option A: Include all parcels that allow residential or commercial office – Option B: Exclude certain parcels
• Include all 6th Cycle Housing Element Cycle even if they could be excluded by other criteria • Remove any parcels with existing residential uses – single or multi • Remove parks, institutions, public facilitates or other parcels not suitable for residential • Step 2: Calculate Average Densities
• Calculate the average minimum and maximum residential density • Calculate the average minimum and maximum commercial office density • Step 3:Compare Average Min and Max Densities to TOC thresholds • Step 4: Identify any necessary zoning changes to meet TOC thresholds 25 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Density Calculations in a Nutshell
• Step 1: Identify parcels for the calculation
• Option A: Include all parcels that allow residential or commercial office – Option B: Exclude certain parcels
• Include all 6th Cycle Housing Element Cycle even if they could be excluded by other criteria • Remove any parcels with existing residential uses – single or multi • Remove parks, institutions, public facilitates or other parcels not suitable for residential • Step 2: Calculate Average Densities
• Calculate the average minimum and maximum residential density • Calculate the average minimum and maximum commercial office density • Step 3:Compare Average Min and Max Densities to TOC thresholds • Step 4: Identify any necessary zoning changes to meet TOC thresholds 26 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Minimum Residential Densities
27 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing MIN RES: Equivalency for Form Based Codes
28 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Maximum Residential Densities
29 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing MAX RES: Equivalency for Form Based Codes
30 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Rules of the Road
• Minimum Densities
• Each parcel or zone is not required to include a minimum density, however it is strongly recommended.
• Form based code zoning is not exempted from minimum density requirements • Mixed zoning districts should include minimums
• Jurisdictions may rely on General Plan ranges from commercial density minimums • Parcels without an established minimum density shall be assigned zero as the minimum density for the purposes of calculating a TOC’s minimum density.
• Densities can include
• PUD or GP of PUD
• Zoning that will be adopted by 2026
31 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Commercial Minimum Densities
32 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Commercial Office Max Densities
33 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Parking
• New residential
• No minimum parking requirements permitted, except Tier 4 • Parking Maximums
• Provide one secure bicycle parking space per unit
• Allow unbundled and shared parking
• New commercial construction
• No minimum parking requirements permitted, except Tier 4 • Maximum automobile parking per 1,000 square foot ratio • 1 Secured bicycle parking per 5,000 occupied Square feet of commercial office • Allow unbundled and shared parking
34 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Parking Maximums
35 Residential Commercial
Tier 1 0.375 spaces per unit 0.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet Tier 2 0.5 spaces per unit 1.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet Tier 3 1.0 spaces per unit 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet Tier 4 1.5 spaces per unit or lower 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet H.2.e
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing One Policy or Program
• TDM Policy for New Development: require provision and enforcement of transportation demand management (TDM).
• • Curb Strategy/Management: Priority curb access based on variable need. • • Parking Benefit District (PBD): Invest parking revenues into a PBD to fund streetscape, safety, and TDM programs.
• • Demand-Responsive Pricing: Price parking according to level of convenience and demand. • • Priced Parking: Adding priced parking where it used to be free. 36 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Regional Discretionary Funding
Regional discretionary funding: For the purposes of the TOC Policy, “regional discretionary funding” for transit projects includes the following fund sources: regional bridge tolls and associated programs (e.g., RM2 & RM3), Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and Regional Exchange Program (MTC Exchange). This list is non-exhaustive and could be amended in the future if MTC exercises discretionary control over additional funding sources.
37 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Transit Tiers
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San José) •
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals
38 H.2.e
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: MTC Powerpoint (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing H.2.f
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: MTC TOD Policies Excerpt - Inclusionary Housing (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) H.2.f
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: MTC TOD Policies Excerpt - Inclusionary Housing (3323 : Follow-Up Report on Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Options) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.3
Date: March 12, 2024
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction, if any.

BACKGROUND: On May 9, 2023, the City Council confirmed the Council’s Strategic Priorities for FY 2023-24 and 2024-25. A copy of the agenda item and background documents is provided in Attachment A. These Strategic Priorities were used to guide the development of the two-year budget for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 Fiscal Years.

Staff has prepared an updated Matrix which lists each of the Priorities with current status. That is provided as Attachment B and is intended to allow the City Council to review progress and to discuss Strategic Priorities.

NEXT STEPS: Any comments or direction provided will be used by City staff as we begin work on the mid-cycle update to the adopted two-year budget which will be presented for consideration in June.

FISCAL IMPACT: None as a result of this item. Implementation of Strategic Priorities may require allocations of funds through the budget process.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments
B. Status Update -2023-2024 Strategic Priorities List (Adopted 5-9-23 mtg) 03072024 Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

H.3
Packet Pg. 318
H.3
Packet Pg. 319
City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.3
Date: May 9, 2023
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25 RECOMMENDATION:

Review and Confirm Strategic Priorities for the City as Revised BACKGROUND: On April 11, 2023, the City Council reviewed the results of a Strategic Planning session conducted on February 25, 2023, as summarized in the report of the session from the facilitator, the Institute for Local Government (ILG). The staff report from that meeting is provided as Attachment 2. At that meeting, the City Council opted to establish an ad hoc committee consisting of Council Members Malkani and Riley to further refine the strategic priorities and wording.

Attachment 1 provides Council Members Malkani and Riley’s recommended changes to that portion of the summary document. This item is presented to allow the City Council to review and finalize the strategic priorities.

NEXT STEPS: Should the City Council concur with the recommended revisions, those will be incorporated by the ILG into a final version of the session summary.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Finalizing the Council’s strategic priorities has no immediate fiscal impact. The strategic priorities will be used to help develop the spending plan for the coming biennial budget period.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Strategic Priorities 2023 Rev 050423
B. April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments
Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

H.3
Packet Pg. 324
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3
Packet Pg. 325
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) Strategic Priority #1: Economic Development
Draft Goal Statement: Attract and maintain businesses in Orinda’s Downtown area by building relationships with current and future property owners to minimize vacancies and encourage storefront upgrades.

Notes/Tactics:
• Consider hiring staff/retail broker to work with City Manager, Planning Director, property owners, and the Orinda Chamber of Commerce
• Evaluate (in two years) whether there is need for a full-time staff person to achieve these objectives in alignment with the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) • Develop measurements such as new leases and/or amount of sales tax revenue Strategic Priority #2: Staffing & Technology
Draft Goal Statement (Technology): Evaluate Orinda’s technology needs and equip City staff with the technological tools to perform efficiently across departments.

Notes/Tactics:
• Hire a technology consultant to assess the City’s hardware, software, and public safety tools (e.g., cameras) and provide associated costs for any necessary upgrades • Conduct a staff survey of current technology and future needs • Ensure the consultant report includes survey results and implementation steps • Consider hiring a GIS specialist or reengaging in regional partnerships to fill this need • Evaluate current IT services and assess if additional capacity/staff is needed Draft Goal Statement (Staffing): Attract and retain high quality City staff by using best practices in human resources and employee development to ensure that Orinda maintains exceptional public services and programs.

Notes/Tactics:
• Review compensation and classification system that includes an assessment of current job descriptions, wage/benefit structures, and hiring and retention practices • Consider updating the City’s human resources practices including but not limited to, wages and benefits, job descriptions, DEIB and compensation standards, based on the compensation and classification review and other research • Consider developing and adopting a compensation strategy • When developing any retention strategies, measure how long staff is currently staying in positions compared to historical trends and other market data • Integrate strategies to measure, attract and retain a diverse workforce at all levels of staffing1
Strategic Priority #3: Housing and Downtown Development Draft Goal Statement: Begin implementation of the Housing Element and Downtown Precise Plan, specifically rezoning downtown Orinda.
1 The language and concept of this bullet was not included in the document received from the Institute of Local Government. The language in this bullet is proposed by Councilmember Malkani for the Council’s consideration.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: City Strategic Priorities 2023 Rev 050423 (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25)Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) Notes/Tactics:
• Maintain and build relationships with property owners and developers • Demonstrate progress on 2-3 projects/sites
• Continue to assess viability of and pursue viable housing development on BART lot and Caltrans Gateway site
• Promote mixed-use development
• Report and publicize progress to the public using various communication methods Strategic Priority #4: Wildfire Resilience and Emergency Preparedness Draft Goal Statement: Continue to plan and prepare our community for emergencies including wildfires and advocate for enhanced resources and funding.

Notes/Tactics:
• Expand (and lead) community outreach about emergency preparedness and wildfire resilience
• Continue to collaborate with Orinda Firewise, CERT, and other groups, focusing on community safety and culture change
• Continue to collaborate with MOFD, EBMUD, EBRPD, PG&E, and other partners • Engage police and others to talk about community safety measures, fire awareness, and evacuation routes
Strategic Priority #5: City Facilities and Infrastructure Draft Goal Statement: Continue timely implementation of Capital Improvement Plan Projects and seek additional funding for city facility maintenance to address needs in a timely manner.

Notes/Tactics:
• Structure facility maintenance to be as efficient and effective as possible • Consider and incorporate quality aesthetics into public projects • Include asset management as part of technology assessment to keep track of facility maintenance/improvements
• Actively assess and seek funding to repair and maintain city facilities (separate from infrastructure funding for roads and drainage)
• Actively assess and seek funding to pursue public amenities and infrastructure projects, including green infrastructure2
• Leverage potential Connect Orinda opportunities
2 The language and concept of this bullet was not included in the document received from the Institute of Local Government. The language in this bullet is proposed by Councilmember Malkani for the Council’s consideration.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: City Strategic Priorities 2023 Rev 050423 (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25)Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.3
Date: April 11, 2023
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 RECOMMENDATION:

Review and Confirm Strategic Priorities for the City
BACKGROUND: The City Council last updated Strategic Priorities on March 19, 2019, and the staff report and attachments from that meeting are included here as Attachment

1. These prior adopted priorities have been used to guide the development of the current two-year budget, adopted in June 2021. Given the COVID Pandemic and a transition to a new City Manager, there has not been an update undertaken until the current effort. Attachment 2 is a review/update of the 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities with the status provided and which documents that most are complete or with substantial progress made.

This year, the update process was undertaken with the assistance of the Institute for Local Government (ILG), the non-profit affiliate of the League of California Cities. In preparation for a day-long session to update Strategic Priorities, ILG staff reviewed the prior adopted priorities and other documents provided by the City. They conducted individual interviews with each City Council member, had Council Members and City Executive Team members complete a survey on strategic priorities, and a survey on strategic priorities was also made available to the public and was promoted via the City’s communications and social media channels.

On Saturday, February 25, 2023, the City Council convened in a workshop setting as a noticed special meeting held at the Ranch House at Wilder to consider strategic priorities. This day-long session was facilitated by a team from ILG. No action was taken at the workshop. The ILG has prepared a summary of the results of the workshop (Attachment 3) and that is presented for City Council review and discussion with this item, and as an additional opportunity for public review and input. Approval of the summary by the City Council as part of this item will establish the updated strategic priorities.

NEXT STEPS: The updated Strategic Priorities will guide staff in developing the initial draft Biennial City Budget and Six-year Capital Improvement Program. Staff will also populate a Strategic Priorities matrix as has been done in prior years. Other interim opportunities to provide input will also be available, such as the planned CIP update on March 6, 2023. It is likely that some Strategic Priorities may need to be amended or postponed after reviewing the limited staff resources and funding available in the City’s budget. Additional discussion of the Strategic Priorities will occur as part of the Budget and CIP presentations.

H.3
Packet Pg. 164
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) The draft two-year budget will be presented to the City Council for consideration on June 6, 2023, as the first of two public hearings, with the second to occur on June 20, 2023. Options to add or modify the proposed budget will be presented in a different manner this year, with a base budget presented with only unavoidable cost increases factored into the base, and series of City Manager Decision Packages and City Council initiated Budget Referrals to be reviewed, discussed, and incorporated as directed by the City Council using a Budget Balancing Spreadsheet for the General Fund.

FISCAL IMPACT: None as result of this item. Addressing Strategic Priorities will have a cost as implemented.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 B. 2020- 2021 Strategic Prioirties Status Update
C. ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary
Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

H.3
Packet Pg. 165
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: E.1
Date: February 19, 2019
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Introduction of Proposed Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2019/2020 and 2020/2021
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the overall direction of the proposed strategic priorities for the City and receive public input and no final decisions are expected at this meeting. Provide policy direction on desired adjustments so that Staff can revise the proposal for presentation of an updated Final Draft Strategic Priorities to be presented for consideration at the March 19th Council meeting.

BACKGROUND:

Traditionally the City’s adopted Strategic Priorities are listed in the introductory section of the Biennial Budget Plan. These priorities are discussed at City Council workshop meetings usually held in the spring of an odd numbered year (i.e. 2015, 2017…). This process is intended to identify key strategies the City is looking to implement for its overall goals. This is expected to be a higher level or broader perspective discussion.

Although the types of capital projects that are a priority should be identified, this session is not intended to discuss details of individual/specific projects. Specific projects will be presented and considered during the City’s Capital Improvement Plan process which is expected to begin in April.

The staff developed the proposed list (Attachment A) based on several factors including; previous Council direction and decisions; legal mandates; community input during the Urban Land Institute and Connect Orinda processes; community meetings with MOFD; availability of funds, etc. The adoption of a Strategic Plan is helpful to identify common priority goals for the City. This requires input from the community with the selection of the final strategic priorities by the City Council. Staff has begun the process by organizing the strategies under four proposed key objectives: 1) Infrastructure; 2) Downtown; 3) Emergency Preparedness and 4) Fiscal Stability. Within each of these objectives, Staff have identified focused priorities which would be undertaken during the next two fiscal years. In some cases, the priorities identify a specific outcome such as the presentation of a policy or a plan. In other cases, the priority may involve formulating a strategy to address a specific issue.

In preparing the draft matrix of priorities (Attachment A) for input and direction from the City Council, Staff has begun the process of also looking broadly at resources required by the Strategic Plan. It is expected that these efforts will continue, as the City prepares the next Biennial Budget and Financial Plan (2019/2020 – 2020/2021). Although aspirational goals can have positive impacts, there must also be a reality as to how they E.1
Packet Pg. 59
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) can be accomplished. The operation of basic city services already requires a certain level of staffing and expenditures. Compared to other communities Orinda is limited in terms of both financial and staffing resources and may be restricted in what can be reasonably accomplished. This may require adjustment to the timing and/or scope of the final strategic plan; or the consideration for additional staff members to successfully accomplish strategic priorities/goals set forth by the City Council.

The City Council authorizes spending through the adoption of the Budget and Capital Improvement Plan. As background a current list of projects included in the 5 Year (Fiscal 2018-2022 CIP) is included as Attachment B. As the Strategic Priorities are developed the financial spending plans will need to be evaluated so that when presented there is alignment between the allocated resources and the identified goals.

DISCUSSION:

INFRASTRUCTURE
Residential Streets and CIOC Annual Report/Road and Drainage Plan The completion of all public residential street pavement rehabilitation in 2019 will complete a major milestone and long-standing strategic priority. The voter approval of the add-on half cent sales tax and combination of $45 million of general obligation bonds has quickly propelled the city to improve its pavement rating from one of the worst agencies in the Bay Area in 2014 to among the top five agencies by 2019. Any remaining funding will be identified by the CIOC in its future reports and updated Road and Drainage Plan for addressing our remaining arterial and collector roads, other drainage improvements, and the long-term maintenance of our public road system. The appropriation of the funding is made by the City Council as part of the Budget / CIP.

Public Storm Drain System
Staff has developed a GIS based storm drain inventory system this past year to track all of the recently replaced drainage pipes under rehabilitated residential roads and identify remaining pipes that still need to be addressed due to their added complexity and high costs. The majority of pipes that still need replacement or rehabilitation are larger diameter culverts which convey segments of major creeks (San Pablo, Lauterwasser, and Moraga) under arterial and collector roads. The goal is to develop a comprehensive City-wide storm drain inventory plan with a budgetary estimate of total cost.

Update Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways (BTW) Plan
The current BTW Plan was approved in 2011. Since then the City has completed several of the projects and should revisit prior proposed projects to determine the current level of desire for implementation. Consider new projects and another round of public outreach could be solicited, especially in conjunction with Downtown improvements. The cost estimates would also be updated to reflect current construction costs and a more comprehensive level of detail to implement.

Long Term Facility Renewal/Maintenance Plan
E.1
Packet Pg. 60
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) City buildings include a variety of structures of varying age and condition, including Orinda City Hall, Orinda Community Center, Wilder Ranch House, and Wilder Maintenance Yard. Staff believes it is important to create a Long Term Facility Renewal/Maintenance Plan for City buildings and would contract with a consulting agency to conduct detailed assessments of the facilities. An example of this is the plan done for the library in 2018 as part of the review of long term funding needs.

DOWNTOWN
Downtown Parking Management
Based on Council direction Staff continues with implementing a combination of residential, employee, and Orinda BART commuter permit parking programs. Draft proposals are currently being discussed with the affected businesses and property owners and City Council discussion of the item is projected for April / May 2019. In addition, developing public-private partnerships for currently underutilized private parking lots will expand the supply of parking spaces. Staff will also pursue an in-lieu parking mitigation fee for future development projects which can generate funding for parking related improvements by the City.

