Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Sure.
I still have a car, but can I do still do public forms?
Yeah.
otherwise, if anything, raise your hand, or stand here.
City Attorney, can we go ahead and start?
We're ready to start.
We're ready to start, whenever we're ready, okay, great.
Good evening, and welcome to the January 20th meeting
of the Arrenda City Council.
We are going to start with the call to order
and the roll call, please.
Okay.
Council member Hoxie is joining us remotely tonight.
Sorry, I thought I heard somebody say something.
Council member Malcani.
Here.
Council member Riley.
Here.
Vice Mayor G.
Here.
And Mayor Iverson.
Here.
I would also note for the record
that we'll do all of our votes tonight
as a roll call vote because we have the virtual attendee.
For tonight's Pledge of Allegiance,
would like to ask the wee blows from Cub Scout pack 212 to please come to the podium 49 I'm so
sorry I'm so used to that I'm a terrible mayor 459 come on up please lead us in the pledge of
allegiance at the microphone please. Please stand take off all hats and hoodies or if you do not
have a uniform please put your right hand over your heart and pledge i would pledge your
allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it
stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you please
would like to share with you
We will begin by adopting the
agenda and I would like to
propose that again tonight we
move the council member and
city manager reports to be
before, let's see I think we
did it, before the consent
calendar but after public
forum. Are you amenable to
that? If you are, I will move
that.
Council Member Hoxie?
Aye.
Malcani?
Aye.
Riley?
Aye.
Gee?
Aye.
And Iverson?
Aye.
With that we have the agenda and we will move to the public forum next.
The public forum is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the
jurisdiction of the city council that is not on the agenda.
Additionally, the speaker has the option of addressing the council of an item on the agenda
If they will not be present when that agenda item is taken up.
I let's see.
I have one item for public forum that's Brad McCullough and anybody else please come to the podium after the first speaker.
Yeah, hello. Mayor and city council. My name is Brad McCall.
I'm a 30 some odd year resident of the city of Linda.
I just like I'm here to talk about the consent item on the change of the ordinance.
And I just want to say, and since I'm the only speaker, maybe just say that I am in favor of the of the changes to the show on station.
I think it's going to be a very good benefit for the city. I've read a lot of the negative sides of it, and they're all conjecture and oh, well, this is evil is going to happen. And all that.
it just it seems like it's gonna be a benefit and I sincerely don't think all
that bad is gonna happen so I I know it's on the consensus calendar and I
thank you for putting it there thank you thank you is there it looks like we've
got another speaker members of the council bill waterman again speaking just
for myself not for the away not for the Rotary Club of Miranda which hasn't had
votes on this or anything and we don't take political positions anyway but I'm
just here to support the Chevron project I want to thank the city again
and the staff for and our city attorney shout out to miss wolf for working on
the indemnity language since I have some appreciation for that myself and it's
very involved had a lot of back-and-forth and a lot of thought and
energy has gone into this project from the city standpoint and from Chevron to
keep amending and updating the plan. So I'm here to say after these many years
please carry this across the finish line. I know it was voted on at the last
meeting. I'm just here to say that I know a lot of people support this project and
the folks that don't as a previous speaker said I think the facts and all
of the arguments support this project strongly. So thank you very much. Thank
you. Would anybody else like to come and speak in the public forum part of the
agenda? Seeing none we will move on to councilmember and City Manager reports.
Does anybody have anything that they would like to report since last week?
With that we'll go to the City Manager reports. Good evening honorable mayor
members of City Council. Just a couple of quick updates since our last meeting. We
We have launched OrindaReady.com, the Yadris tool, the evacuation tool is being made available
to the public.
And we are prepared to have two facilitated meetings for people that want to learn how
to use it or have questions about it.
And those are in February.
We will be sending out postcards to residents to make sure that they're aware of that.
And then one will be on Zoom and one will be in person just to make sure we have enough
flexibility for residents.
And other than that, I think just a quick update that touch a truck reservations are
now open and just a reminder as well that the commissioning committee as applications
are open.
So if there are members of the community, they wish to serve on a committee or commission.
We are accepting those applications and the council will have their meeting at the end
of February to review those.
If there's nothing else, we will move on to the consent calendar.
The first question is, are there any changes to the consent calendar tonight?
I'd like to pull the item just so we can make a few comments.
Okay, great.
Since there's only one item on the consent calendar, we will pull that.
And my first question is, does staff want to present or make comments, or should we
just go to the City Council members?
I would be open to just having Council members make comments unless you have any specific
questions for staff. Okay Vice Mayor Gio, start with you. Okay again I remain very supportive of this.