San Pablo Creek Restoration
In its 2017 Downtown Orinda report, the ULI identified San Pablo Creek as "an extremely valuable resource that both residents and visitors could enjoy." This task aims to be a catalyst for restoring and providing public access to San Pablo Creek. It includes applying for Proposition 1 grant funds in April, potential acquisition of a parcel within the creek (owned by Contra Costa County Flood Control), and additional tasks detailed in Attachment C.

Track State/Regional Mandates
This task consists of ongoing reports to the City Council regarding various existing and proposed state planning mandates and how they impact planning for downtown Orinda.

Examples include SB 35 (Housing Accountability) and AB 2923 (BART Transit Oriented Development), which have been codified into law, as well as the proposed SB 50 (the “Housing and Equitable Communities Incentive”, which is a modified version of SB 827, a bill proposed last year which did not pass). Staff will also provide an update regarding MTC’s adopted “CASA Compact,” which consists of a mix of proposed and existing housing legislation.

Pursue Grant Funding
A detailed description of various grant fund opportunities is included in Attachment D.

Formulate New Development Standards for Consideration by City Council This task consists of a review of the existing development standards that apply in the downtown area, an overview of prior proposals to amend these standards, a public E.1
Packet Pg. 61
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) outreach program, and formulation of proposed regulations. This would likely include the following:
● Overview of constraints and opportunities downtown such a as:
○ Topography
○ San Pablo Creek
○ High Voltage Power Lines
○ BART station and Hwy
● Detailed overview of existing standards that apply downtown such as:
○ General Plan policies regarding downtown
○ Minimum setbacks
○ Parking standards
○ Maximum heights and residential density
○ Uses allowed by right and with a use permit
○ Housing overlay zones
○ Sign regulations
○ Downtown Design Guidelines
● Review of prior proposals, in particular the recommendations of the Planning Process and Review Task Force
● Advantages/Disadvantages of Zoning and General Plan Amendments vs a Downtown Specific Plan
● A public outreach plan/ Community engagement strategy ● Staff would recommend a set of changes to existing development standards based on public input, State law (i.e., objective design review criteria for multifamily residential projects as required by SB 35), and other factors ● Depending on the scope of the amendments, a General Plan Amendment would likely be necessary; this would be processed concurrent with the amendments to the City’s zoning regulations (or, if applicable, concurrent with a Downtown Specific Plan)
● As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), environmental review will be conducted concurrent with processing of the code/ General Plan amendments
E.1
Packet Pg. 62
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) ● Staff’s final recommendation would be presented to the Planning Commission, which would make a recommendation to the City Council, and then to the City Council for consideration and action.

Staff estimates that such a program would take approximately one to two years and would necessitate assistance from consultants as well as the City Attorney’s office. The City would be eligible for some grant funding for this planning effort, probably including a noncompetitive grant of $125,000 made available from SB 2, the Building Homes and Jobs Act which assesses a $75 property transfer tax on all property transfers in California.

Powerline Undergrounding Feasibility
Downtown Orinda is crisscrossed by a few high voltage transmission lines that are unsightly and constrain development of the land they traverse (new structures are not permitted below the lines). Any land use planning effort in downtown needs to include an investigation as to whether undergrounding, re-routing or combining these power lines is feasible. For this task, the Planning Department would work with PG&E to briefly describe the options and whether they are viable based on either technical, cost, or other factors such as land acquisition. Staff would request that a PG&E representative attend the Council Meeting in order to answer questions on this topic, since any proposal would need to be implemented by the power utility.

Complete ConnectOrinda Downtown Streetscape Master Plan The ConnectOrinda Downtown Streetscape Master Plan project currently underway is scheduled to be completed by September, when the final plan will be published. Other remaining milestones include March 5, when the Council will consider a list of recommended projects to study for inclusion in the final plan, and a Celebration in May at which the results of that study will be presented to the public.

Explore Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunities on BART-Controlled Lands
The Orinda BART station is unusual in that BART leases the station and parking lot lands from Caltrans. As a result, the regulations created pursuant to AB 2923 allowing BART to pursue TOD without local participation do not apply in Orinda.

With this task, staff would explore what opportunities exist for a City-led effort to pursue some form of TOD development within the BART-controlled Caltrans lands of the BART station and parking lots. This would likely include an overview of other TOD projects in Contra Costa County which have been constructed, approved or are under consideration. Staff would work with BART (and as necessary, Caltrans) to explore potential options and invite BART representatives to a Council meeting to present and answer questions directly.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
E.1
Packet Pg. 63
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) The City’s Emergency Operations Center is now ready to manage an emergency through the County WebEOC. Laptop computers are available in the EOC for all department heads for the purpose of connecting to WebEOC. WebEOC is the standard for processing and documenting an emergency. While using WebEOC during an event, outside agencies can log in real time to assess needs.

WebEOC training will be provided by County staff for Orinda department heads by mid2019.

Tree Management on City Property
The City of Orinda has hundreds of trees on its property, many of which could serve as fuel for fires. Staff recommend developing a phased plan to remove high fire fuel trees (emphasis on pines and eucalyptus) from City-owned parks, streets and other properties by working with MOFD, professional arborists and others. The plan could also include the development of a replacement program, as appropriate.

Revise Tree Management Ordinances
OMC Chapter 17.21, Tree Management, requires a discretionary Tree Removal Permit for the removal of any tree on a vacant lot, and for some native trees over a certain size on a developed lot. For this task, the Planning Department, working in conjunction with the City Attorney, would propose text amendments to the municipal code intended to streamline the process for removal of so-called “disallowed” non-native trees, such as Monterey pines, that pose a fire risk. This may include removing the requirement for a tree removal permit for these species, or creating a new more-streamlined process.

Any proposed changes would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council, and be acted upon by the Council.

Rule 20A Electrical Undergrounding
Since the City elected to abandon the undergrounding district along Miner Road a few years ago, the Rule 20A credits with PG&E remain unspent. The current balance of credits is approximately $2.5 million. Staff intends to work with MOFD to identify a critical or high risk overhead electrical line along a collector or arterial street evacuation route that should be undergrounded to reduce the risk of sparking a fire with nearby vegetation.

Update Emergency Operations Plan/Community Education
Orinda PD and City Management will emphasize the need to routinely update our current emergency operations plan approximately every six months and implement additional staff training with emergency exercises. Staff will partner with MOFD for more community outreach events and develop an education program to our residents so they can implement self-protection measures around their own properties.

Quarterly Coordination Meetings with MOFD & City Staff
E.1
Packet Pg. 64
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) Regular quarterly meetings between the MOFD and City staff will be instituted to coordinate efforts related to: fire safety; emergency and disaster preparedness; code enforcement updates; and community education and outreach.

Orinda PD will work with MOFD to continue their efforts on registering Orinda residents in the Community Warning System for emergency alerts.

Orinda PD will visit communities during National Night Out to speak on a variety of community safety matters that affect Orinda.

FISCAL STABILITY
The Financial Stability of the City is fundamental to its ability to continue to serve the needs of the community. This requires examining with a long-term perspective to ensure that decisions made today can be sustained into the future. Based on the City Council discussion at the January 22, 2019 Council meeting, the following are the three focused strategies proposed under this Objective:

Evaluate Voter Approved Revenue Opportunities
This strategy would identify the structure and proposal for additional revenue requiring voter approval. The initial effort would be education focused on an understanding of the revenue and specific historical experience relevant to Orinda. As envisioned it would include a broad based working group. As part of the process the effort would need to integrate the projected needs for infrastructure, improvements and services that have insufficient funding. As noted, in addition to Staff and City Attorney time, there may be a need for professional services associated with polling, legal; and/ or Public Financing.

Annual Review City Enacted Fees, Charges, Fines, and Penalties This strategy is designed to be an annual review of City enacted fees to ensure that they are covering the cost of service. In the case of fines and penalties they are typically reviewed based on surrounding jurisdictions. Because justifiable fees must not exceed the cost of service, depending on the scope of changes this may require additional Consultant costs to develop a full cost model. A recommendation in this area is made annually as part of the budget process.

Review and Update Reserve Policies and Financial Goals
This strategy is intended to examine the financial resources of the City that are required for emergencies, cash flow purposes, as well as responding to long-term needs both planned and unplanned. Although the City is in an enviable position in terms of pension liabilities due to its provision of a “defined contribution” retirement plan, recent experience with addressing major sinkhole highlighted the importance of reserves.

FISCAL IMPACT: The final strategic priorities selected will require the determination of staffing and funding which can support the successful completion of the goals. The Proposed Biennial Budget and Five Year Capital Improvement Plan will identify the proposed funding and a discussion of the goals for final adoption by the City Council.

E.1
Packet Pg. 65
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) NEXT STEPS: Following this meeting Staff will take feedback from this meeting and prepare a final draft of the Strategic Priorities for presentation to the City Council at its March 19th meeting. The Draft Priorities will be a significant guiding factor as Staff develops a Proposed Biennial City Budget and Five Year Capital Improvement Plan, which will be presented for City Council consideration and adoption prior to June 30, 2019.

The preparation of this report has taken a considerable focused staff effort. I would like to acknowledge Larry Theis who chaired the committee and members Todd Trimble, Drummond Buckley, Jason Chen, Mayank Patel, Adam Foster, Mark Nagel, and Paul Rankin for their work.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. 2020-2021 Draft Strategic Priorities Table
B. Current List of 2018-2022 CIP Projects
C. Potential San Pablo Creek Tasks
D. Grant Funding Opportunities
Respectfully Submitted by:

Steve Salomon
City Manager
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

E.1
Packet Pg. 66
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) ID # Category Strategic Priority Responsible  Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation A.1 Infrastructure Complete Pavement Rehabilitation of ALL  Public Residential Roads in Orinda  Public Works Ongoing Winter 2019 75% of Staff Engineer $500,000 for design consultant; $14.4M construction costs; $300,000 for construction management (already allocated in current CIP) A.2 Infrastructure
Update/Complete Storm Drain Plan & Inventory ‐ comprehensive City Wide inventory of public storm drain pipes with estimated replacement or rehabilitation total cost Public Works Ongoing Summer 2019 30% of Staff Engineer
$400,000 of Drainage Impact Funds (already programmed into current CIP) A.3 Infrastructure
CIOC Annual Report and Update Road and Drainage Repairs Plan ‐ incorporate Storm Drain Plan citywide estimate, update pavement rehabilitation costs for arterials and collectors, update on‐going systemwide annual pavement maintenance cost CIOC & Public Works Ongoing Summer 2019 25% of Staff Engineer No external cost ‐ significant staff  time A.4 Infrastructure Update Bicycle, Trails and Walkways  Master Plan Public Works Spring 2020 End of 2020 15% of Staff Engineer for Consultant  Oversight $100,000 of General Fund or  possible grant funding from CCTA or  TDA A.5 Infrastructure Identify Long Term Facility  Renewal/Maintenance Plan Parks &  Recreation/Finance Fall 2019 Fall 2019 10% of Maintenance Supervisor for  consultant oversight $25,000 ‐ Source TBD ( A portion of the cost may be proposed from the Parks & Recreation Facility Maintenance Surcharge.) CITY OF ORINDA
DRAFT 2020‐2021 Strategic Priorities
as proposed by City Staff ‐ 2‐19‐2019
Draft Priorities Page 1 of 5
E.1.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: 2020-2021 Draft Strategic Priorities Table (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for H.3.b
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 H.3.a
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on ID # Category Strategic Priority Responsible  Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation CITY OF ORINDA
DRAFT 2020‐2021 Strategic Priorities
as proposed by City Staff ‐ 2‐19‐2019
B.1 Downtown
Downtown Permit Parking Programs (Residential, Employee, Local BART Users Districts) Public Works 7/18 1/20
30% of staff engineer and
supplemented with outside
consultant until program is
implemented as directed by Council.

Plus legal / attorney costs.
$30,000 of General Fund allocation in operating budget for consultant services; cost of parking enforcement; offset eventually with permit revenue, parking fines, and other revenue B.2 Downtown
Pursue appropriate grant funding opportunities for planning and capital improvements (CCTA, SB2, Measure RR, Coastal Conservancy, ABAG, RWQCB, MTC Fish and Wildlife mitigation funds) Planning/Public
Works; support from
Friends of Orinda
Creeks
Ongoing None 10% of a staff position / project  intern $20,000 B.3 Downtown
San Pablo Creek Restoration ‐ Pursue grant funding for creek restoration; develop agreement to permit the City to accept County Flood Control parcel (265‐170‐041) after due diligence; Establish creek access during development application review; Creek hydrological evaluation & engineering design review. (See Attachment C) Planning/Public
Works with support
from Friends of
Orinda Creeks
4/19
First Phase
complete by
1/1/20; ongoing
10+ year project
20% of a staff position
Plus legal / attorney costs.
$80,000 ‐ which could be covered by or reimbursed through grant applications B.4 Downtown
Track existing and proposed state and regional mandates that could impact planning for downtown Planning  Ongoing None 5% of a position No specific funding Draft Priorities Page 2 of 5
E.1.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: 2020-2021 Draft Strategic Priorities Table (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for H.3.b
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 H.3.a
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on ID # Category Strategic Priority Responsible  Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation CITY OF ORINDA
DRAFT 2020‐2021 Strategic Priorities
as proposed by City Staff ‐ 2‐19‐2019
B.5 Downtown
Formulate new development standards for downtown area either through amendments to the zoning code or a Downtown Specific Plan. General Plan amendments may also be necessary.

Planning Fall 2019 Winter 2020
75% Staff Planner
25 % City Attorney's Office
legal / attorney costs.
$150,000 Environmental Review$200,000 Consultant Costs$75,000 Legal Costs$15,000 Staff Overtime Costs(Specific Plan alternative would cost substantially more)Grant funding would likely be available to cover some of these costs.  The City also has a long range planning reserve fund.

B.6 Downtown
Investigate feasibility of undergrounding, consolidating or re‐routing high voltage power lines that traverse downtown Planning/ PG&E Fall 2019 Fall 2019 Approximately 10‐20 hours of staff  time This capital project would be extremely costly and PG&E is unlikely to contribute.The fiscal impact of looking into the matter would be minimal, assuming that PG&E has personnel available to work with Planning staff and to attend a Council meeting.

B.7 Downtown Complete ConnectOrinda Downtown  Streetscape Master Plan Planning Ongoing September 2019 This work is budgeted for. The
project has required approximately
one FTE to manage the consultants
and the community engagement
process.  The work has been split
between several staff members.
$250,000 in consultant costs funded by CCTA and BART grants$50,000 City Match, which has been used to fund optional tasks as well as some of the City staff time B.8 Downtown
Explore Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunities on BART‐Controlled Lands. This would include a discussion with BART and Caltrans (which owns the BART station and parking lots) regarding what type of TOD projects meet their criteria, a report to the City Council, ideally with a BART representative present to answer questions regarding BART's TOD program.

Planning 10/19 12/19 80 hours of staff time Internal Staff Time Draft Priorities Page 3 of 5
E.1.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: 2020-2021 Draft Strategic Priorities Table (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for H.3.b
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 H.3.a
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on ID # Category Strategic Priority Responsible  Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation CITY OF ORINDA
DRAFT 2020‐2021 Strategic Priorities
as proposed by City Staff ‐ 2‐19‐2019
C.1 Emergency  Preparedness Seismic Retrofit of Miner Road and Bear  Creek Road Bridges Public Works Ongoing Construction in  Summer 2022 20% of Staff Engineer Overall construction cost expected $2.5‐$3.0M reimbursed by federal/state grants. $250,000 Gas Tax or Return to Source Funds for local match contributions for engineering to be included in Capital Improvement Plan C.2 Emergency  Preparedness
Revise Tree Ordinance to reflect best practices for wildfire prevention and "defensive space" around habitable structures.

Planning 1/20 6/20 10% of a staff position               Plus legal / attorney costs. Internal Staff Time C.3 Emergency  Preparedness Remove high fire fuel trees(emphasis on  pines and eucalyptus) from city owned  property Parks & Recreation 2019 2025 all internal $50,000/year C.4 Emergency  Preparedness Update Emergency Operations Plan ‐ routinely every six months; staff training  by 8/19; thereafter annually Police/City Manager Summer 2019 End of 2019 Internal Staff commitment $5,000 for training costs, supplies,  software updates, etc.

C.5 Emergency  Preparedness Quarterly coordination meetings ‐  MOFD/Police/Public Works staff level Police/Public Works Begin Summer  2019 Ongoing Internal Staff commitment No external cost allocation  expected.

Draft Priorities Page 4 of 5
E.1.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: 2020-2021 Draft Strategic Priorities Table (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for H.3.b
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 H.3.a
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on ID # Category Strategic Priority Responsible  Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation CITY OF ORINDA
DRAFT 2020‐2021 Strategic Priorities
as proposed by City Staff ‐ 2‐19‐2019
C.6 Emergency  Preparedness Community education  on emergency  preparedness, gun safety, home security Police/City Manager 4/19 Ongoing Internal Staff commitment $5,000 for materials to be  distributed within community D.1 Fiscal Stability
Evaluate revenue opportunities requiring voter approval (Potential revenues: Local Sales Tax Extension; General Obligation Bond;  increase the Transient Occupancy Tax / TOT rate.) Finance
2019 (Background
education /
workshops and
planning should
begin by summer
2019)
2020 (November
Measure would
need to be acted
on no later than
July / Aug 2020 )
May extend if
waited until 2022
City Management Staff; City
Attorney time to draft any measure.