The only reason I wanted to pull it was because we received quite a bit of public correspondence
implying that by passing this ordinance we were somehow causing changes at the shell station that
are not directly related.
And I just think it's important that we say passing this ordinance has no effect on the
Shell Station unless the Shell Station decides that they want to take some actions.
But the connection of somehow passing this ordinance and putting the auto maintenance
out of business, I'm not quite sure where that came from, obviously something floating
around the community that was inaccurate.
at this point in time. And
this is what I'm trying to
clarify so I just thought it
was important that we clarify
that passing this ordinance
does not affect the shell
station directly. I would say
that is generally accurate
with their existing building.
That is correct. If they make a
proposal to demolish and tear
down and move their building
within the 35 feet, then they
could potentially comply. But
by passing this, we're not
And if just to clarify that further thank you for for clarifying that vice mayor because they also we did all get that public comment.
And they, in fact, as, as they pointed out as the Shell station ownership pointed out in public comment that we received at the last meeting during the first reading in the public hearing.
existing building is farther than the, is farther from the passenger entry
point in the basically the sidewalk area, right, than the current ordinance allows
and so because the length of the distance from the sidewalk to the
the existing shell building is longer than the what stated in the ordinance. Anything
proposed by shell would have to come back. It would come through as either design review
process and or request for variance process. Okay. But it would come through another process
for them. Separate and apart from anything we're doing. Correct. Thank you. And at the
risk of piling on, what I found particularly persuasive
in our discussion last time, because we talked about,
should we make the setback broader so that more could come
forward with just a design review.
And when I believe it was the presenter
from the planning staff who said that part of the findings
for a use permit would be, is there concentration of use?
Are we getting too many convenience stores
not enough service venues that we can actually have a specific weighing of the balances of
the proposed uses in those conversations. So it's not just a design decision. We got
letters both saying it would be unfair not to give everybody convenience stores and letters
saying it would be crazy to give everybody convenience stores. And so I just wanted to
clarify that the use permit discretionary process is there to have those exact conversations
when there's a real application in front of us.
And I thought that the letters,
and I actually read the,
there was a social media posting
that because it was on next door,
certain neighborhoods do or don't see it.
There was nothing misrepresented.
It just asked these questions about
what are the implications of this ordinance?
And I really agree with the sentiments
of my fellow council members.
So it sounds like there's no change to the interest.
Do we have a motion to adopt the consent calendar?
this is on the agenda. I will
move to adopt the consent
calendar. I'll second. Roll
call vote, please. Council
Member Hoxie. Aye. Malconney.
Aye. Riley. Aye. Gee. Aye.
And Iverson. Aye. With that,
we have unanimous approval for
the consent calendar and that
is the adoption of the ordinance
it is gonna be an amendment number one
to the Professional Services Agreement with NCE
for the Storm Drain Asset Survey
and the GIS Data Collection Project.
And it sounds like we are gonna have a staff presentation.
It's council members.
Can you hear me?
Good evening, everyone.
I'm here, my name is Hannah Nguyen.
I'm for the Public Works, the Senior Engineer.
And today I'm going to present to you the NCE amendment one
for the drainage assessment survey
for the GIS data collection.
The purpose of the project is basically
is to have the consultants come out to do the survey
of the existing storm drain
for the public and the private area.
Background history of this is that in 2018,
the city went into a contract with NCE of $80,000
and basically we took the existing map,
we put it into a GIS component.
It's very vague, it's not very exact.
And then 2024 with the infrastructure subcommittee
and the city council requests that we go and do RFI, RFP.
And we went that and in September we had seven proposals
and we went through and we checked that
and the NCE was the best consultant for us to do that.
And then March the 4th, we approved the contract
with them for $398,000 and that was being funded
by the measure R.
Within the, while we were doing the, sorry,
after three months, four months of work,
the consultant found out that we had much more asset,
elements, more infrastructure than we anticipated.
As you can see in the chart there,
originally we estimated about 5,500,
But it turned out to be that we had about 7,400 with that it you know the most of the asset that was there was from the private storm drain, which makes sense because with the private with the public, we would know exactly where they are with the in the private, we, you know, we do not know much.
So that's you can see the changes about 2000s and set that we did not account for.
I'm sorry.
The reason why we need this change orders
is because now the contractors, the consultant
have to do more work, the time,
majority of the time, it's actually when private,
when they have access to the private,
they have to go knock on the door
and that takes a lot more time for them.
And then plus there's about 2,000 more assets
for them to look for.
of that is one of the major reason why we needed to extend this contract and then ask
for more funding. The scope generally is all the same. Nothing has changed. It's just that
we're asking for a time extension for that, too. We're looking at time extension originally.
We should be completing in June this year, but we're looking at giving them six more
for a month to do that.
And that's, we're concluding December 31st of this year.
Budget wise, in the summary, as you can see,
we, it was originally a contract that we authorized
was 497,500 amendment.
But this amendment only, we're looking at 186,334 dollars.
So, that brings our revised contract value of 586,
I'm sorry, 584,334, a lot of numbers.
With the constituency, we're asking for 15%,
and that brings total of request authorization is $672,000.
This project's gonna be funded by, again,
to measure our fund one of six and with conclusion,
we're asking for counsel to give us an approval
of the amendment one and then also approve
the budget form 1026 and then also give the,
our city manager approval change order
families constituencies that comes in play with that.
Thank you.
You have any other questions?
If there are no questions for staff, I don't have any public speaking cards.
Is there anybody here who doesn't work for us?
Not seeing anybody from the public.
I believe we will bring it up here for deliberation and decision.
Mayor, I thought it would be appropriate for the members of the infrastructure committee
who got a report on this.
I think they mentioned this at the last meeting
as part of their reporting out,
but noting that we were gonna be placing this back
on the agenda, this process,
and I don't want to speak for them has,
it's been iterative in working with NCE.
First of all, to find the right group to work with us,
and then secondarily just trying to understand
what the assets are and finding that there's far more assets
out there than what we had originally anticipated.
So that's one of the key drivers
for why we're in this position right now.
But I'll leave it up to Vice Mayor G and Council Member
Moncani, if they want to talk a little bit about why
they think this is important for us to continue working on.
Do you want to begin?
Or I can otherwise?
I mean, I'll chime in with sort of the non-engineering
perspective.
How's that?
And then Vice Mayor G will say something more intelligent.
But mapping, first of all, a few of the things that have
surprised me about this survey.
One is that we are realizing that we didn't
have a correct mapping of all our publicly maintained storm
drains, which is both unsettling and reassuring
because we are getting it now.
And it is something that is my understanding.
And I'm sure the vice mayor can speak more to this,
but it really is a fiduciary responsibility of the city
to be aware of this.
And it's a public safety issue, right?
And it's a public safety issue, as I understand it also,
to have an understanding
of where the private storm drains are
because it allows us to have a better sense of,
water connects, it flows from one train to the other.
So publicly maintained storm drains in Arrinda connect often
to privately maintained storm drains.
And so if those privately maintained storm drains,
if one or the other, frankly, is not being properly maintained,
either because we don't know where it is
or because perhaps the resident who
is supposed to be maintaining it doesn't
know that they're supposed to be maintaining it
or doesn't know where it is, that can pose problems.
And as we've seen and learned with the roads,
my understanding is the same as true for drains,
in that if we don't, you know, an ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of peak here, right?
So, you know, and with drains, the dangers,
if they fail, are things like sinkholes, right?
And so, you know, and other things.
But you know, as we really see the impacts
of climate change and more extreme storms,
especially like in, I think it was early 23,
we had some really horrible storms here.
that caused some damage and this really is something that I feel much more confident
and responsible for our city that we are getting a hold of it. And I believe it is of great benefit
to our overall staff to have this mapping. So I just want to thank staff for all the work that's
been put into this beyond and above everything else they do. You did an
excellent job maybe you should consider a career change. No I concur I think that
this is giving our Public Works Department you know much much better
information which is what the whole goal was to begin with and they're getting
both the benefit of more accuracy for the public facilities and as well as
having a much better understanding of what's out there and that is private
drains of some sort so I just think that the information and having you know
much more accuracy and for a long time the Public Works Department in the city
wanted this much better information and was trying to do it in a very you know
hodgepodge you know a little little bit here a little bit there kind of
methodology. So I think having it all done and having it done professionally and having the
information available to the city is you know it's just a really good long-term benefit and
you know there may be a lot of ways that we find that it becomes valuable in the future but I think
you know just making sure that we have the information about our own community is really
So that's really important.
I asked a question of our
subcommittee members. You know,
I'm used to when there are
things underground, they go on
title. It's like an easement or
something like that. And, you
know, for it really is a jaw
dropping amount of money we're
having to spend to do this. And
I agree. It's the job of the
city to get to know this stuff.
But for that, what, I guess I'm
private assets? Do we, does it create a notice that wasn't there before? Does it create an
obligation that wasn't there before? Is there anything other than the knowledge on our part
of something that we don't control that might change as a result of having this information?