Plus legal / attorney costs. This work
should dovetail with efforts to
identify infrastructure / service
needs that require funding
$30,000 estimated for polling services ; Contract Legal Services beyond normal appropriation TBD.  Financing alternative would require additional professional services.

D.2 Fiscal Stability Review of Fees, Charges, Fines and  Penalties enacted by the City. Finance Annual Adoption by City
Council 30‐60
days prior to July
1st (Beginning of
new Fiscal Year)
Finance Lead with support from all
Departments
May require Fee Study which will evaluate full cost accounting associated with the fee.

D.3 Fiscal Stability
Review and update of policies and financial goals that will support long term fiscal stability.  (Current reserve policy; potential unplanned events / disasters / uninsured loss; liabilities ‐ including Retiree Medical / OPEB; internal service fund policy for major operating equipment replacement and repairs).

Finance 2019
Have policies in
place by
12/31/2019 when
CAFR is
presented.

Finance Staff Internal Staff Time
Draft Priorities Page 5 of 5
E.1.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: 2020-2021 Draft Strategic Priorities Table (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for H.3.b
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 H.3.a
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Capital Improvement Plan
City of Orinda, California

PROJECTS BY CATEGORY
FY 18 FY 22 thru
Category Project # FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 Total

CITY BUILDINGS & FACILITIES
Community Center Kitchen Renovation 4022 75,000 75,000
Community Center HVAC 4050 50,000 50,000
Community Center Accessibility Improvements 4086 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Community Center Roof Replacement TBD4001 50,000 50,000 Community Center Window Replacement TBD4002 85,000 85,000 Library Boiler Piping Replacement TBD4003 60,000 60,000 City Hall Elevator TBD4011 20,000 20,000
Library Auditorium Audio/Visual Upgrade TBD4013 40,000 40,000 Library Building Carpet Replacement TBD4014 111,215 111,215 CITY BUILDINGS & FACILITIES Total 176,215 205,000 185,000 25,000 25,000 616,215

PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Wilder Park Field#4 Synthetic Turf 4061 225,000 225,000 Mini Park (Crossroads Park) 4103 250,000 250,000
Community Park Renovation Plan & Improvements 4112 50,000 100,000 675,000 75,000 900,000 Park Monument Signage 4113 15,000 15,000
St. Stephens Trail and Drainage Improvements TBD3003 15,000 65,000 80,000 Community Park Pathway Improvement TBD4004 20,000 20,000 Park Tree Removal Program TBD4007 20,000 20,000
Wilder Fields 1&2 Turf Replacement TBD4010 750,000 750,000 Orinda Oaks Park Restroom Replacement TBD4012 100,000 100,000 PARK IMPROVEMENTS Total 50,000 615,000 675,000 855,000 165,000 2,360,000

TRANSPORTATION / DRAINAGE
Downtown and BART Wayfinding Project 0023 38,169 166,000 204,169 Miner Road Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project 0044 100,000 150,000 100,000 300,000 650,000 Bear Creek Bridge Seismic Retrofit 0087 300,000 450,000 50,000 250,000 1,050,000 Miner Rd Pavement Rehab & Shoulder Widening 4071 67,140 869,090 41,030 977,260 ADA Transition Plan Compliance Projects 4074 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Oak Springs/Candlestick Rd Storm Water Impr 4081 1,331,300 1,331,300 Storm Drain Plan & Inventory 4092 100,000 150,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 400,000 BART & Downtown Access Ramp and Lighting 4096 1,029,241 1,029,241 Traffic Calming Improvements Program 4107 30,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 190,000 Annual Bicycle, Trails, and Walkways Program 4109 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000 Camino Sobrante Path at La Plaza Drive 4110 19,755 19,755 Annual Drainage Facilities Improvement Program 4111 165,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 765,000 2017 Annual and Measure J&L Pavement Rehab 4114/4115 8,802,786 450,000 9,252,786 2018 Measure J & L Pavement Rehab 4117/4118 1,955,500 16,941,408 18,896,908 Miner Road Sinkhole/Culvert Repair 4121 700,000 700,000 Camino Pablo Bicycle Route Corridor Improvements 4128 40,000 150,000 360,000 550,000 Downtown Orinda Streetscape Master Plan 4130 10,000 290,000 300,000 Glorietta Elementary Safe Route to School 4131 312,000 128,000 440,000 Orinda Way Pavement Rehabilitation TBD3001 25,000 25,000 700,000 750,000 2018-2022 CIP
E.1.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Current List of 2018-2022 CIP Projects (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) Category Project # FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 Total
2019 Annual and Measure J & L Pavement Rehab TBD3002 70,000 1,439,000 13,686,000 15,195,000 Camino Pablo Median Landscape - Phase 1 TBD3004 80,000 80,000 Moraga Way Crosswalk at Brookside Road TBD3005 50,000 14,000 64,000 Traffic Signal Operation Improvements TBD3006 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 Annual Pavement Program TBD3007 800,000 2,700,000 2,975,000 6,475,000 Brookwood Pilot Residential Parking Permit Program TBD3008 30,000 30,000 Downtown Employee/Residential Parking Permit Prg TBD3009 20,000 30,000 50,000 Camino Pablo Traffic Calming TBD3010 45,000 45,000
Green Infrastructure Program for Pavement Projects TBD3011 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,000 Martha Rd-Catherine Court Ped Path-Assessment Only TBD3012 40,000 40,000 TRANSPORTATION / DRAINAGE Total 14,343,891 21,587,498 15,809,030 4,290,000 3,860,000 59,890,419

VEHICLES
Fleet Replacements TBD1001 90,000 65,000 80,000 55,000 290,000 VEHICLES Total 90,000 65,000 80,000 55,000 290,000
GRAND TOTAL 14,660,106 22,472,498 16,749,030 5,225,000 4,050,000 63,156,634 2018-2022 CIP
E.1.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Current List of 2018-2022 CIP Projects (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) Details for Potential San Pablo Creek Tasks
Long-Term Goal
Daylight and restore San Pablo Creek from Santa Maria Road to the historic Orinda Way Bridge and design for pedestrian access throughout.

Short-Term Tasks
The tasks below could serve as catalysts to provide public access to San Pablo Creek and restore the creek.

Number Task Details Fiscal Impact
Year 1 (2019 - 2020)
1a Pursue Grant Funding for Creek Restoration
Apply for Proposition 1 grant funding for creek
restoration efforts (due April 30, 2019; potential
funds available in the last few months of 2019).

Track additional grant funding sources and
submit grant applications for downtown San
Pablo Creek restoration and public access
projects. This could include planning,
engineering, and land acquisition, as well as
potential cost recovery for staff time dedicated to
creek restoration efforts.

Staff time associated with grant funding
applications. These costs, which may be
recovered by grant funding, are estimated to be
in the $10,000 - $15,000 range. A temporary
intern would be hired to support the planning
staff. This intern would assist with San Pablo
Creek grant writing, creek restoration/public
access efforts, and development application
review. This would enhance the City's ability to
write competitive grant applications and complete
the 2019-2020 tasks on this list. It would also free
up existing staff hours that would be dedicated to
San Pablo Creek restoration and public access
efforts.
1b
Develop Agreement to Permit the City to
Accept County Flood Control Parcel (265-
170-041) After Due Diligence
This parcel would provide the City with control
over one property that could be used for creek
restoration and a pedestrian creek walk. County
Flood Control staff has met with City staff and is
willing to transfer the parcel to the City. The City
would initiate a process with the County to
develop an agreement which would provide for a
due diligence period for the City to consider
accepting the parcel. The due diligence period
would allow for the City to conduct a phase 1
Environmental Assessment and physical
evaluation of the existing improvements and
conditions of the property prior to potential
accepting the parcel. The City would also perform
title research to understand what access rights
the City has/would have to creek.
$6,000 for Phase 1 Environmental Assessment
$10,000 for other due diligence and efforts
associated with property transfer, including title
research to understand existing access
requirements. If a Phase 2 Environmental
Assessment is deemed necessary, this study
would be an additional expense that could be in
the tens of thousands of dollars. However, the
cost of a Phase 2 Environmental Assessment
could be covered by grant funding.
1c Establish Creek Access During Development
Application Review
Work with adjacent property owners to perform
creek restoration and provide public access to
San Pablo Creek As property owners with land
over or adjacent to the creek submit development
applications, the City will work with the to
incorporate San Pablo Creek restoration and
public access into their projects. Costs
associated with restoration and public access
would be paid by the property owner or grant
funding or a combination of the two. Creek
restoration and public access would be pursued
for daylighted creek areas as well as areas of the
creek that are not currently daylighted but could
be daylighted and restored.

None at this time. Staff time associated with
development review is typically covered by the
project applicant.
1d Creek Hydrological Evaluation &
Engineering Design Review
Channelization and straightening of San Pablo
Creek (in 1958) likely reduced the creek's flood
control capacity. Restoration of the creek could
increase its flood control capacity and reduce
potential flood risks. Such efforts could enhance
the resiliency of Downtown Orinda in the event of
a very large storm. The evaluation is intended to
be a peer review of Friends of Orinda Creek‘s
restoration study. This work would be consistent
with ULI's recommendation to create a San Pablo
Creek Action Plan focusing on rehabilitation of
the creek.
$50,000 for hydrological evaluation and
engineering design review associated with creek
restoration and public access efforts
Year 2 (2020 - 2021)
2a Continue tasks 1a and 1c See descriptions above See descriptions above E.1.c
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Potential San Pablo Creek Tasks (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities)

POTENTIAL GRANT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Senate Bill 2: The Building Homes and Jobs Act (Atkins) Funding
This legislation created a $75 fee on real estate transactions in California. The fee has been collected for over a year. In 2019, Orinda will be able to receive a one-time amount of $125,000. The money must be spent on specific planning activities That will result in changes to existing codes which will allow for increased production of housing. Depending on Council direction, the City may be able to use this money for downtown planning efforts.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority - Measure J
Summary
In November 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J, which provides for the continuation of the County’s half-cent transportation sales tax for 25 more years beyond the original expiration date of 2009. Measure J provides approximately $2.5 billion for countywide and local transportation projects and programs through the year 2034.

Funding
Orinda receives funding through designated “return to source dollars and competitive grant programs.

BART - Measure RR
Station Access Projects
As mentioned in BART’s February 5, 2019 presentation to the City Council, BART has allocated $135 million for station access improvements. Of that $135 million, $25 million is dedicated to new grant programs for Safe Routes to BART. Although the program is currently being developed, Planning staff is coordinating with BART to participate in the “BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study.” State Coastal Conservancy - Proposition 1
Funding
In November 2014, voters approved the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act (Proposition 1). The purposes of Proposition 1 include generating funding to address water quality, water supply, and watershed protection and restoration. Proposition 1 allocates $100.5 million to the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) to implement projects that protect and enhance coastal resources.

The SCC expects to have about $20 million in Proposition 1 funding available. Proposals are due 4/30/2019.

Environmental Agency Mitigation Funds
Funding
From time to time project funding is made available to local agencies based on project mitigation funds and or penalties collected through enforcement actions. The source of these funds can be from a variety of State agencies including: Fish and Wildlife; Environmental Protection; State Water Resources Control Board; etc.

E.1.d
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Grant Funding Opportunities (1720 : Strategic Priorities) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) More frequent bus service coming to Orinda!
Starting March 10, 2019 County Connection will be adding more weekday service on Route 6, which runs between Orinda and Lafayette BART stations via Moraga. The service will run every 20 minutes during morning and evening commute times. Rides are only $2 each way with a Clipper card (or $1 if transferring from BART), and seniors and persons with disabilities can get a 50% discount. Cash fares will increase to $2.50 (or $1.25 for seniors/disabled) on March 10, 2019. We encourage everyone to get a Clipper card!
Route 6 offers service in close proximity to many schools in Orinda, Moraga and Lafayette, as well as direct access to St. Mary's College. We encourage you to visit County Connection's website and learn more about the changes. You can also contact customer service at: 925-676-7500 or by emailing [email protected].

G.1
Packet Pg. 76
Communication: More Frequent Bus Service Coming to Orinda (CITY MANAGER'S REPORT) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) G.1
Packet Pg. 77
Communication: More Frequent Bus Service Coming to Orinda (CITY MANAGER'S REPORT) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities Staff Report – March 19, 2019 (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) ID # Category Strategic Priority Responsible
Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation STATUS:

Complete /
Underway / No
Progress /
Added / New

COMMENTS
A.1 Infrastructure Complete Pavement Rehabilitation of ALL Public Residential Roads in Orinda Public Works Ongoing Winter 2019 75% of Paving Program Manager $500,000 for design consultant;
$14.4M construction costs; $300,000
for construction management
(already allocated in current CIP) Substantially
Complete
Last remaining road segment, Happy Valley Road, to be included in 2023 Annual Paving Project. Orinda now has the 2nd highest PCI of any Bay Area community.

A.2 Infrastructure
Update/Complete Storm Drain Plan &
Inventory - comprehensive City Wide
inventory of storm drain pipes under public
road right of way or accepted easements
with estimated replacement or
rehabilitation total cost
Public Works Ongoing End of 2019 50% of New Engineer -
$400,000 of Drainage Impact Funds
(already programmed into current
CIP) for consultant field surveys and
assessment for estimates
Complete
Repair plan reviewed by CIOC and then City Council on 2-4-2020. This information was used in the development of Measure R, which includes $10 million in funding targeted to storm drain repair.

A.3 Infrastructure
CIOC Annual Report and Update Road and
Drainage Repairs Plan - incorporate Storm
Drain Plan citywide estimate, update
pavement rehabilitation costs for arterials
and collectors, update on-going
systemwide annual pavement maintenance
cost
CIOC & Public Works Ongoing Summer 2019 25% of Paving Program Manager No external cost - significant staff time
Underway
PW staff is working on a comprehensive update for roads and street maintenance funding and needs in the context of new mandates regarding green infrastructure and available future funding.

A.4 Infrastructure Identify Long Term Facility
Renewal/Maintenance Plan
Parks &
Recreation/Finance Fall 2020 Spring 2021 10% of Maintenance Supervisor for consultant oversight $25,000 - Source TBD ( A portion of
the cost may be proposed from the
Parks & Recreation Facility
Maintenance Surcharge.)
Underway
A consultant-led assessment of all major city buildings (City Hall, Library, Community Center, Maintenance Yard, and Ranch House) was completed by the target date, with a plan to conduct an assessment of the AGC within a few years following. The assessment findings were used to create existing CIP projects for the buildings, some of which have been completed. A separate organizational review of the City's approach to facilities/infrastructure maintenance is underway.

A.5 Infrastructure Implement 5G Small Cell Ordinance and Design Standards
Planning/Public
Works Ongoing Fall 2019 20% of Planner for consultant oversight and 10% Engineer Legal Counsel cost TBD Completed Updated Ordinance adopted.

B.1 Downtown
Downtown Permit Parking Programs
(Residential, Employee, Local BART Users
Districts)
Public Works 7/18 1/20
50% of staff engineer and
supplemented with outside
consultant until program is
implemented as directed by Council.

Plus legal / attorney costs. Need to
consider on-going staff
administration (10% of Admin
position) of program for assisting
public with permits and addressing
ticket complaints
$30,000 of General Fund allocation
in operating budget for consultant
services; cost of parking
enforcement; offset eventually with
permit revenue, parking fines, and
other revenue
Partially
complete
Parking Permit Programs established for some areas; demand for programs temporarily eliminated due to COVID and reduced BART ridership.

B.2 Downtown
Pursue appropriate grant funding
opportunities for planning and capital
improvements (CCTA, SB2, Measure RR,
Coastal Conservancy, ABAG, RWQCB, MTC
Fish and Wildlife mitigation funds)
Planning/Public
Works; support from
Friends of Orinda
Creeks
Ongoing None 10% of a staff position / project
intern $20,000
Underway and
On-Going
California Consulting was retained to actively pursue grants and that is a continuing effort.

B.3 Downtown
San Pablo Creek Restoration - Pursue grant
funding for creek restoration; develop
agreement to permit the City to accept
County Flood Control parcel (265-170-041)
after due diligence; Establish creek access
during development application review;
Creek hydrological evaluation &
engineering design review.

Planning/Public
Works with support
from Friends of
Orinda Creeks
4/19
First Phase
(Preliminary creek
alignment
alternatives)
complete by
1/1/20; ongoing
10+ year project
20% of a staff planner
30% of new staff engineer
Plus legal / attorney costs.
$55,000 - which could be covered by
or reimbursed through grant
applications
Underway
The recently adopted Downtown Precise Plan has a San Pablo Creek section which provides a vision for the creek. The Friends of Orinda Creek recently completed a pilot project on a section of the creek owned by the County Flood Control District and some City funding was provided for that.

B.4 Downtown
Track existing and proposed state and
regional mandates that could impact
planning for downtown
Planning Ongoing None 5% of a position No specific funding Underway and On-Going
Current status reflected in recently adopted Downtown Precise Plan, Housing Element, and Safety Element.