That makes sense. Okay. I mean, I had one thought on that, which is,
And this is again, public works, please correct me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that
publicly maintained storm drains, drains are drains, right? They go through. So
we do have all these streets and all these areas where publicly maintained storm drains,
but privately maintained storm drains. And so it is helpful, for example, to know the condition
of both of those because if we are, you know, one thing we've been doing in our capital projects
is all these repairs, right. And so I think from that perspective, having an understanding,
right, can result in a situation where, you know, first of all, I think that the pub we're on notice
of the public, we have a better sense of where to put our resources in terms of publicly maintained
storm drains and you know we're aware of sort of the the areas of concern as to what we can do
about that I'm not sure if we're like if for example if we hear that if we become aware that
a privately maintained storm drain or a storm storm drain on private property is but what can
we do with this information I guess that's a good question well Connie you should ask we've been
spending some of our day today discussing a couple of situations where we are dealing
with private property owners and private storm drains.
We're doing some grippy work out in some of the roads right now and we have a particular
instance and I won't get into the details, but where we've looked and seen that their
line is insufficient, their storm drain line is insufficient.
We attempted to try to work with them to resolve that.
But I think they were totally unaware of the fact
that they had this on their property.
So us walking up to them and saying,
hey, we're out here, we're working, we'll fix this.
If you contribute, it was sort of a whoa,
wait a second moment for them.
We've been trying to resolve that with them,
but I think we've just decided we're gonna move on with ours,
we'll let them know that they've got an issue
and that they need to resolve their issue
for their own benefit.
So that's where these types of conversations
be helpful if this is all put into a GIS system and property owners can actually go and look and see
whether or not they have assets on their property that they need to be made aware of because I think
a lot of times when people buy a home they look at their title report perhaps they're not looking
too deeply at little lines on the drawings or words like reserve or easement or things like that
and so in this case you know they have they have a storm drain facility on their property that needs
to be maintained and hasn't been and we wanted to make them aware of that and it could affect
other potential properties not just their own and so these are this is just good information
for both the public and for us to understand so we can be aware of the condition of the system.
Very helpful answer thank you. So can I ask a follow-up question that so will public will private
If, will homeowners be able to, for example,
who live on a privately maintained road
or believe they might have a drain on their property
and don't know, will they be able to reach out
to the city then now and get this information?
Yes, yes.
Okay.
Ha is saying that is true.
It will be embedded into our GIS database system
so that we could, theoretically,
we could look up a property address
and we could inform them of what the items are.
Particularly,
actually I have been doing that some people,
because we do a survey,
we ask people for permission to go into their right away.
And then they happen to have my name,
they'll call me up and ask me about the address,
they give me the address and they ask if they have any data,
we have any data on their storm drain
and I do give that to them.
So it's, yeah.
So through this process,
are we already finding people who have storm drains
on their property that they're not unaware of?
Actually, yes.
Yes, we're open.
Please.
I think the other thing to remember is that,
you know, all of it together, public and private,
represents a system.
It's all interconnected or mostly interconnected
at various points and it's important
for our public work staff when there's a problem
to be able to identify it quickly, right?
and I think, I don't know, I'll let staff comment
since we have two key people here,
but I think there's been maybe a few surprises of things
that you found out there, but I think overall,
having a better picture of the whole system
really lets you figure out much more quickly
what might be happening if there is a problem, so.
Council members Riley or Hoxie,
do you guys have anything, questions or comments?
I don't know. I think we're
we've said a lot of good things
and I thank you both for
working on this and for Vice
Mayor pushing it. And I'm not
surprised that it costs more
money and I'm not surprised
that they're all these surprise
assets. And we have to move
forward. I mean, we've started
this project. We have to finish
it. And we'll be glad we did.
there are many homeowners who
it's important that we finish
this project. Great Do we have
a motion? I'll move that we
approve amendment number one to
N. C. E.'s contract for the
storm grain assessment survey
the GIS data collection. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Roll call vote please. Councilmember Hoxie? Aye.
McConnie? Aye. Riley? Aye. Gee? Aye. And Iverson? Aye. The motion passes unanimously and the amendment is approved. We will now move on to item H2, a study session to further examine housing affordability including a review of state laws and programs designed to encourage affordable housing.
building, and I think we're
. Yeah. Thank you very much.
Council members. Mayor Iverson.