CITY OF ORINDA
FINAL 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
UPDATE - April 2023
Final Draft Priorities 3-19-19 Page 1 of 3
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 2020- 2021 Strategic Prioirties Status Update (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023- H.3.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on ID # Category Strategic Priority Responsible
Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation STATUS:

Complete /
Underway / No
Progress /
Added / New

COMMENTS

CITY OF ORINDA
FINAL 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
UPDATE - April 2023
B.5 Downtown
Formulate new development standards for
downtown area either through
amendments to the zoning code or a
Downtown Specific Plan. General Plan
amendments may also be necessary.

Planning Fall 2019 Dec. 2020
75% Staff Planner
25 % City Attorney's Office
legal / attorney costs.
$150,000 Environmental Review
$200,000 Consultant Costs
$75,000 Legal Costs
$15,000 Staff Overtime Costs
(Specific Plan alternative would cost
substantially more)
Grant funding would likely be
available to cover some of these
costs. The City also has a long range
planning reserve fund. Complete
Downtown Precise Plan approved on January 31, 2023 and now turns to implementation activities.

B.6 Downtown
Investigate feasibility of undergrounding,
consolidating or re-routing high voltage
power lines that traverse downtown
Planning/ PG&E Fall 2019 Fall 2019 Approximately 10-20 hours of staff time
This capital project would be
extremely costly and PG&E is unlikely
to contribute.

The fiscal impact of looking into the
matter would be minimal, assuming
that PG&E has personnel available to
work with Planning staff and to
attend a Council meeting. Complete
A review was undertaken and addressed in the recently adopted Downtown Precise Plan.

B.7 Downtown Complete ConnectOrinda Downtown
Streetscape Master Plan Planning Ongoing September 2019 This work is budgeted for. The
project has required approximately
one FTE to manage the consultants
and the community engagement
process. The work has been split
between several staff members.
$250,000 in consultant costs funded
by CCTA and BART grants
$50,000 City Match, which has been
used to fund optional tasks as well as
some of the City staff time Complete Initial elements including wayfinding completed.

B.8 Downtown
Explore Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Opportunities on BART-Controlled
Lands. This would include a discussion with
BART and Caltrans (which owns the BART
station and parking lots) regarding what
type of TOD projects meet their criteria, a
report to the City Council, ideally with a
BART representative present to answer
questions regarding BART's TOD program.

Planning 10/19 12/19 80 hours of staff time Internal Staff Time Underway and
On-Going
The City has had discussion with both BART and CalTrans as part of the Downtown Precise Plan and Housing Element adoption. The City has applied for a $200K grant to pre-plan the BART site for TOD with the support of BART.

C.1 Emergency
Preparedness
Seismic Retrofit of Miner Road and Bear
Creek Road Bridges Public Works Ongoing Construction in Summer 2022 20% of Staff Engineer
Overall construction cost expected
$2.5-$3.0M reimbursed by
federal/state grants. $250,000 Gas
Tax or Return to Source Funds for
local match contributions for
engineering to be included in Capital
Improvement Plan Underway
Bids were received for the work and the contract is set to be awarded April 11, 2023.

C.2 Emergency
Preparedness
Revise Tree Ordinance to reflect best
practices for wildfire prevention and
"defensive space" around habitable
structures.

Planning Summer 2019 Fall 2019 10% of a staff position
Plus legal / attorney costs. Internal Staff Time
Complete
Tree Removal Permit process was revised to reflect fire fuel reduction requirements.

C.3 Emergency
Preparedness
Prune & Remove high fire fuel trees or
ground vegetation (8' from ground) on city
owned property
Parks & Recreation 2019 2025 all internal
$50,000 per year - will be proposed
to be included in CIP or $100,000
split over the Biennial Operating
Budget
Underway and
On-Going
Approval of Measure R allowed the City to address all City parcels in 2021 and will meet or exceed Fire Code requirements each year.

C.4 Emergency
Preparedness
Update Emergency Operations Plan -
routinely every six months; staff training by
8/19; thereafter annually
Police/City Manager Summer 2019 End of 2019 Internal Staff commitment $20,000 for training costs, supplies,
software updates, etc. to be added
2019/2020 Police and Admin
Operating Budgets; possible
assistance from outside consultant Underway and
On-Going
City staff is regularly reviewing emergency preparedness and most recently conducted a training exercise regarding EOC set-up and activation. Measure R has funding allocated for some EOC improvements which are being evaluated. In addition, an Evacuation Analysis was completed as part of the recent Safety Element update.

Final Draft Priorities 3-19-19 Page 2 of 3
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 2020- 2021 Strategic Prioirties Status Update (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023- H.3.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on ID # Category Strategic Priority Responsible
Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation STATUS:

Complete /
Underway / No
Progress /
Added / New

COMMENTS

CITY OF ORINDA
FINAL 2020-2021 Strategic Priorities
UPDATE - April 2023
C.5 Emergency
Preparedness
Quarterly coordination meetings -
MOFD/Police/Public Works/Planning staff
level
Police/Public Works Begin Spring 2019 Ongoing Internal Staff commitment No external cost allocation expected. Underway and On-Going
City and Fire District staff have a regular joint staff meeting each month and Emergency Preparedness is one of the standing agenda items.

C.6 Emergency
Preparedness
Community education on emergency
preparedness, gun safety, home security Police/City Manager 4/19 Ongoing Internal Staff commitment $5,000 for materials to be distributed
within community to be added to
Admin Operating Budget
Underway and
On-Going
Measure has allowed for the funding of two positions dedicated and wildfire and emergency preparedness education and outreach. A variety of initiatives are underway.

C.7 Emergency
Preparedness
Identify and Approve a New Rule 20A
Undergrounding District along Arterial or
Collector Road to reduce risk of wildfire
Public Works July 1, 2020 June 30, 2021 25% of new staff engineer Construction by PG&E after 2021 using Rule 20A credits
Complete
Rule 20A funding is being used for an underground district along Camino Pablo at El Toyonal and will exhausted available funding.

Design and implementation is underway by PG&E but with a now 2030 estimated completion date.

D.1 Fiscal Stability
Evaluate revenue opportunities requiring
voter approval (Potential revenues: Local
Sales Tax Extension; General Obligation
Bond; increase the Transient Occupancy
Tax / TOT rate.)
Finance
2019 (Background
education /
workshops and
planning should
begin by summer
2019)
2020 (November
Measure would
need to be acted
on no later than
July / Aug 2020 )
May extend if
waited until 2022
City Management Staff; City Attorney
time to draft any measure. Plus legal
/ attorney costs. This work should
dovetail with efforts to identify
infrastructure / service needs that
require funding
$30,000 estimated for polling
services (consider cost effective
internet polling) to be added to
2019/2020 Admin Operating Budget;
Contract Legal Services beyond
normal appropriation TBD. Financing
alternative would require additional
professional services. Complete
A revenue measure, Measure R, was presented to the voters and approved in November, 2020.

D.2 Fiscal Stability Review of Fees, Charges, Fines and Penalties enacted by the City. Finance Annual
Adoption by City
Council 30-60
days prior to July
1st (Beginning of
new Fiscal Year)
Finance Lead with support from all
Departments
May require Fee Study which will
evaluate full cost accounting
associated with the fee. Partially
Complete
An update of fees and charges occurs each year. A comprehensive updated Fee Study is still desirable.

D.3 Fiscal Stability
Review and update of policies and financial
goals that will support long term fiscal
stability. (Current reserve policy; potential
unplanned events / disasters / uninsured
loss; liabilities - including Retiree Medical /
OPEB; internal service fund policy for major
operating equipment replacement and
repairs).

Finance 2019
Have policies in
place by
12/31/2019 when
CAFR is presented.

Finance Staff Internal Staff Time
Complete
Policies and financial goals have bene updated and are considered as part of each element of the budget and financial cycle.

Final Draft Priorities 3-19-19 Page 3 of 3
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 2020- 2021 Strategic Prioirties Status Update (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023- H.3.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on City of Orinda

TEAM BUILDING &

STRATEGIC PLANNING

SESSION REPORT
Completed by the Institute for Local Government
March 2023
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 2 April 4, 2023
Orinda City Council
22 Orinda Way
Orinda, California 94563
Dear City of Orinda Team:

On behalf of ILG, we appreciate Orinda’s selection of our proposal for your city’s strategic planning and goal setting session on February 25, 2023. We enjoyed meeting with and facilitating the session with your Council and staff team. It was an engaging and inspiring conversation, and we are honored that you put your trust in ILG to help with the important step of strategic planning for Orinda’s future.

As outlined in our initial proposal response, Team ILG provided planning support ahead of the workshop. We administered a city council and staff strategic priorities survey, as well as created a community survey to gauge residents’ vision for the city’s future. We also led interviews with each city council member to learn more about the council’s dynamic and team building opportunities. All these preparation tasks informed how we structured the agenda and facilitation of the session on Feb. 25th. Now that the session is complete, we have summarized key takeaways and resources for the City’s consideration. The following report summarizes the retreat programming, our notes, and additional resources for your Council’s consideration. The report is organized as follows:
• Workshop Notes from Feb. 25th Retreat
• Strategic Priorities & Recommended Goal Language
• Brainstorm Summary (Budget Items & Other Council Suggestions) • Council & Staff Survey Results Summary
• Community Survey Results Summary
• Council Assessment Interviews Summary
• Resources List
• Other ILG Programs, Services & Resources
Orinda is a very special City with a bright future ahead. We hope to work with you again in the future. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Erica L. Manuel
CEO & Executive Director
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 3 Workshop Notes
The following notes summarize some of the exercises and discussion from the Feb. 25 retreat.

Brief descriptions of each exercise are embedded below.

Self-Assessment Exercise: Each Councilmember completed a personal assessment worksheet detailing their strengths and areas of potential improvement as a leader. • Council noted the need to be mindful of leadership pitfalls with trying to achieve excellence for the City, but not beating themselves up if they fall short. • New Councilmembers are trying to be engaged and prepared; they are thankful to staff for their help.
• Council is collaborating well with lots of listening. Quote, “five awesome women speaking their minds”
• Orinda has a reputation for civil discourse, even during the pandemic when organizations were experiencing strife. There is lots of respect with the community. The Council sets a positive tone; respect matters and is high in the community. • Council is mindful of how democracy is shifting, and discourse is getting more challenging. The Council takes cues from the Mayor around civil discourse and tonesetting. • It’s important to be open to changing perspectives based on conversations during council meetings.
• Developing clear roles and responsibilities is important. For example, it is not a practice to feature the Council in publications. Each Councilmember has to understand how to represent the city as a representative of the whole Council. • The Council does their homework, is inquisitive, and is working for the best of the community.

Communications Exercise: Councilmembers responded to a series of prompts gauging their communication styles, learning preferences, and personal dynamics. • Councilmembers are collaborative, they prefer phone calls over emails to communicate important information.
• Most are direct communicators and prefer it when they receive feedback in a direct way without “sugar coating.”
• Some variation on whether Councilmembers prefer to give feedback or receive feedback (half/half split).
• Council varied on their preferred work schedules and most productive times, but agreed that they value each other’s time.
• Each Councilmember has different personal and professional commitments and schedules, which impacts their communication preferences and availability.

City Visioning Discussion: The Council and staff were asked “What city would Orinda like to emulate as it plans the next 50 years?” and were led through a group discussion. • Several noted Lafayette because of its strong downtown revitalization. Planning staff noted that Plan Orinda’s website was modelled after Plan Lafayette. • Many wanted to see Orinda’s momentum continue.
• Marin, Montecito, Los Gatos were also mentioned, particularly Marin’s fire safe efforts.

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 4 • Berkeley: Orinda has similarities to Berkeley, challenges with building, land access, parking. For a long time, there was no new housing in Berkeley. • Redwood City: impressed by their communications, planning (Orinda was inspired by their precise plan).

Visioning Exercise Part 2
The Council was asked the question – “In one word, how would you like to describe Orinda in 50 years?” The word cloud below illustrates the responses. Words presented below in larger fonts were listed more frequently. The group discussed each of these words and expanded on their context in preparation for discussing the strategic priorities and goals.

Strategic Priorities
Through a series of facilitated discussions and small group activities, ILG helped Orinda’s City Council narrow their five top strategic priorities to:
• Economic Development
• Staffing & Technology
• Housing and Downtown Development
• Resilience & Wildfire Preparedness
• City Facilities
The following section includes a summary of the goal-setting discussions and ILG’s recommendations for potential goal language to help the City with the next steps in the strategic planning process. The Council also discussed approaching this work through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and support for Orinda schools. While neither of those lenses are H.3.c
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 5 explicitly articulated in the goals below, ILG agrees that those principles should be part of the City’s process for assessing progress of these goals. It was also noted that a DEI perspective is an important factor when seeking state grant funding, and the Council may consider reviewing these goals to determine alignment with future funding opportunities.

Strategic Priority #1: Economic Development
Draft Goal Statement: Proactively attract and maintain businesses in Orinda’s Downtown area by building relationships with current and future property owners to minimize vacancies and eliminate blight.

Notes/Tactics:
• Consider hiring staff or a securing contract with a retail broker • Liaison should work with City Manager, Planning Director, and business owners, including members of the Chamber of Commerce
• Consider evaluating (in two years) whether there is need for a full-time staff person to achieve these objectives in alignment with the Downtown Precise Plan (DPP) • Consider measuring this goal by tracking the new leases and/or amount of sales tax revenue generated
Strategic Priority #2: Staffing & Technology
Draft Goal Statement (Technology): Evaluate Orinda’s technology needs so City staff can be equipped with the right technological tools to perform efficiently across departments.

Notes/Tactics:
• Hire a technology consultant to assess the City’s hardware, software, and public safety tools (like cameras) and provide associated costs for any necessary upgrades • Conduct a staff survey of current technology and future needs • Ensure the consultant report includes survey results and implementation steps • Consider hiring a GIS specialist or reengaging in regional partnerships to fill this need • Evaluate current IT services and assess if additional capacity/staff is needed Draft Goal Statement (Staffing): Leverage best practices in human resources and employee development to attract and retain high quality City staff to ensure that Orinda maintains exceptional public services and programs.

Notes/Tactics:
• Review compensation and classification system that includes an assessment of current job descriptions, wage/benefit structures, and hiring and retention practices. • Consider updating the City’s human resources practices including but not limited to, wages and benefits, job descriptions, DEIB and compensation standards, based on the compensation and classification review and other research • Consider developing and adopting a compensation strategy • When developing any retention strategies, measure how long staff is currently staying in positions compared to historical trends and other market data •
Strategic Priority #3: Housing and Downtown Development H.3.c
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 6 Draft Goal Statement: Begin implementation of the Housing Element and Downtown Precise Plan, specifically up-zoning downtown Orinda with a focus on meeting State mandates.

Notes/Tactics:
• Leveraging developer relationships, make progress on 2-3 projects/sites to show momentum
• Assess constraints on BART lot in advance of commuter traffic resuming pre-COVID levels
• Promote mixed-use development to promote economic development • Highlight successes; consider public relations, media outreach, and marketing options to demonstrate progress
Strategic Priority #4: Resilience and Wildfire Preparedness Draft Goal Statement: Employ a collaborative, regional approach to implement wildfire preparedness and resilience goals and advocate for enhanced fire safety resources and funding.

Notes/Tactics:
• Expand (and lead) the regional dialogue about emergency preparedness, wildfire mitigation and adaptation
• Continue to meet and advocate with regional parks and utility organizations • Build and strengthen relationships with Orinda Firewise groups and focus on community safety
• Engage police and others to talk about community safety measures, fire awareness, and evacuation routes
• Continue to enhance relationships with MOFD
Strategic Priority #5: City Facilities and Infrastructure Draft Goal Statement: Continue timely implementation of Capital Improvement Plan Projects, while seeking additional funding for city facility maintenance to address needs in a timely manner.

Notes/Tactics:
• Structure facility maintenance to be as efficient and effective as possible • Consider and incorporate quality aesthetics into public project • Include asset management as part of technology assessment to keep track of facility maintenance/improvements
• Assess and seek funding to repair and maintain city facilities (separate from infrastructure funding for roads and drainage)
• Leverage potential Connect Orinda opportunities
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 7 Brainstorm Summary (Budget Items and Other Council Suggestions) The following list of project ideas are summarized from our final discussion of the day, which focused on Councilmembers’ policy or project ideas ahead of Orinda’s coming budget discussions.

External priorities:
• EV charging stations, which could be a potential private or public opportunity • Retail priority zone
• Inclusionary housing ordinance
• Incentives for retail
• Consider a coworking space in library/community center to bring adults into community spaces
• Off leash dog park
• Formal ambassador system for community partners
• Bike path from Wilder
• Long-term thinking about on demand shuttles to deal with BART lot capacity • Private facilities: private drainage that is open and is supposed to be maintained by property owner to prevent flooding. Consider assessment districts to address.