So yes, so this is a
presentation about housing
affordability. This is a study
session. We had study sessions
with the Planning Commission
and the Council before. Um and
we're taking it back just for
the board. On this project or a
housing element. And that was certified in 2023. And there have been council city council
discussions looking into the details of what it would take to do an inclusionary housing
ordinance in May and October of that year. At the same time, MTC's TOC policy, transit-oriented
communities policy, started to take shape in 2024. They're still working on that. And
the city of horrendous. And in
time frames that are mentioned. They determining the appropriateness of this ordinance two years
after the adoption of the housing element and then adopting it within one year. And then there
were of the list of key considerations or variables that needed to be fully understood
to develop the ordinance size that this size of project that this ordinance would apply to
presentation of affordable units, design, in lieu fee amount, incentives, and as well
as how to administer it. It is part of the housing element implementation. There are
many implementation actions, and it is up to the jurisdiction to make sure that implementation
is happening. So that's where this opportunity option sits. In terms of just talking about
also how it can the inclusionary housing ordinance
can be an important tool in many in a set of tools
towards affordable housing,
that the inclusionary housing ordinance does help
mitigate a no net loss issue,
really the ability to provide capacity
for the RINA requirement that the state identified.
The IHO can assist with that.
There are other tools as well.
And then it's just to note also
that current housing element sites can be non-contributing
if they are proposed as commercial,
if they're proposed as luxury condominiums,
you wouldn't get affordable units out of that.
So the inclusionary housing ordinance can help that.
That being said, the state density bonus law
is another tool, a tool that's being actively used
throughout California, but also in Arinda.
and the IHO would relate to the state density bonus law
in that it would not hinder residential development
through these means.
And in terms of any project that used the state density
bonus law would be exempt
from the inclusionary housing ordinance.
So that's one of the details of the ordinance itself.
And also just to note that Arinda
is getting affordable housing.
over the last 10 years, there have been units created
in Orinda Grove, in Monteverde, and in Vista Verde.
And then a recent proposal for Southwood Valley
includes them as well, three units out of a proposed 30.
So affordable housing is certainly happening.
This project was really started and initiated
to make sure that all of the variables were understood
that an ordinance language could be developed. And we're at the stage now where we've presented
the market study, and we've worked on final recommendations, and we have some ordinance
language to present today. So just a quick overview. We started in 2025. As mentioned,
in July, we had study sessions, and in the fall, we'd been working on the final recommendations
and then developing ordinance language, and here we are in 2026, moving forward.
So just a quick review about what the Economic Feasibility and Market Study said.
It did note that Arinda is characterized by high home values and limited supply,
and observed that the two million mark is a common valuation for a home.
It was looking at median incomes through acutely low income and sort of understanding those values
for the county and noting that a median income earner is still a six-figure income in the county.
So these are working individuals mostly in industries that don't have high salaries.
So teachers, firemen, that sort of thing. Part of that study was also looking at the neighboring
communities and noting that the peer communities of Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville,
and San Ramon, they all have inclusionary housing ordinances, and they have set percentages
of inclusionary units. You see 10, you see 15%. They often are using a mix of those percentages.
projects this uh an inclusionary housing ordinance would apply to um other communities have projects
as small as two and greater um but Danville has um eight and greater so there is a range of unit
size or project sizes um where this ordinance would apply and then they are setting in lieu fees
where people aren't building the affordable units instead they're paying the fee
and there's a range there as well, something as low as $8.30, up to something as high as $39.
And that is a net-leasable square footage calculation. Part of the economic feasibility
market study was to develop scenarios to look at ARINDA specifically to say what was feasible
in the RH, the D-Core, and the RL10. And the findings for for-rent scenarios was that in the
RH40 and the D-Core, the 15% would not inhibit development with that affordability rate. But
in the for-sell category, the RH40 still was feasible, but the D-Core showed that it was less
feasible or infeasible and the RL10 was even just tried at a 4% and was infeasible. So
the single family product is just hard to integrate these units using an inclusionary
housing ordinance. But so what this also did, this study also did was it looked at the maximum
demonstrated rate for an in lieu fee um and it identified um five hundred and forty thousand
dollars per um per required affordable unit and i'm being trying to be clear about the units
because units are really important when discussing the inclusion of housing grants because um the
peer groups are all using a total net residential rentable or sellable square foot unit um so
beneath the rate of 540,000 per unit, you'll see $69 per square foot. And so that was specifically
to be measuring in the same way that the peer group is measuring. So just to talk a little bit
about the previous discussions, there were discussions and really there were these five
criteria that needed to be really understood was what was appropriate for Rinda. What size
of development it should apply to the percentage of affordable units, the best mix of affordable
units, the in-lue fee, and then whether there should be any development incentives. And
I think you'll see a sort of a consistency of discussion about a 10-unit size, a 10-15%
level, an interest in proportionate response in terms of the affordable and the for market.
And then needing more information around the in lieu fee and noting that the development
incentives there are quite a few with the state density bonus law.
So another discussion in October, more information coming forward, a little bit of refinement
still needing more information about the in lieu fee,
and in recognition that many projects are already qualifying
for waivers and concessions,
and getting an incentive in that way.