Internal priorities:
• Time management of City Council meetings, agenda management strategies and process improvements
• Taking meetings into the community quarterly, potentially holding them at elementary schools. Solicit school district support to publicize meeting with an agenda that ties to school/family issues
• Council and staff participate in implicit bias training annually • Equity-based analysis of personnel practices and customer services to generate positive ideas for implementation
• Having more co-interaction with school district. Potential joint meeting once a year • Conduct proactive community engagement about a public safety priorities and annual report
• Consider proposals for legislative advocacy
• Explore viability of investing in additional public safety staffing resources H.3.c
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 8 Orinda City Council & Staff Strategic Priorities Survey Results (Notes from written survey of Council and Staff)

1. What are the three things Orinda has done very well in the last year (internally/operationally)?
Council
• Downtown Plan, Safety and Housing Elements
• Fiscal management
• Road maintenance and planning
• Solidified our City Manager being on-board
• Smoothly transitioned our key finance/administrative leadership • Retained our HR leadership and brought on board our new education/outreach person • Better coordination and communication with external partners -- MOFD, a bit with OUSD, and reaching out to EDMUD, etc.
• Wildfire adaptability planning -- developing SSTOC as a knowledgeable and helpful advisory body.
• Responsiveness to working with SSTOC and community members during hiring process for Comm Outreach position
Staff
• Concluded labor negotiations in timely fashion elevating morale. • Responding to impactful unplanned events (Wilder DA default and Cedar Lane). • Manage through significant staffing changes and vacancy issues. • Coordination between depts.
• On-boarded three new Council Members
• Managed shifting approaches to COVID and its impacts
• Gone to a flexible work schedule
• Hosted general staff meetings in person
• Hired more staff
• Conduct Stay Interviews to try to retain staff. Offer flexibility in work schedules (9/80 transition).
• Utilizing on-call consultants efficiently to support staff with workload and project delivery. • Showed resiliency to external negative circumstances (flooding, Wilder, economic changes, recruitment due to turnover).
• Efficiency
• Fiscally conservative

2. What are the three things Orinda has done very well in the last year (externally/for the community)?
Council
• Good communications, both general and responsive to people • Road maintenance - high impact and highly visible
• Landslide response in Jan. was great
• Passing the Downtown Precise Plan & Housing & Safety Elements • Continued our infrastructure repair and upgrade program H.3.c
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 9 • Initiated our commission for our Measure R monies and taken some positive steps toward implementation
• Increased our communications with the community
• Greater presence on social media. Could still significantly improve, but we have a good foundation on which to build.
• Hiring position to outwardly engage with the community/ residents (i.e., Community Outreach Coordinator). Great potential which now needs to be realized. • Coordinated Plan Orinda: DPP/ Safety Element/ Housing Element--all of it. Doing this in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion makes sense. The pieces themselves need improvements and may be works in progress (especially the Housing Element), but the fact that this was all coordinated was an excellent endeavor.

Staff
• Public outreach and engagement on the Plan Orinda Effort (Housing Element and Downtown Precise Plan) was outstanding.
• Began developing and implementing impactful Measure R programs. • Continued to produce a significant amount of Capital Improvement projects to strengthen the infrastructure, including Roadways (2nd best pavement rating in Bay Area) and Storm Drain facilities.
• emergency response (winter storms), pavement maintenance on public roads • Advanced Wildfire Prevention & Emergency Preparedness • Timely Completed Housing Element, Safety Element, and Downtown Precise Plan • Gridded Chipper Program
• Red Flag Days
• Bringing a Downtown Plan so that more housing and services can eventually be made available. Improved Communications to the Public.
• PW delivered multiple CIP projects even with reduced staff • Paving projects delivered as planned and increased PCI to 85 (Second best in entire Bay Area)
• PW staff handled issues that came up during the storm events effectively, with minimal resources.
• Opened up recreation programming to pre-pandemic levels (plus) • Public transparency/meetings

3. What are Orinda’s greatest strengths? List as many as you wish.

Council
• Friendly, safe, tight-knit community
• Beautiful and embraces nature/outdoors
• People really give their time and money in so many ways to make it better (city, schools, nonprofit and interest groups, youth program)
• Volunteer culture
• Volunteerism and willingness for exceptional residents to provide community service and donations
• Common community goals
• Fiscal conservatism/responsibility
• Size and type of community results in us not being faced with some of the biggest societal problems such as homelessness; poverty; crime; etc.

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 10 • Location: close proximity to urban cultural centers, desirable job opportunities, and easy BART access.
• Schools! Excellent public schools that are essentially subsidized by relatively affluent families (donations & in-kind volunteering) = fantastic learning experiences, especially for young children.

Staff
• Excellent organization leadership, both from elected officials and management. • A highly skilled, motivated workforce that is dedicated to providing superior customer service and quality programs.
• An engaged community that isn't shy about giving input and feedback. • safe area, functional government, community involvement on council, commissions, etc. • A track record of working well with partner agencies and organizations in order to deliver coordinated, intelligent solutions for the community.
• Small but dedicated City staff
• Active and engaged non-profits and community groups
• Location and access to BART
• Dedicated and active Council Members
• Excellent Schools
• Community Involvement
• Educated, affluent Community
• The beauty of the environment around us.
• The community has great volunteers and volunteer organizations. • CM is willing to devote resources where needed
• Excellent facilities
• Diverse programs and offerings

4. What are the three things you know Orinda needs to improve on (internally/operationally)?
Council
• Raising money from state and other sources - we always seem to get underfunded and have to tax ourselves or raise contributions for basic things like roads and schools. • Transportation/Parking planning - when we have a space crunch, we'll be too late • Council meeting efficiency
• The organizational responsibilities/interface between public works and parks and rec • Delivering key projects/problem resolution more timely • Getting our Council aligned and up to speed on goals for 2023/24 • Access DEI of existing staff and develop plan to integrate DEI efforts into our staff. • Internal metrics to better access programming--how are we measuring results? • Long term strategic planning in all aspects.
• Interest in exploring participatory budgeting; greater transparency. • How to engage residents more and interest them more in City happenings? Should we hold quarterly town halls or Council meetings at our four elementary schools? • Better coordination and communication with MOFD, OUSD, and AUHSD. Sometimes it feels like left and right hands are not clapping at the same speed.

Staff
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 11 • Need to continue identifying and implementing technology solutions and tools to leverage the effectiveness of our relatively small workforce. • Develop and implement policies and procedures aimed at attracting and retaining talented employees given our organization's unique characteristics and constraints. • Be more open to innovation and change.
• Address facility/space maintenance needs better Managing competing demands with limited resources
• Approach to facilities and public works maintenance
• Employee recruitment and retention
• It needs to conduct a salary survey across the board and to retain long-term employees.

It should offer Social Security and increase its dental benefits. • Hiring staff in a competitive environment
• Better mentorship, better efficiencies, new permit tracking system • Ensure appropriate staffing structure
• Increased technology would help increase efficiency with small staff. • Better documentation of duties (i.e., Standard Operating Procedures) • Finding time & resources to complete things on the "to do" list

5. What are the three things you know Orinda needs to improve on (externally/for the community)?
Council
• Downtown is so neglected - absentee owners letting it just die • Retail is dying - people are really starting to talk about it • Downtown business development
• MOFD relationship
• Friends of Orinda Creeks relationship
• Even more improvement in communication and letting residents know what is going well and what the City is doing that is positive
• Enticing more people to participate in fire prevention efforts • Higher political profile with partners and in ways that will bring more resources to Orinda • Emergency preparedness, wildfire adaptability--we are only just getting started! • Plan Orinda & the DPP--we have some great plans--how will we break ground on great projects and when? How to actually engage and attract developers to build what we want to see downtown?
• Housing element--how are we going to get HCD approval and how can we improve so that we are building housing (esp. regarding the affordable housing) that is actually desirable for not just the community, but also, of course, for the residents of that housing?
• The City needs to do better about communication with ALL residents. Outlook and email are now obsolete for certain demographics. Social media posts are improving but tend to be dull and boring. We need more engaging communications; staff should forge and nurture connections within the community. Too many residents surprised or unaware of City actions.

Staff
• Innovative Infrastructure/Facilities management- Infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs are the single biggest financial liability the City faces. If not properly H.3.c
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 12 maintained, items without a dedicated funding source, like Facilities (city hall, library, Community Center, Art & Garden Center), can quickly turn from asset to liability. • Good communication is the foundation of positive relationships. Although a lot of improvement has occurred over the past year, the City needs to continue improving its communications with the community.
• Economic Development- attracting and/or managing commercial growth and fostering an environment conducive to improving the local economy.
• provide more outreach to real estate professionals re private drainage and road responsibilities (for buyers); attract more retail business • Engagement on infrastructure needs (roads (private vs. public) and storm drains • Wildfire Prevention and Emergency Preparedness
• Downtown Revitalization
• Communication with the public.
• Start working on an Economic Development Incentive Plan to bring more businesses to town.
• Traffic signals
• Better strategies for coping with difficult people, social media for issues other than wildfire prevention, better maintenance and beautification of public areas • Development of 25 Orinda Way
• Renovation of Orinda Community Park
• Technology (better efficiencies), Technology for public meetings • Outreach in areas of concern

6. What are the biggest policy challenges facing Orinda right now? Council
Staff
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Infrastructure
Housing Development
Environmental Resiliency
Econ. Development
Community Engagement
What are the biggest policy challenges facing Orinda right now? (Council Responses)
Council
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 13 Additional comments:
- For Orinda, I would list Wildfire Adaptability & Emergency Preparedness as #1, and would list Downtown Vibrancy as #2 (which combines economic dev and housing), and list Instilling Equity and DEI in our Culture as #3.
- Wildfire Prevention & Emergency Preparedness
- More IT improvements to help us operate more efficiently

7. What are the biggest operational challenges facing Orinda right now? Council
Staff
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wildfire Prevention
Public Health
Law & Order
IT Improvements
Infrastructure
Housing Development
Environmental Resiliency
Econ. Development
Community Engagement
What are the biggest policy challenges facing Orinda right now? (Staff Responses)
Staff
0 1 2 3 4
Staff/elected onboarding
Staff capacity
Meeting revenue projections
City facilities/physical space
Attracting qualified staff
What are the biggest operational challenges facing Orinda right now? (Council Responses)
Council
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 14 Additional comments:
- Cultural issues including increasing transparency and communication with residents; city staff engaging with residents in a mutually beneficial way; integrating DEI throughout the city's operational structure.
- Permit Tracking
- Organization culture ranks highly
- Technology Improvement

8. What external factors concern you most?
Council
Staff
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Staff retention
Permit tracking
Communication
Attracting qualified staff
What are the biggest operational challenges facing Orinda right now? (Staff Responses)
Staff
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Communication
Global Health Crises
Inflation
Political Polarization
What external factor(s) concern you the most?
(Council Responses)
Council
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 15 Additional comments:
- Lack of middle-income & affordable housing, and potential for greater unhoused; structural racism and bias; economic recession.
- Lack of civil discourse
- Compensation parity
- Continued impacts of COVID
- State of California mandates/legislation that increasingly takes away local control

9. Anything else to share?
• The meetings go too long. Meetings could start at 6 p.m. People are working from home so much more and not commuting. An effort could also be made to estimate the time for agenda items and limit the agenda so it does not extend beyond a reasonable time (e.g., two hours). We could discuss other ways to limit the time spent on certain items such as proclamations.
• I would like to see Orinda take a higher profile in state politics -- retain resources in this area and make this much more of a priority for our benefit I would also like us to take a more direct approach in deciding whether we want to try to solve some longstanding community issues -- items that just linger and linger but don't get resolved or even agreed to not resolve
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Supply Chain
Political Polarization
Lack of Civil Discourse
Inflation
Global Health Crises
Foreign Conflicts
Compensation Parity
Community Harmony
Communication
What external factor(s) concern you the most?
(Staff Responses)
Staff
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 16 Orinda Community Priorities Survey Results
Total Respondents: 58
What are the three things the City of Orinda has done very well in the last year? • Adopted a downtown redevelopment plan that includes housing. • Fuel reduction efforts, (more effort needed on north Orinda fuel break) some street repair.
• Emergency preparedness; Fire abatement; Police & Sheriff crime prevention / enforcement
• Kept downtown clean.
• Not sure about this one, although building the library way back when was an excellent accomplishment.
• Utilities repair and maintenance. Security and safety. Social media communication. • Dealt with the pandemic; continued to maintain streets; done a lot of planning for downtown and the housing element.
• Farmers market
• Fire risk clean up 2. Creek clean up
• Keep city clean, encourage more options for restaurants, safety • New Police Chief, July 4th parade, New City council members • Chipper program 2. Progress on creek day lighting 3. Moving forward with approval of senior housing at church
• Education quality for students
• July 4th Parade, Thursday Food Trucks, class at the community center for kids. • Communications, planning dept approved our plans
o Not increased # of housing units — yet B. Left things mostly as they are • Schools appear to be doing well. Safety other than some incidents is doing well. July 4th parade was fun.
• brought the community center back to life with classes for all ages. Kept crime at bay. • Love the downtown banners, one way evac option on Miner Rd and downtown planning work.
• Streets, schools, July 4th
• Good communication on the Downtown Plan. Very responsive to storm related issues.

Staff very professional.
• Community alerts. Fire safety (specifically chipping program where you put branch bundles by the street and they come by w chipper) Ballot boxes at city hall! • Orinda youth sports! All things sleepy hollow elementary. Keeping streets clean and cleared during and after storms
• Cannot name anything. EBMud work a disaster. Untimely, over budget and road is left in a dangerous condition and also destructive to automobiles.

What are Orinda’s greatest strengths? List as many as you wish. • Natural beauty, quality schools, proximity to San Francisco and Walnut Creek, • A City Council committed to downtown revitalization
• Community volunteers, schools
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 17 • Beautiful area to live in that needs to be maintained which means no infill of housing to scar the environment permanently ; good schools; committed and dedicated community volunteers.
• Rural feel, not crowded downtown like Lafayette and Walnut Creek, safety (crime), proximity to the city and BART. There are many things about Orinda that are special and sets it apart from other towns in the area. It's originality although it appears the city government wants to spoil that and make air some thing that it's not. • Location with easy access elsewhere via Hwy 24 and Bart. Small town feel. Open, undeveloped spaces.
• Schools, weather, proximity to hiking, Library, Mash gas station, Tru Value, Peet’s • Small community; small town feel, Safety, Friendly Right amount of restaurants (otherwise downtown would be too congested and parking could become an issue) • Involved citizens and volunteers (not as many as we need, though); location (close to SF, Walnut Creek and Oakland, BART station); natural beauty. • Committed residents; fiscal responsibility
• Education quality for students
• -Fiscally responsible- no pension debt - City Council and staff responsive to residents needs
• Family oriented.
• Rural community schools community churches community parks & recreation programs
• Schools, Community Resources (e.g., library, park & rec) • Weather, neighborhoods, close to shopping & work, relatively less congestion than adjacent cities
What are the three things Orinda needs to improve on?
• Add downtown housing, better downtown commercial, more community events • economic development, engagement with downtown property owners, storm drainage • Communications about fire/earthquake evacuation routes, fire prevention. PG&E accountability to our community (flyovers, grid threats, upgrades, etc). • creating infrastructures such as bike path, parks, trails, improving the downtown local businesses
• Community relations; work with OCC and get lake cascade fixed and back to previous fill levels.
• Fight the housing infill. Fly over CA and you will see that there is plenty of land for housing without infilling cities and towns and ruining them. The Council needs to represent the needs and desires of its citizens and not outside criteria that spoils the city.

Be more transparent, accountable and careful with general fund monies. • Repair roads and address the private road issue. It's time to stop ignoring this issue and stop ignoring fire issues and the impact of climate change. I would think this would be priority one unless the city government are climate deniers. • Tree removal. Flood prevention. Electric vehicle charging. • Theater Sq vacancies, making everyone clean up their biomass (absolutely MUST enforce fire mitigation, and either bill/fine/shame the resident who does not do it). The excess vegetation in Orinda is a humongous problem, and there are too many homeowners who get away with not maintaining their property.

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 18 • Providing more choices for Internet Cable Electricity • It's time to get back to public meetings - the time for zoom meetings should be over. Do something about All the empty buildings on both sides of town. Have owners either reuse or demolish and build townhouses, condos. Local residents who would like to downsize here- there are no offerings- Don't count million dollar plus units in Lafayette feasible for most seniors. Do not let any new building built with store space. Housing only. We have too much empty businesses for over 20 years. Figuring out how to coordinate with agencies doing road work. It is a constant rip up and minor fixes - whether it's cccsd, pge or ebmud, or city of Orinda-it appears no one can coordinate anything.
• Traffic, especially school traffic; lack of vitality downtown; loss of sales tax from residents shopping elsewhere.
• ------- motorcycle-friendly parking on corners to improve sight-lines for turning cars . . . • Honoring its legal commitment that Oak Road is a city road, undergrounding high voltage power lines, creating more fire breaks
• Improve facilities at Orinda Community Park, additional restaurant options, roads • I live on a hill and drive up Spring Road to get home. There are 3 tight turns in that road and when they were repaved the centerline striping was not done, but it should be. Here is why, last night I followed someone driving down the road and it was obvious they were not familiar with the road and at the turn veered widely outside almost colliding with an approaching vehicle. Without centerlines to guide a driver at night, it is dangerous to all. • city alerts/police communication re roads closures, etc. (I receive Moraga & Lafayette alerts for an Orinda issue days to hours before if ever receiving one from Orinda); 2) parking; 3) commercial buildings/structures are empty and derelict. (embarrassing that nothing has changed over the 10+ years we've lived here); 4) traffic - only having Moraga Way as a thoroughfare is getting worse - no improvement despite increased housing developments; access to EB freeway is a problem as the theater side becomes more frequented.
• Re-institute term limits on Planning Commissioners so that the commission reflects a diversity of opinions and input. Without term limits commissioners inevitably establish a "status quo" of sorts and can become a bit lazy.
• Filling the decades empty Phair’s location. Developing a safe walking path around the Lake Force Bart to better police and care for their property. o Transparency in city business actions 2. Code Inforcement - Seriously. I filed a complaint in March and planning department did not contact me until August.

Shameful. 3. City safety 4. Why are we funding a special election for schools with parcel tax Z?
• diversity
• Truth and transparency: Where are taxes going? Keep seeing new local measures but they do not fund what was stated. 2) Fire mitigation - increase efforts. 3) Start adding nice high-density housing... near BART to reduce additional traffic on narrow roads, with parking Permits to Orinda residents.
- need to repair/upgrade drainage
• The city is not as receptive as they should be to residents' concerns and suggestions about certain development issues. They pretend to be, but actually ignore them.

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 19  Add cameras to deter crime, especially at traffic ”hubs” B. Increase crime prevention, e.g. again promote “Neighborhood Watch” signs, activities. C • Both sides of the BART station could be improved. There seems to be endless studies and reports trying to fulfill mandates without a clear vision of what Orinda should look like given what the mandates and how our future town will meet those mandates and drive a small town community culture with a global vision for inclusiveness. • Clean energy and electrification. Make Marin Clean Energy an option for residents, adopt REACH codes for existing and new buildings. Economic development, especially downtown areas.
• Attracting another grocery store, perhaps sourcing from the farmers market so we have local produce available all week Creek area in the village square park could be spruced up a little Continue to keep an eye on stragglers in the village square- I have seen one or two folks with open drugs near the fountain • Safety of homes and citizens. Almost never observe a police car patrolling neighborhood as a deterrent to crime—instead police cars hide and sit near stop signs to cite citizens for a incomplete total stop. Roads. Building permit enforcement. People free to make additions because city will do nothing.

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 20 H.3.c
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 21 Orinda City Council Assessment Interviews Summary
(Notes from phone/video interviews)

1. How would you describe excellence in governance? What does that look like to you?
• Excellence would be a government that is led by people with integrity, common sense, surrounded by experts outside their priority issue areas, people who are good at listening, people who can handle public criticism
• Accountability, transparency with press and the public, accountability to staff. • Fiscal responsibility, staying on budget and keeping the organization strong • Respect for staff and colleagues, as well as the public • Council must use direct voice and provide direction to city manager and staff, understanding the importance of hiring qualified staff to help move forward policy • True engagement and consistently striving for reasonable improvement • Diversity of perspective, ability to collaborate, to speak freely, and really hear each other. Strives to be representative of constituency – diverse (geography, lived experience, race, etc.)
• Maintaining a good rapport with council and staff, and keeping up the collaborative culture the city has

2. How would you describe your role as a Council Member? • When the city council holds meetings, the council leadership is educated by the perspectives of the city council and is informed by their input. • Helps promote the respectful environment and procedural norms around the Brown Act, titles, etc. Also respects that the city staff work for the city manager. Thinks that some staff are open to direct communication
• Council should uniquely contribute a different lived experience. All members have different professional backgrounds and knowledge bases. • Some councilmembers want to be more visionary, less reactive • City councilmembers are responsible for asking questions of staff, getting full information. Rely on staff but ask tough questions
• Noted how city reacts in emergency situations important. Residents need to know that care, not overstepping but listening to the community • Some councilmembers expressed capacity challenges with the volunteer nature of the role. But they hope to lean into their community engagement history and build more relationships
• Members are invested in community engagement, want to remain responsive

3. What would you say has been a success for the Council and the city? • Recent passage of Orinda housing element and infill plan (Plan Orinda), 2300 housing units in downtown, local serving retail
• Build on the success of the housing and downtown plan and aim to have several projects break ground as soon as possible
• Maintaining fiscal accountability, passed general tax measure a couple years ago to provide the city more resources for fire mitigation and public safety • Council has done a good job of organic waste and recycling, handling waste • Orinda city hall has implemented sustainability measures, received awards for efficiency
• Road repair and infrastructure plan, improving road quality and drainage H.3.c
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 22 • Improving fire mitigation and prevention awareness, improving relationship with fire protection district
• Maintaining the volunteer community and culture of Orinda

4. From your perspective, where/how is the Council working well together? How could you perform at an even higher level?
• New councilmembers have great first impressions about the council dynamics • New members each bring lots of experience to the council, but anticipate a transition period as members get up to speed
• Some don’t like Zoom city council meetings, looking forward to in person council meetings to build connection
• Several new members look forward to more opportunities to connect (especially in person)
• May need to navigate different communication styles between council and staff • Transparency is important to the community, and the council may have more opportunities to promote transparency. Want to explore what options are on the table without adding workload to staff

5. What do you see as a major challenge (specifically related to governance or operations) for the Council that you would like to see addressed? • Small city, so there are limited resources for pet projects. Orinda is mainly property tax funded and is limited by prop 13
• Challenges with police and animal control response
• Orinda is not a part of CalPERS, could lead to staff retention challenges • More communication, accounting for varied communications styles • Internal relations with the Measure R oversight commission • Relationship with the fire district
• Wants to be perceived as more engaging and accessible to public • Navigating the transition back to in-person meetings and work • Evolving as Orinda becomes a more diverse city with a broader spectrum of needs to address
Policy Challenges
o One year vs three-year zoning period for the housing element o Inclusionary housing ordinance and parking requirements o Downtown plan implementation, ordinances and figuring out to mobilize private sector to support the planning efforts

6. Any other notes:
• Some councilmembers are concerned with the length and efficiency of meetings • Some members are interested in promoting and engaging with additional DEI initiatives, projects, or community opportunities
o I.e., implicit bias training, etc. Using DEI lens in staff and hiring • Several councilmembers are looking forward to entering a new era for the council, specifically looking for opportunities to “blue sky think” about the future H.3.c
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 23 Resources List
Below are some resources that Orinda may find useful in the context of the workshop. We have included items related to Leadership, Governance, Equity, Public Engagement, and Sustainability.

League of California Cities
• Education, Conferences & Events
• Misc. Written Resources
• Western City Magazine
• Advancing Equity
Institute for Local Government
• Leadership Resources for Elected Officials
• Ethics & Transparency Resources
• Public Engagement Resources
• Sample Codes of Conduct, Civility & Governance Handbooks • On-Demand Webinars & Training for Local Governments
• Cultural Intelligence Webinar Series
• Climate & Sustainability Resources
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) • Leadership Resources (including Practices for Effective Local Government Leadership, Leadership Before, During and After a Crisis, Leadership in Government, etc.) • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Resources
About ILG’s Other Services
The Institute for Local Government (ILG) is a nonprofit organization that has served and supported California’s local government leaders for over 65 years. We are committed to empowering and educating public servants by delivering real-world expertise that helps them navigate complex issues, increase their capacity, and build trust in their communities. Together, we work hand-in-hand with local agency staff and elected officials to build a strong foundation of good government at the local level, centered on trust, accountability, responsiveness, and transparency.

In addition to our Leadership & Governance work, we have three additional pillars of work including Public Engagement, Sustainability & Resilient Communities, and Workforce Development & Civics Education.

For Public Engagement, ILG can help build the capacity of your agency to advance equity and public engagement through peer learning and collaboration, training, coaching, technical assistance, and facilitation. ILG’s public engagement services include:
• TIERS Workshops (Virtual & In-Person for Individuals and Teams) • Customized Public Engagement Training
• Strategic Planning & Consultation
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) 24 • Meeting & Committee Facilitation
• Convenings & Stakeholder Engagement
Work done through ILG’s Sustainable & Resilient Communities pillar provides local leaders with capacity building services, technical support, partnership development, and educational resources to make informed policies, plans, and decisions around climate planning, land use, housing, infrastructure, and engagement that results in more equitable, sustainable, and resilient communities. If your agency decides to join our free Beacon program, ILG offers yearround resources and technical support to assist Beacon participants in their journey, including:
• Technical assistance with collecting, reporting, and tracking best practices, energy savings, and greenhouse gas emission reductions
• Opportunities for award recognition
• Access to peer-to-peer networking and educational events, including webinars, conference sessions, and informal information exchanges • Invitations to showcase climate leadership and agency achievements to a statewide audience
Finally, ILG’s Workforce Development & Civics Education pillar demystifies what local government is, why it matters, and how to effectively serve or lead in cities, counties, and special districts. In addition to educating students and the general public on the purpose of local government and how to get involved though civic engagement and robust youth workforce programs, ILG also assists agencies with filling the workforce pipeline with diverse and qualified applicants.

ILG can support your local agency’s workforce and civic education goals through a wide range of virtual and in-person services. ILG maintains an online suite of materials and resources and offers in-person trainings and project-support to grow your workforce development program through apprenticeships, youth engagement, partnership development, and next generation outreach.

For more information, visit www.ca-ilg.org or email Erica Manuel at [email protected].

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: ILG 2023 Strategic Priorities Workshop Summary (3077 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025) H.3.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: April 11, 2023 Staff Report w- attachments (3111 : Strategic Priorities for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: May 9, 2023 City Council Staff Report & Attachments (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) The following Strategic Priorities are not listed in any priority and have parity, and will be approached through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and support for Orinda schools.

ID # Strategic Priority
Category Goal Statement/Tactic Responsible
Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation STATUS:

Complete /
Underway / No
Progress /
Added / New

COMMENTS
A City Facilities and
Infrastructure
Continue timely implementation of
Capital Improvement Plan Projects and
seek additional funding for city facility
maintenance to address needs in a timely
manner
A.1 City Facilities and
Infrastructure
Structure facility maintenance to be as
efficient and effective as possible
Parks &
Recreation/Public
Works
Ongoing Winter 2023 TBD TBD
Underway
MRG review of possible alternate structures in
draft. Next phase of consultations with
employees underway.

A.2 City Facilities and
Infrastructure
Consider and incorporate quality
aesthetics into public projects
Public Works/Parks &
Recreation Ongoing
Underway
Fencing for Camino Sobrante Slope Stabilization
project incorporated with upgraded black finish.

A.3 City Facilities and
Infrastructure
Include asset management as part of
technology assessment to keep track of
facility maintenance/improvements
Parks & Recreation Ongoing
No Progress Will be addressed post-re-org.

A.4 City Facilities and
Infrastructure
Actively assess and seek funding to repair
and maintain city facilities (separate from
infrastructure funding for roads and
drainage)
Parks &
Recreation/Admin
Services
Ongoing
Underway
Grant funds sought on an on-going basis.

Applications thus far unsuccessful. Currently
exploring possible Foundation funding for
Community Park renovation.

A.5 City Facilities and
Infrastructure
Actively assess and seek funding to pursue
public amenities and infrastructure
projects, including green infrastructure
Planning/Public
Works/Parks &
Recreation
Ongoing
Underway
Grant applications submitted for projects on a
regular basis. Grant for 30% design submitted
for Wilder/Downtown Trail.

A.6 City Facilities and
Infrastructure
Leverage potential Connect Orinda
opportunities
Planning/Public
Works Ongoing
Underway
See note above re Wilder Trail. Grants also
secured for ped/bike improvements along
Moraga Way, with additional phases funding
being sought.

B
Economic
Development
Attract and maintain businesses in
Orinda’s Downtown area by building
relationships with current and future
property owners to minimize vacancies
and encourage storefront upgrades.

B.1
Economic
Development
Consider hiring staff/retail broker to work
with City Manager, Planning Director,
property owners, and the Orinda Chamber
of Commerce
Planning/CMO Ongoing FY 2022-23
Midyear
Underway
FY 2023-24 Budget included funding for an
additional Planner whose role includes economic
development. Business outreach and networking
underway. Introductions of new businesses
reinstituted at Council meetings. Collaboration
on special events with businesses also underway
with one day Holiday event being an example.

B.2
Economic
Development
Evaluate (in two years) whether there is
need for a full-time staff person to achieve
these objectives in alignment with the
Downtown Precise Plan (DPP)
CMO/Admin Services 6/1/2025 TBD TBD
No Progress
See note above re staff being added, Efforts
underway will be evaluated by the deadline.

CITY OF ORINDA
FINAL 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities REVIEW / UPDATE -MARCH 2024 Final Draft Priorities 3-19-19 Page 1 of 4
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Status Update -2023-2024 Strategic Priorities List (Adopted 5-9-23 mtg) 03072024 (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) The following Strategic Priorities are not listed in any priority and have parity, and will be approached through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and support for Orinda schools.

ID # Strategic Priority
Category Goal Statement/Tactic Responsible
Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation STATUS:

Complete /
Underway / No
Progress /
Added / New

COMMENTS

CITY OF ORINDA
FINAL 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities REVIEW / UPDATE -MARCH 2024 B.3
Economic
Development
Develop measurements such as new leases
and/or amount of sales tax revenue
Planning/Admin
Services Fall 2023 2024
Underway
Quarterly sales tax data being reviewed to
determine if a baseline can be established and an
on-going report generated. Business outreach
and networking are setting the stage for a space
absorption report.

C
Housing and
Downtown
Development
Begin implementation of the Housing
Element and Downtown Precise Plan,
specifically rezoning downtown Orinda
C.1
Housing and
Downtown
Development
Maintain and build relationships with
property owners and developers Planning Ongoing
Underway
Economic development outreach includes
property owners and developers. Currently
engaging with a number of property owners for
new development and re-tenanting of existing
spaces.

C.2
Housing and
Downtown
Development
Demonstrate progress on 2-3
projects/sites Planning Fall 2023
Underway
Engaging with a property owner on Davis for
possible residential development. New owner of
existing building on Moraga Way seeking to
initiate residential use on upper floor and rear of
building.

C.3
Housing and
Downtown
Development
Continue to assess viability of and pursue
viable housing development on BART lot
and Caltrans Gateway site
Planning Fall 2023 July 1905 Grant pending for BART TOD analysis Underway
TOD Grant secured for BART site. Scope pf work
being developed. Engagement with BART and
MTC/ABAG on-going. Continuing engagement
with CalTrans on the CalTrans Gateway site, also
possible legislation to facilitate Gateway site
availability being pursued.

C.4
Housing and
Downtown
Development
Promote mixed-use development Planning Ongoing
Underway
Outreach to interested property owners and
developers underway. Proceeding with DPP
rezonings and objective design standards which
is key first step.

C.5
Housing and
Downtown
Development
Report and publicize progress to the public
using various communication methods Planning/CMO Ongoing Underway
First Annual Housing Element Progress Report
initial opportunity to update the public. A
companion Safety Element and Evacuation
Analysis progress report willbe presented in mid2024. The Housing Element Annual Progress Report also included updates on components of
the DPP
D Staffing &
Technology
Evaluate Orinda’s technology needs and
equip City staff with the technological
tools to perform efficiently across
departments
Final Draft Priorities 3-19-19 Page 2 of 4
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Status Update -2023-2024 Strategic Priorities List (Adopted 5-9-23 mtg) 03072024 (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) The following Strategic Priorities are not listed in any priority and have parity, and will be approached through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and support for Orinda schools.

ID # Strategic Priority
Category Goal Statement/Tactic Responsible
Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation STATUS:

Complete /
Underway / No
Progress /
Added / New

COMMENTS

CITY OF ORINDA
FINAL 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities REVIEW / UPDATE -MARCH 2024 D.1 Staffing &
Technology
Hire a technology consultant to assess the
City’s hardware, software, and public
safety tools (e.g., cameras) and provide
associated costs for any necessary
upgrades
Admin Services Summer 2023 Winter 2023 TBD
No Progress
A consultant led effort has not been initiated yet.

Individual staff led efforts are underway on
cameras, an agenda management system, an
integrated permitting system, and records
management. A Decision Package was approved
as part of the FY 2023-24 budget which has
allocated resources to this effort.

D.2 Staffing &
Technology
Conduct a staff survey of current
technology and future needs Admin Services/HR Fall 2023 Winter 2023 Server room, router, and security
improvements at the Art and Graden
Center, Ranch House, Corp Yard,
Community Center, and City Hall
estimated at $11,000. Increased
Data Storage Capacity by 3 TB across
City's network.

Underway
Informal survey/discussion with each
department intended to identify technology gaps
and needs has identified several opportunites to
improve efficiency, such as implementing an
integrated permitting system and upgrading IT
infrastructure (server room improvements at
multiple locations)
D.3 Staffing &
Technology
Ensure the consultant report includes
survey results and implementation steps Admin Services Summer 2023 Winter 2023 Internal Staff commitment $20,000 for training costs, supplies,
software updates, etc. to be added
2019/2020 Police and Admin
Operating Budgets; possible
assistance from outside consultant No Progress
D.4 Staffing &
Technology
Consider hiring a GIS specialist or
reengaging in regional partnerships to fill
this need
Admin
Services/Public
Works
Summer 2023 FY 2023/24
Midyear TBD
No Progress
D.5 Staffing &
Technology
Evaluate current IT services and assess if
additional capacity/staff is needed Admin Services Summer 2023 FY 2023/24 Midyear initial estimate for enhanced firewall
product and 24hr security
monitoring service is $22K annually.