So I think we began to narrow in with that market study
on what would be an appropriate in lieu fee.
And when we last talked, we saw the $540,000 per unit fee
level. That is quite high. We
also noted that the M T C T O
C base level was looking for
consistency with that policy.
Would require $100,000 per unit
requirement, and you can see on
the slide. There's also the
square footage fee of the 1266
of 2630 per net resident residential square footage.
And that would be roughly $207,000 per unit.
So those final recommendations were put into a memo
and they were the basis for developing ordinance language.
So just to present ordinance language in your packet,
you saw the draft ordinance,
and then you saw also the text changes.
the discussion has been really
to create an affordable housing portion
in the municipal code.
So this would be a new chapter 17.14 affordable housing,
and then to put a space
for an inclusionary housing ordinance, section 17.14.1,
and then to move the affordable housing incentive program
and density bonus into this section,
And that's really the state density bonus law
to move that into the section.
So any applicant would have those two sections
next to each other focused on affordable housing.
To talk a little bit about the inclusionary housing
because that's a new text,
there are subsections A through L,
but all of the sort of five criteria that I had presented
is in the applicability,
the inclusionary housing requirements
and the alternative compliance methods sections.
So just a quick review of that and the key components there.
So as mentioned, the discussion was
that projects of 11 and more dwelling units,
the inclusionary housing ordinance
should apply to those larger projects
and for this reason incentivize the smaller projects.
So that language is in the draft ordinance.
Setting the requirement at 15% because there
are projects that are feasible at that level.
And then also setting four-met projects averaging at 80% AMI
with a cap of nothing over 120, and four-sale projects
averaging 120 with nothing over 150 of AMI.
So setting those income targets.
And then some clear language on the similarity
between the market rate units and the residential, sorry,
and the affordable units.
So making sure that the bedroom counts are the same
and that the location in the development are the same.
Also that the units will have the same exterior appearance,
quality, durability,
that they'll be functionally indistinguishable
and that they'll have access to the same common areas.
So to be very clear about a uniform development
and really creating a not singling out affordable units,
making this really about a singular community.
In this ordinance language,
there is also an alternative compliance method,
an in-lou fee.
And so there is that level that was selected of 2630,
which is about 200,000 per unit for affordable unit
at a 15%.
And so this is also now calculated
on the net residential square footage.
And it does incorporate language
to allow for a partial build.
So there's some flexibility associated
with the ordinance language.
And then finally, in the question of waivers
and modifications, there is an ability of an applicant
to request that the city council waive the requirements.
the city council has the option to waive those based on a set of findings, taking finding, finding that a different configuration would produce more affordable units, or that there would be an economic infeasibility to the project.
So again, trying to create flexibility in that ordinance language.
commission. Um so just a quick
summary. The applicability. It
will apply to projects. 11 11
units or greater 15%
affordability, setting the for
rent and for sale averages at 80%
and 120 respectively. Making
units appear the same with
finishes, distribution and
access the ability to pay an in
we've had a lot of discussion about the in lieu fee. Because, because of sort of thinking
about the price tag of that, and how to encourage affordability, but also how to basically draw
funds that could help affordability in other areas. So if if you could collect some in
in lieu fee and a developer does not want to build affordable units, there would be
funding available to potentially supplement 100% affordable project, or some other project
that would further affordable housing. And so given that, that's really the reason for
the in lieu fee. And it just should be noted that the maximum in lieu fee was $500,000,
540,000.
And it's a lot less in terms of how this ordinance is set up.
It's at the 200,000 level.
And again, 2630 per net residential square foot.
And just to note that MTC, to be consistent with that,
is the low end.
The market study is the high end.
We're somewhere in between.
And then also, we ran this also just to sort of run out
scenario to say, all right, we had 100 unit project. We know the sizes of the units. We're
making some broad assumptions. They would not likely be so uniform in an actual project.
And then setting the 15% and assigning the in lieu fee. So we were testing this with the
high in lieu fee and noting that the total in lieu fee figures to an $8 million burden on that 100
unit development which is sizable. The second scenario we said okay well let's try it at the
rate that we were selecting that in between rate 2630 and it is it is still significant in terms
of being a three million dollar total in lieu fee but it's significantly less than what the market
study would say is bearable. So and then I mentioned the partial build as an option.
That language is in there. So there might be a developer who would want to choose to build
several units and then choose to fee out on others. And so I just wanted to note that that does
provide a level of complication in the figuring. And simpler may be better. But we did write it in
as an option to increase flexibility. So I'd love to get your opinion in the discussion on that.
But we also went so far as to say, well, but 20 units, that smaller project,
you might see more of. And we want to really understand how does that, how does that 15%
affect those smaller projects? And saying, you know, that would be three units. And then the
total in lieu fee would be closer to $620,000. So just to give a sense of, you know, how this in
lieu fee gets calculated, and then also another final look at the housing element and just kind
of the numbers that the RINA allocation suggests. I mean, it's a big number. The 1,359 units is a
it's a big number. But thinking about if 50% or maybe even more than 50% could be created
through the state density bonus law. That, you know, taking the 50% through the inclusionary
housing ordinance and kind of looking at what kind of funding would that generate? It looks
at, you know, 102 potential affordable units that don't get built, that instead get paid
feed out and then you'd have a $3 million funding source that could further other affordable
housing. So just trying to kind of slice it a couple different ways and to show how that
can be calculated and what the strategy is. And then just thinking about the administration
of the in lieu fee and the affordable housing application, so developed an application form
also looked at how to add that to the master fee schedule.
And then really, so this is a study session.
And I think the really key component
is that the inclusionary housing ordinance is
an implementation action.
There are many implementation actions.
There are some time frames associated with it.
But I think the census that we've
gotten through enough materials with a market study
recommendations memo and now ordinance language
to be able to really evaluate the value.
It's one tool of many.
The state density bonus law is creating affordable housing
units in Arinda today.
This could potentially assist that.
There's not going to be any one thing that
solves housing affordability.
But it's another tool to help the city, to help applicants
create this needed component.
I'm gonna just next steps.
I mean, we're right now in a study session.
If we have enough materials to move forward,
we would move forward towards adoption
and it would be through the regular process
of a commission hearing with planning commission
and then back to the city council.
But yeah, but we wanted to take this back to a study session
first, discuss the merits of it,
get your opinion and direction as if we're headed the right direction or if there's anything
we need to evaluate further. So thank you. First, I think are there any questions for
staff? Councilmember Riley. Can you remind me which of these major elements satisfy the
TOC recommendations or likely recommendations? Yeah. I think we were trying to track that
as well, and I don't know that they're fixed, but can you remind us?
Yeah, TOC, they wanted communities to have a base level of $100,000, and they wanted
them to have an inclusionary housing ordinance. And so in terms of being eligible, first being
consistent with their policy, and then being eligible for OBAG and other funding, their
was. You have an affordable and
inclusion housing ordinance and
that it sets a base level over
$100,000 per unit, which is a
1299 rentable square foot as
opposed to a 26 or 69 that we
had also talked about.
I have a basic question about us
having to build the 1300 units
money. It takes time to turn that 3 million around and build. So I'm just trying to understand
it. Can someone fill me in on what happens with that? We get a whole $3 million because
somebody pays us the in lieu fee. We don't have any affordable units. You just have money.
You would collect in lieu fees and you could work with nonprofit affordable housing developers
who might want to construct projects in the community, you could help in subsidizing that
project. Do you have to do it within our cycle period? No. No, no. If you get this money,
it shows that you're doing what you're trying to satisfy the requirement of building. Yeah,
the collection of an in-loofy doesn't necessarily have to be spent that time. You would theoretically
be reporting annually on whether or not you're making progress towards your housing element goals.
you could try to initially try to find a non-profit housing developer that wants to develop
something in town and look to make commitments to them for some funding from the cities
in luffie and report that as well. So you don't have to have tangible units
by the deadline. It's making progress. That's I think a separate issue in production of housing
units under the housing element cycle period is an annual reporting that is done to the state of
California, usually by April 1st of every year. We're going to
be hitting the four year mark here next year, this year next
year,
2027 2027. At the midpoint, there'll be there'll be an
assessment, I think of some sort of how much progress we're
making in the eight year cycle at the four year mark that
collecting money on 680 units that have yet to materialize is
likely not going to happen during this, you know, eight
reporting period. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Anyway. Okay. Then I don't understand the partial build
story. Partial build means that they instead of they're supposed to do two units instead of doing
two, they only do one. Is that a partial build? Yeah. Yeah. Half of what they're supposed to do.
Yeah. And we had been sort of playing out that 100, you know, 100 unit scenario and sort of
saying, well, if you were to build seven and you didn't build eight, you would have
this component that isn't being built that would require a fee. And so there's a calculation
in terms of how that fee registers. And it's just a little less straightforward than taking
the whole thing, taking 15% of the whole thing.