Currently no additional cost for the
onsite presence is anticipated. Underway
Working with Precision IT to evaluate current
service level, identify opporunities for enhanced
security services as well as to provide for
regularly scheduled onsite staffing
D Staffing &
Technology
Attract and retain high quality City staff
by using best practices in human
resources and employee development to
ensure that Orinda maintains exceptional
public services and programs.

D.6 Staffing &
Technology
Review compensation and classification
system that includes an assessment of
current job descriptions, wage/benefit
structures, and hiring and retention
practices
HR Spring 2024 Summer 2024 TBD
Complete
Stay interviews were completed and a series of
modifications made to the City's pay structure
and classification systems as a first step and were
implemented in Fall 2023.

Final Draft Priorities 3-19-19 Page 3 of 4
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Status Update -2023-2024 Strategic Priorities List (Adopted 5-9-23 mtg) 03072024 (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) The following Strategic Priorities are not listed in any priority and have parity, and will be approached through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and support for Orinda schools.

ID # Strategic Priority
Category Goal Statement/Tactic Responsible
Department(s) Start Date Target Date Staff Allocation Estimated Fiscal Allocation STATUS:

Complete /
Underway / No
Progress /
Added / New

COMMENTS

CITY OF ORINDA
FINAL 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities REVIEW / UPDATE -MARCH 2024 D.7 Staffing &
Technology
Consider updating the City’s human
resources practices including but not
limited to, wages and benefits, job
descriptions, DEIB and compensation
standards, based on the compensation and
classification review and other research
HR Winter 2023 Spring 2024 TBD
Underway
See note above. In addition, individual positions
have been evaluated and reclassifications based
on the flex staffing model made.

D.8 Staffing &
Technology
Consider developing and adopting a
compensation strategy
HR Spring 2024 Summer 2024 TBD No Progress
D.9 Staffing &
Technology
When developing any retention strategies,
measure how long staff is currently staying
in positions compared to historical trends
and other market data
HR Ongoing
No Progress
D.10 Staffing &
Technology
Integrate strategies to measure, attract
and retain a diverse workforce at all levels
of staffing
HR Ongoing
No Progress
E
Wildfire
Resilience and
Emergency
Preparedness
Continue to plan and prepare our
community for emergencies including
wildfires and advocate for enhanced
resources and funding
E.1
Wildfire
Resilience and
Emergency
Preparedness
Expand (and lead) community outreach
about emergency preparedness and
wildfire resilience
CMO/Police Ongoing 1.8 staff members funded through
Measure R
Underway
A robust effort is underway with modification
made as needed. Recent examples include the
first newspaper advertisements having been
placed to test effectiveness.

E.2
Wildfire
Resilience and
Emergency
Preparedness
Continue to collaborate with Orinda
Firewise, CERT, and other groups, focusing
on community safety and culture change
CMO Ongoing
Underway
City Staff engage regularly with all groups
including the new Moraga Orinda Fire Safe
Council. Assisted the MOFSC with a grant
application for funding of neighborhood fuel
reduction projects.

E.3
Wildfire
Resilience and
Emergency
Preparedness
Continue to collaborate with MOFD,
EBMUD, EBRPD, PG&E, and other partners CMO Ongoing
Underway
On-going initiatives in a number of areas.

Lamorinda Cities initiated effort for subregional
evacuation planning now being pursued countywide through CCTA led effort.

E.4
Wildfire
Resilience and
Emergency
Preparedness
Engage police and others to talk about
community safety measures, fire
awareness, and evacuation routes
CMO/Police Ongoing
Underway
On-going education and outreach. Activation
exercise of the Miner Road Contra-Flow
completed in December 2023. Red Flag Day
parking program expanded to Miner Road area in
2023. Evacuation article appeared in Orinda Way
and reprinted.

Final Draft Priorities 3-19-19 Page 4 of 4
H.3.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Status Update -2023-2024 Strategic Priorities List (Adopted 5-9-23 mtg) 03072024 (3324 : Annual Review and Update on Council Strategic Priorities) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.4
Date: March 12, 2024
Department: Administration
AGENDA TITLE: Measure R (Orinda Essential Services Measure, Approved by the Voters November 2020): Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up, including possible joint meeting of the City Council and Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (SSTOC)
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction, if any.

BACKGROUND: Councilmember Inga Miller initiated an item at the City Council Meeting of March 5, 2024, which the Council approved, to consider a possible future agenda item at which the City Council would review Measure R priorities, processes, and alignment with the Measure’s language and status as a General Tax. This future agenda item could then result in a potential joint meeting with the Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission (the “SSTOC”), which is the oversight body for Measure R and makes recommendations to the City Council on expenditures. Councilmember Miller articulated that her goal is to ensure shared understanding and alignment between the Council and Commission.

Measure R was approved by Orinda voters in November 2020 as a General Tax. The City Council formed the SSTOC by Resolution 67-20 on December 15, 2020, 2021, (Attachment A), which also approved By Laws for the Commission. The SSTOC held its organizational meeting in March of 2021, and has met monthly since. On November 9, 2022, the SSTOC agenda included an item titled: “Review of Origins and Background of Measure R (Orinda Essential Services Measure) Approved by the Voters November 2020.” (Attachments B & C). The SSTOC has produced two annual reports in their first three years existence, with the 2022-2023 annual report reviewed by the City Council on February 20, 2024. They have also made recommendations to the City Council through the budget process each year and on specific proposed initiatives which have arisen outside the budget process.

This item is presented to allow the City Council to discuss and possibly act on the request by Councilmember Miller.

NEXT STEPS: To be determined by the City Council based on this item.

FISCAL IMPACT: None as result of this item.

ATTACHMENTS:

H.4
Packet Pg. 384
A. Resolution 67-20 Forming Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission and ByLaws
B. SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent
C. Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission - Regular Meeting - Sep 14, 2022 6_30 PM Minutes Excerpt
Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

H.4
Packet Pg. 385
H.4.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 Forming Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission and ByLaws (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment H.4.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 Forming Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission and ByLaws (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment H.4.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 Forming Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission and ByLaws (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment H.4.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 Forming Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission and ByLaws (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment H.4.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Resolution 67-20 Forming Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission and ByLaws (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Supplemental Sales Tax
Oversight Commission
Staff Report
Agenda Item: G.1
Date: November 9, 2022
Department:

Supplemental Sales
Tax Oversight
Commission
AGENDA TITLE: Review of Origins and Background of Measure R (Orinda Essential Services Measure) Approved by the Voters November 2020
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and Discuss Report
BACKGROUND:

BACKGROUND:

November 2022, marks two years since the voters in Orinda approved Measure R, the local 1% sales tax override measure intended to fund additional wildfire prevention, emergency preparedness, road maintenance, storm drain repair, and essential city services. The measure was approved in an election with over 90% voter turnout, with

58.7% voting yes, and 41.3% voting no. The Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission was appointed by the City Council in February 2021, and the Commission had its first meeting in March 2021. Revenue from Measure R began to flow in April 2021, and the Commission produced its first annual report as of the end of the 2020/21 fiscal year which served as the close-out report on the predecessor Measure L, and the partial first year of Measure R in early 2022. The Commission will soon begin work on its second annual Measure R report which will cover a full fiscal year from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022.

DISCUSSION:

This is an opportune time to review the origins and background of Measure R as the Commission begins its next annual review. Various future funding decisions regarding the use of Measure R funds have to be made by the Council as the 2023/24 and 2024/25 Two-Year City Budget will be developed and considered in the second quarter of 2023. In addition, some in the community make an argument that "Measure R was meant for wildfire risk reduction, not infrastructure, particularly in the first few years." Unfortunately, this misunderstanding complicates the dialogue on how to make the best and most effective use of the funds being generated by Measure R, and is in fact, as will be illustrated in this report, revisionist history.

The Measure R Ordinance (attachment 1), and the actual ballot question wording below, clearly identified that a variety of services and activities would be supported by Measure R, and that it is a general tax:

H.4.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) The City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis which also appeared in the ballot pamphlet (Attachment 2) confirms this as well. These same points were also clearly made in the Measure R Information Sheet (attachment 3) which was the City staff’s informational summary of Measure R as proposed to and considered by the voters. Note that page 2 of the Measure R Information Sheet projected spending about $3 Million on Wildfire and Emergency Preparedness over the first 4 - 5 years, and $10 Million on Storm Drains in that same time frame. The Resolution/Ordinance, Ballot Question wording, City Attorney Analysis, and Measure R Information Sheet represent the only official City “speech” on the matter presented to the voters.

In addition, the voters had arguments pro and con, and rebuttals, to also consider in making their decisions (included in Attachment 2) as submitted by the proponents and opponents. State Election Code (Sections 9120, 9162, 9501) provides for how those arguments for and against are selected. The City was not involved in any of those ballot arguments. Many of the arguments being made now are just a continuation of the arguments against, which the voters took into consideration before approving Measure R. So it must be assumed that they duly considered the competing positions.

Some in the community like to cite the materials and advertisements prepared and utilized by the Yes on Measure R Committee as an additional indicator as to intent on use of the funds. First, it is important to note none of those materials were communication from the City or considered City “speech,” even though some elected officials were active participants in the Yes campaign. To be sure, the Yes on Measure R committee made the strong point that Orinda needed new funds to support efforts to reduce wildfire risk in Orinda. However, the record shows that all Yes on Measure R publications and meetings emphasized that infrastructure needs, particularly storm drains, would also require significant funding, even in the first few years.

It is also important to note again that Measure R is a general tax and can be used for any legal municipal purpose. However, the ballot measure did identify likely areas for use of this funding and those areas have been reflected in how the funding has been allocated to date.

In fact, the initial Measure R five-year expenditure plan approved by the City Council in 2021, after the Measure passed, budgeted significant amounts of funds for storm water H.4.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) and roads, while still allocating and reserving additional funding for wildfire prevention and emergency preparedness. Early in 2022, the City Manager recommended, with subsequent Council approval, substituting budgeted Measure R funds for storm drains with Federal Stimulus funds, thereby also freeing up funding for other Measure R purposes including wildfire prevention. After that action, the 2022 paving project bids came in higher than anticipated, and staff recommended that Measure R funds be used to fill the gap, to fulfill commitments and promises to voters in regard to road maintenance. At the end of the day, more funds remain available for wildfire preventionrelated expenditures, than prior to the two budget adjustments (storm water projects funds by ARPA funds and 2022 Paving Project). The availability of funds is further buoyed by higher than initially projected revenues.

As noted in the attached materials, decisions about the use of Measure R funds are made by the Council at public meetings based on the City’s current and projected needs (e.g., through the 2-year City Budget, 5-year Capital Improvement Plan, periodic budget adjustments, and ongoing appropriations). This is the hallmark of a general tax: current and future Councils are responsible for making policy decisions about the use of revenue. As such, the current Council should avoid setting policy that would unduly restrict the actions of future Councils. In addition, it is important that what is a General Tax not be re-characterized in any way as a Special Tax.

The role of the Commission as the oversight body is set forth in the Measure R Ordinance, which states that its duty is: “…to review the expenditures of tax revenues under the authority of the Ordinance.” This would include ensuring that the funds are being utilized as a General Tax and for general governmental purposes, including the purposes listed in the Measure submitted to the voters (wildfire prevention, emergency preparedness, roads, and storm drains). In addition, the Commission provides recommendations to the City Council in regard to Measure R, and serves as a body with which staff engage and consult as they work to implement Measure R funded activities and programs.

Since inception, the Commission’s focus has primarily been on wildfire prevention. Its first annual report summarized the many actions and activities that have taken place to make Orinda more fire safe by the City, the Moraga-Orinda Fire District, and others.

The Commission’s first annual report highlighted those and also identified accomplishments that occurred after the end of the reporting period. It is anticipated that the second annual report will further document progress. It will also highlight, a number of additional actions that have taken place since July 1, 2022, including the recent approval of a fire fuels reduction incentive program, and the addition of an Education and Outreach Coordinator to greatly expand efforts related to wildfire prevention.

While it has taken some time to gear up wildfire prevention-related programs and activities funded by Measure R, the City with the Commission’s input and guidance is on track to expend the $3 Million on Wildfire and Emergency Preparedness over the first 4 - 5 years as indicted in the Measure R Information Sheet first prepared when Measure R was being considered by the voters. It is anticipated that in early 2023, the H.4.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) Commission’s attention will turn towards the roads and storm drain elements of their responsibilities while still retaining a considerable focus on wildfire prevention and emergency preparedness. To this end, the Commission had requested recently that staff bring forward additional background information on these infrastructure areas.

NEXT STEPS: None directly as a result of this item.

FISCAL IMPACT: None directly, though information contained herein may be of assistance as future expenditure plans are developed and recommendations made.

Respectfully Submitted by:

David Biggs
City Manager
Prepared By: Micki Cronin, Senior Management Analyst
Approved by:

H.4.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up)

CITY OF ORINDA
Measure R Information (November 3, 2020 Ballot)
 Measure was placed on the November 3, 2020 Ballot by a unanimous vote of the City Council.  If approved by a majority of voters the Measure will approve a 1% Transaction Use Tax for a period of 20 years and will rescind the current 0.5% Transactions Use Tax. It is estimated to generate $2.4 million per year.  Voter approved and locally controlled Add-On Sales Tax measures are a common source of revenue for cities. 12 of the 19 cities in Contra Costa County have such a tax, and 6 cities including the Town of Moraga are at a rate higher than the current rate in Orinda.
 The Ordinance which would be enacted by the voters is available on the City website:
http://www.cityoforinda.org/DocumentCenter/View/2921/Ordinance-on-Transaction-and-Use-Tax-for-Submission-toVoters  Copies of: City Attorney Impartial Analysis; Arguments For Measure; Arguments Against the Measure; and Rebuttals are available on the City website:
http://www.cityoforinda.org/DocumentCenter/View/2956/Ballot-Pamphlet-Info-Impartial-Analysis-Arguments-Rebuttals  The City has very limited sources of discretionary funding to expand programs and/or increase spending. It recently reduced the FY 2020-2021 budget including employee lay-offs to balance revenue and expenses, because of impacts from COVID-19.
 The expenditures from the new tax will be guided by annual community input and a Tax Oversight Committee, as the City Council makes final budget funding decisions at publicly noticed meetings.

 The City Council obtained significant input from the Community and identified that there are several key needs related to critical protection and safety of the general public and properties throughout the City, including:
 Wildfire Fuel Reduction / Vegetation Management
 Disaster / Emergency Preparedness
 Improvements to Protect Against Flooding and Road Collapse  Continued maintenance of public roadways to protect the investments in the last 10 years which included over $50 million directly funded by voter approved tax dollars.  At a public meeting on June 30, 2020 the Moraga Orinda Fire District Chief provided written comments to the City Council providing an overview of Vegetation Management Funding challenges, accomplishments to date and on-going needs for: Fire Fuel Breaks; Roadside fuel reduction which can improve the fire break effect created by existing roadways; creation of defensible space around homes; and home hardening.  A Financial Needs Analysis presented to the City Council used estimated costs for addressing the threat of wildfires which were broad brushed and intended to represent an order of magnitude, as opposed to a precise budget. The City has a specific inventory including: quantities, detailed condition information gathered from regular inspections, and construction cost values that can be applied to create cost estimates. While, for the Fire Risk Reduction Programs there is far less detailed information available.  The Financial Needs Analysis found that the need to address the critical items of all types is on-going over the 20 year period, and will total tens of millions of dollars. Further, in the first 5 years of identified critical needs are projected to exceed the amount generated by the tax. This will require careful monitoring of schedules, timing of expenditures, and may require internal borrowing to fund projects.

H.4.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up)

CITY OF ORINDA
Measure R Information (November 3, 2020 Ballot)
 The Needs Analysis Report focused on the range of highest priority public services to be funded in the first four to five years of the new tax. The expected priorities are wildfire mitigation and critical drainage repairs:
o $1.5 Million Roadside Fuel Reduction and Establishment of Defensible Space Along Public & Private Streets
 This was based on input expressing a desire to see expansion of the popular Moraga Orinda Fire District (MOFD) chipper program which partners with property owners to shred and dispose of vegetation which poses a fire risk.
 The tax was considered a funding source to jump start spending and address a back-log of fire fuel reduction in the community, as well as a 20 year source of funding for these programs.  It was also identified that the new funding source could allow for grant assisted pilot projects that would serve local residents in making small improvements that would provide home hardening. Home hardening as a fire prevention measure is a key objective of MOFD o $750,000 Wildfire Reduction on City Properties
 The current City Budget only has approximately $50,000 dedicated to fire fuel management and prevention on City owned property including public open space owned by the City. It was estimated that the City could require between $500,000 and $750,000 to address the back-log in the first 3-4 years and then a reduced level of funding would be required to maintain properties.
o $730,000 Disaster Prevention and Response Planning Programs  The City lacks a centralized position that is focused on all aspects of disaster preparedness for both the public and to support staff in their role as emergency service workers. The cost of this program would be estimated to require $730,000 over the next four years. o $10 Million Critical Storm Drain Location Improvements To Provide Flood Protection and Prevent Road Collapse. The CIOC Plan (Road & Drainage Repair Plan (adopted December 17, 2019, which is available at: https://www.cityoforinda.org/DocumentCenter/View/2976/2019-Road-and-DrainageRepairs-Plan-Adopted-12-17-2019  Identified Public Drainage locations that present the highest risk of failure will require an estimated $10 million in the next 3-5 years.
 The critical repairs include drains impacting major streets where a collapse of the drain could cause a roadway failure causing traffic disruption. (Major Streets impacted include: Moraga Way, Ivy / Coral Drives, Glorietta Boulevard; Orchard Road; Rheem Boulevard; Miner Road and Camino Pablo).
 The community discussion made it clear that an initial large amount of funds needs to be spent to reduce the back-log of wildfire fuel; and that this must be followed by on-going funds to responsibly implement vegetation management aimed at providing community protection from wildfires. This is not unlike the progress of efforts in recent years to rebuild deteriorating roads. One significant difference is that there are special revenue sources (Gas Taxes; Regional Transportation Funds; etc.) that can be used for on-going street maintenance.

H.4.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) H.4.b
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up)

MEASURE R

CITY OF ORINDA

ORINDA ESSENTIAL SERVICES MEASURE
To help maintain and enhance essential City services, including wildfire risk reduction throughout Orinda, preparation for emergencies and disasters, repair of public storm drains, continued public street maintenance, and other city services, shall the City of Orinda increase its existing one-half cent sales tax to one cent, which would generate approximately $2.4 million annually for a period of twenty years, with financial audits, public review of all expenditures, and a citizens’ oversight committee?
CITY ATTORNEY’S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF

MEASURE R
The City Council of the City of Orinda has placed Measure R on the November 3, 2020 ballot to ask the voters to approve an ordinance that would increase and extend the City’s existing transactions and use tax (sometimes referred to as add-on sales tax). The tax is calculated based on the sales price of tangible personal property sold at retail in the City, or purchased outside the City for use in the City. The City’s existing add-on sales tax was approved by Orinda voters on November 6, 2012 and is set to expire in 2023. The existing add-on sales tax rate is 0.5 percent. That means, if something taxable is sold for one dollar, the City receives one half cent. If Measure R is approved by a majority of the voters voting on it, the City’s add-on sales tax would increase to

1.0 percent starting in 2021 and terminate after 20 years.

The current cumulative sales tax rate in Orinda is 8.75 percent.

That rate would increase to 9.25 percent if the Measure is approved.

Some sales are exempt from taxation, including the sale of certain food and other items categorized as necessary to the sustenance of life. Retailers remit sales tax proceeds to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), which allocates those proceeds between the State and various local governmental entities based on legal mandates. CDTFA would be required to allocate all proceeds from the tax proposed by Measure R to the City of Orinda.

California law provides that a general tax can be passed by a simple majority, while a special tax dedicated to specific purposes must be passed by a two-thirds vote. The tax proposed by the Measure would be a general tax. All proceeds would be deposited in the City’s General Fund and could be used for any municipal governmental purpose. In placing the Measure on the ballot, the City Council indicated the proposed tax proceeds could be used for municipal governmental purposes such as wildfire threat reduction, emergency preparation, City road maintenance, and public storm drain repair. The Measure does not bind the City to use the proceeds for any particular City services, facilities, or programs.

The Measure requires the City Council to establish a Citizens’ Oversight Commission to review the expenditure of proceeds from the proposed tax, or assign that duty to an existing City commission.

In addition, the Measure requires that proceeds and expenditures associated with the proposed tax be included in the annual independent audit of the City’s financial operations, which is a public document.

A “Yes” vote is a vote to increase the City’s existing add-on sales tax from 0.5 percent to 1.0 percent and continue that tax for 20 years. A “No” vote is a vote against extending and increasing the City’s existing add-on sales tax. The Measure would be approved if it receives a simple majority of “Yes” votes.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure R. If you desire a copy of the Measure, please call the City Clerk’s office at (925)253-4221 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you, or you may obtain a copy by visiting the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org. ______________________
Osa L. Wolff
City Attorney
City of Orinda
H.4.b
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up)

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF

MEASURE R
Vote YES on R for a Safer Orinda by reducing wildfire risk, maintaining safe roads and improving critical infrastructure.

Just eight years ago, Orinda’s deteriorating roads were rated among the worst in the Bay Area. That’s when Orinda voters approved a modest increase in the sales tax rate to fund repairs. All scheduled road improvements were completed on budget and ahead of schedule, as documented by the Citizens’ Infrastructure Oversight Commission.

This vital local funding source is set to expire. Funding continues to be needed to maintain roads and address urgent wildfire safety issues.

Recent fire seasons have been the hottest, driest and most destructive on record. Orinda’s excess vegetative fuel increases fire risk and creates conditions similar to those leading to devastating wildfires in Santa Rosa, Paradise and other communities. Proactive wildfire prevention is needed to keep Orinda safe.

Voting YES on R renews the expiring voter-approved sales tax and increases the rate by ½¢ (50¢ on a $100 purchase) to provide locallycontrolled funding for local needs, including:
• Improving wildfire safety by controlling hazardous brush and vegetation throughout Orinda
• Protecting neighborhoods, schools, fire stations, roads and bridges from wildfire by maintaining defensible space
• Repairing aging and collapsing storm drains to prevent flooding, sinkholes, and maintain safe evacuation routes • Improving disaster preparedness by enhancing emergency communications, early alerts and evacuation planning
• Maintaining roads to minimize future costly repairs
Measure R Continues Strict Accountability Protections
• All funds stay in Orinda and cannot be taken by Sacramento • An independent citizens’ oversight committee and
mandatory audits are required
• Essential purchases like groceries and medicine are exempt to reduce the burden for residents on fixed/ limited incomes Maintaining Orinda’s infrastructure and preventing wildfires will protect our safety, quality of life and property values.

Please join Orinda’s respected leaders in voting Yes on R. www.SaferOrinda.org
Darlene Gee, Mayor, City of Orinda
Melanie Light, Chair, Orinda Firewise Council
Sue Severson, Former Orinda Mayor & Chair of Fix Orinda Roads Jud Hammon, Chair, Orinda Citizen’s Infrastructure Commission Steve Glazer, CA State Senator

ARGUMENT AGAINST

MEASURE R
More taxes? Isn’t our cost of living high enough? With all the other measures on the ballot that will increase taxes, Orinda needs to take a hard look at its finances to see if higher city sales taxes should be increased at this time.

Sales taxes hurt the most vulnerable of the community such as those retirees on fixed incomes, and those who have been hard-hit with recent economic challenges from loss of employment, decrease in business or business closure.
• The Measure R ballot question neglects the fact that any monies generated go into the city General Fund which can be used for any legal purpose. The Orinda City Ordinance that brings this measure states “it is not a commitment to any particular actions or purposes, and the specific purposes recited in the ballot measure are non-restricted and non-exclusive examples only.” Future city leaders
may choose not to fund the current concerns about wildfires, storm drains and road maintenance with sales taxes as
indicated in the measure, but instead use them for salaries, pensions, and pet projects.
• An increase in the Orinda sales tax is likely to affect income (revenue) earned at Orinda businesses. If business income declines, jobs at Orinda businesses will be lost.
• An increase in Orinda’s sales tax will encourage shoppers to go elsewhere such as online websites, where the sales tax may be lower or non-existent.
• Measure R not only extends the “temporary” tax passed in November 2012 but increases it for 20 years.

Measure R raises Orinda’s sales tax from 8.75% to 9.25% but that number does not include any other proposed state and county tax increases also on the ballot that will affect consumers.

We are already taxed high enough. Vote NO on Measure R.

Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, Susan L Pricco, President Richard Coleman, Scientist/Educator
Stephen Anderson, Resident
Kathleen Jenkins, Resident
Mary Anderson, Resident
H.4.b
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up)

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF

MEASURE R
Orindans pay enough taxes now.

Measure R increases local sales tax even before their current ½% sales tax expires in April of 2023. The city already collects about $3.5 million/ year to spend on essential services until then.

Orinda residents have serious concerns about fire protection. The city has known about fire risk for decades, but has never addressed it. Are we to believe the city will spend an appropriate amount now? Measure R indicates a small allocation for this purpose, but future councils may decide that there is another project they prefer.

Accompanying Measure R, are other potential tax increases like the possible countywide increase in the sales tax and the statewide Proposition 15, making it easier to raise property taxes on commercial real estate. Measure R proponent Sen. Steve Glazer, at press time, is pursuing a Senate bill, unique to Contra Costa, to raise the allowable cap on local sales tax. If successful, we expect to see more tax measures ahead. When is enough going to be enough?
Long term effects from the pandemic are yet unknown and this is not the time for a new 20 year commitment. Higher sales taxes depress the demand for goods. This drop in demand would lead to lost income for local sellers and can kill jobs.

This measure is promoted by the City of Orinda because it only requires a simple majority to pass and, as general fund revenue, does not commit the city to any specific purpose.

Vote NO on Measure R.
www.cocotax.org
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, Susan L Pricco, President Kathleen Jenkins, Resident
Richard Colman, Scientist/Educator

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST

MEASURE R
Now more than ever, Measure R is urgently needed to keep Orinda safe.

With another deadly and destructive fire season upon us, wildfire prevention work CANNOT WAIT. Voting Yes on R means we get to work before it’s too late reducing flammable vegetation, creating fire breaks, ensuring defensible space and safe evacuation routes as recommended by local fire professionals.

Orinda has made significant investments to improve local roads. Yes on R protects our investment with maintenance so roads don’t deteriorate to their prior condition, requiring costly repairs.

Most storm drains were built as Orinda developed over the last century and are reaching the end of their useful life. Yes on R upgrades storm drains to prevent flooding, sinkholes, property damage and maintain safe emergency evacuation routes.

The cost of Measure R is modest – adding just 50¢ on a $100 purchase/ $5 on a $1,000 purchase. Essential purchases like groceries and medicine are exempt so the cost isn’t a burden.

Without Measure R growing wildfire risk will increase home insurance premiums by more than the cost of this measure and insurance companies may stop offering fire insurance.

Sales tax is a pass-through that won’t burden struggling businesses nor create a competitive disadvantage. With Measure R, Orinda’s sales tax rate will be the same as Moraga’s.

Orinda’s independent Citizens’ Infrastructure Oversight Commission has confirmed proper spending of the funding that Measure R renews. Strict fiscal accountability, oversight and transparency requirements will continue to ensure funds are spent as promised.

Vote Yes on R for a Safer Orinda.

Amy Worth, Vice Mayor, City of Orinda
Thomas D’Amato, President, Orinda Chamber of Commerce
Lucy Talbot, Orinda Firewise Council
Cara Hoxie, President, Orinda Union School District Board Bill Waterman, Former President, Orinda Association, and Chair, Orinda 4th of July Parade

H.4.b
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: SSTOC November 2022 Origins & Intent (3322 : Measure R Priorities and Alignment Discussion and Follow-Up) SSTOC Committee Meeting Page 2 11/09/2022
F.1. Approve SSTOC Minutes of October 12, 2022
Chair Hammon requested a change on page 2, 4th line of 2nd paragraph, to amend the December ‘deadline’ to a December ‘goal’.

Commissioner Latimer moved to approve the October 12, 2022, minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Barber. Said motion carried by majority (8-0) roll call vote. (Absent – Weinstein)
G. Discussion Items/Staff Reports
G.1. Review of Origins and Background of Measure R (Orinda Essential Services Measure) Approved by the Voters November 2020
Receive and Discuss Report
Commissioner Reinman asked for clarification of the objective of the report, which City Manager Biggs noted was an informational item only, saying it was timely to present this overview and background now, as there was an increased need and interest to focus on roads and storm drains, in addition to fire prevention programs, with other items/needs funded through Measure R.

City Manager Biggs noted that there had been an impression that after the initial three years of the implementation of the tax there would be less spent on fire prevention measures, and he confirmed this was not the intended case, but rather, there would be continual expenditure on fire prevention, including maintenance of City property, a base level of education and outreach, the continuation of the chipper program and possibly the incentive program, plus a Wildfire Prevention and Safety Fair in April 2023, the expansion of red flag restrictions, and additional contraflow improvements.

City Manager Biggs reminded that Council placed the Measure on the ballot, with the attorney’s impartial analysis and a fact sheet outlining how the Measure would be rolled out by staff, and also stated that the Measure, as it was worded controls the Council and Commission. He also stated that while there was emphasis on the four priority areas of wildfire prevention, emergency preparedness, roads and storm drains, it is a general tax and can be used for general purposes. He noted this was reflected in the first budget adopted after the tax. He reviewed that there were arguments for and against the tax, noting there are community members who voiced their opposition to how the funds are being used. He stated that it was important to not target this general tax so specifically that it could be re-characterized as a special tax, which could lead to complications pertaining to opponents challenging the tax, with the revenue being overturned and no longer available for the benefit of the community. He noted that funds are being spent as originally intended, and a balance remains in the fund for the Commission to recommend to the Council how to spend. He noted staff’s past recommendation to use funding from Measure R for storm H.4.c
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission - Regular Meeting - Sep 14, 2022 6_30 PM Minutes Excerpt (3322 : Measure R SSTOC Committee Meeting Page 3 11/09/2022
drains, Council’s allocation of funds towards the 2022 paving project, and the Commission’s ability to make recommendations on high-priority activities in 2023.

City Manager Biggs also noted Orinda’s distinction of having the second-highest pavement condition index of all Bay Area cities, in large measure due to Measure L and Measure R funds.

Commissioner Decareau stated the report included some errors in translation and contained arguments that fed the opposition to the Measure. He felt that during the transition from CIOC, the commission’s recommendations for the roads were not in relation to potential funding for Measure R but rather, were to warn the city that there was deferred maintenance for storm drains and culverts.

In passing Measure R, he stated, voters were clear that fire prevention and emergency preparedness were the priority over infrastructure. He agreed that it is a general tax, with the stated priorities, but stressed citizens’ desire to elevate the priority of wildfire prevention and preparedness.

Commissioner Malkani echoed Commissioner Decareau’s sentiment, stating that when community members are vocal about the application of the funds, they are speaking to goals and priorities that may be different than the legal language of the Measure itself.

Commissioner Barber stated the same, noting the arguments in favor of the Measure were clear on the heightened priorities of wildfire prevention.

Commissioner Reinman referred to the ballot argument and impartial analysis as what the community voted for, and the verbal instruction has been “fire forward”.

She noted that a storm drain plan and road plan were well established by CIOC which may make it easier to apply funds there, but it was important to be patient with establishing and funding a fire prevention plan.

City Manager Biggs noted that looking ahead to the 2023-2024 budget cycle, there would be substantial funds available even after Council’s attention to items that are more general than fire-related items, which the Commission can make recommendations for.

Commissioner Latimer stated that although the priority is fire prevention efforts, due to the lack of “shovel ready” projects in this area, it appears there is a large inequity in how funds are being spent relative to the Commissions priorities, so better outreach and education is needed to counter this perception in the community. She noted polling from 2020 indicated fire as the top priority and wondered how the community intended this to be applied in terms of budget allocation.

Chair Hammon recalled that the first year of prioritization was on wildfire risk reduction efforts, including the Chipper, and the addition of staff positions specifically for this focus.

H.4.c
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission - Regular Meeting - Sep 14, 2022 6_30 PM Minutes Excerpt (3322 : Measure R SSTOC Committee Meeting Page 4 11/09/2022
Senior Management Analyst Micki Cronin confirmed that written comments were received from Charles Porges and Steve Cohn.

Public comment was received from Mark Evans, the new Orinda Firewise Council Chair. He noted the public perception that Measure R funds were not being spent in the way they thought they were voting for but understands the direction things are progressing in. He recommended focusing on making visible progress, most specifically on private property, and increasing grant funding to encourage this. This would require a project management position to oversee and manage this.

H. Subcommittee/Commissioner Reports
H.1. SSTOC Reporting Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Update
Commissioner Barber reported there were various ways to quantify the work of the incentive program: by dollars spent on personnel and services, and by how much progress is being made and the impact being made to solve the problem, applicable to roads, storm drains, and wildfire prevention.

He noted the established CIOC models used for various conditions and subsequent improvement of roads and storm drains, but that doing the same for wildfire prevention was a little more difficult. Examples of quantifying results of the chipper program included tons of vegetation chipped, number of trips made by the chipper, and areas of concentration served by the chipper program. He stated that what is harder to show is how much of an impact is being made, because the information gathered is not quantified relative to something else.

This would be helped by working in conjunction with information from other agencies including MOFD and EBRPD, EBMUD, and ConFire. Commissioner Decareau reported the subcommittee was creating a table over metrics that align with the goals of the SSTOC and to separate the metrics measures by other agencies. Barber stated the report could blend in with the report from the Annual Report Committee.

Commissioner Malkani asked about what metrics could be used for the incentive program, to which Commissioner Barber restated the challenge of how to specifically measure progress in vegetation removal. Senior Management Analyst Cronin reported the number of parcels on evacuation routes, the number of applications received for the incentive program. Commissioner Malkani gave suggestions of how to measure citizen engagement.

Commissioner Reinman recalled the suggestion of increasing the number of houses in Firewise neighborhoods and proposed the usage of the incentives and of the chipper. She commented on the difference in measuring fire prevention efforts compared to improvements in roads and drains, the former being a moving target, and suggested the first step was to establish a benchmark. She also suggested focus groups and visioning a “could be Orinda”.

H.4.c
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Supplemental Sales Tax Oversight Commission - Regular Meeting - Sep 14, 2022 6_30 PM Minutes Excerpt (3322 : Measure R