Did you figure out how to do that? Do we have a plan how to do that?
have a calculator, we're still verifying that calculator. Yeah, so I didn't want to add more
numbers to this presentation. Okay, yeah, so we'll do that next time. Because I can see a lot of
people saying, you know, I can't do all of them, I can do some of them. Yeah, yeah, and I think one
of the other key components is we're really hoping foreign feedback is just level of complexity,
because with the state density bonus law, there are a lot of people going that route,
and there are likely to be fewer people going the inclusionary housing route and then fewer
people going to a partial build. So, you know, that question about like how central is that to
this approach, any thoughts you have on that we would definitely appreciate.
Thank you. Can I just ask a quick follow-up question? When you say fewer people, do you
mean fewer developers? Your applicants. Yeah, fewer projects, yes.
this one is kind of an obvious question, Christine, but I assume since 15% doesn't always equal an
even number that you round up, is that the requirement? Yeah, well some of that is actually
why the, yeah, the square footage assess, you know, was assessed as rather than a unit per,
but yeah, but yes, it is generally you round up. So, and then I have one other question which is
because this gets so complicated and looking at all these charts and everything, how with
where we are in terms of the recommendations, does that put us in comparable alignment with
our neighboring communities?
Like, does it make us somewhat, it may not be exact, but does it put us somewhat in line
with Lafayette and Danville and Moraga so that we're not sort of sticking out one way
or the other. Yeah, yes, it does. Maraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, they all have already adopted
inclusionary housing ordinances. That was some of the reason why we're looking to them and also
asking them how's it going? Where is it sticking? What units are you using? And so, Rinda is an
outlier in that you don't have an inclusionary housing ordinance. But in terms of still getting
affordable housing. There are other methods to do that, so it's always a bundle of tools.
I think our conversations have been that inclusionary housing ordinances is a valuable tool.
It also does help with consistency and access to funding through MTC because they're prioritizing
that. But in general, it's one of many tools. Just to clarify, what I really meant was if we
pick the sort of selected recommendations of 11 or more,
or is that put us in somewhat of alignment
with everyone else's ordinances?
Yeah, it, yes, the, you actually are qualifying
slightly larger projects.
I think your peers eight is the top, eight, eight and above.
So they're catching, you know, eight, eight, nine,
ten unit projects, Arinda would start at 11. So there's a little more flexibility for those
smaller projects. And then the fees were very much put in the peer group. And not even despite what
the market study said in terms of, you know, home values and being able to talk to, you know, still
have a very high fee. It was meant to be, it was reduced to be in line with Pierce.
Can I, I thought our 15% was a lot higher than our neighbors. They had, yeah, so I'm not agreeing
with what you're saying. Yeah, there's, we look different to me. Yeah, there's 15% and there's
10%. Well, that's five, that's big to me. And so, so they, they're, it's applied differently.
and there was one chart that I can go back to if that's helpful. But so 15% is certainly used,
but it's used more selectively, and 10% is certainly used. So that's the kind of range
in terms of what the peer communities are doing. So actually one of my questions was could we go
back to that chart of all the different area neighboring communities and can you walk us
through when we're looking at that chart,
the recommendations for Orinda.
Because, yes, and one of the 15,
what I have written down here is why 15% versus 10%,
is that to have compliance with TOC policies?
Well, was that sort of the term?
I didn't quite understand from the report why that,
because it looks like it wasn't feasible
in certain situations and why it applied everywhere.
So I was a little confused about that.
First off, it isn't applied everywhere.
The single family housing is exempt.
Okay.
And so that in that, and because it was shown as infeasible.
So that was very much a reaction to that
and saying it's infeasible, that's exempt.
So, but the, yeah, so the other ones were,
if it's on record as being feasible,
you know, then this is an appropriate level.
And so that was sort of a discussion point.
And that's been a discussion point through every conversation.
So just to address the 10 to 15 in this chart.
So you do see 15% applied to multifamily and Lafayette,
but then you also see an income distribution.
So 9% has to be low or 6% has to be very low.
So it's not only 15%, but then there's
priority in terms of the percentage
per the different income levels.
But that being said, in Meraga, they are using 10%.
And so there is some variety in terms of who's using 10,
who's using 15.
These are all adopted, too.
So their market study isn't as recent when they did this.
So I would think they'd be probably
updating, looking to update, given the current economic conditions. And then, yeah, I mentioned
the unit threshold, you know, San Ramon and Lafayette are applying this to projects as
small as two. But certainly Danville is not is not applying it until a project is eight.
And so then the in lieu fees, there, there's sort of some complexity in its application.
I think Walnut Creek pretty straightforward, 2604 per square foot.
But then there are ranges in Moraga.
There's distinction between rental and for sale.
So there's, and then Danville's a project by project basis.
So there's some variety there.
As to the distinction between for rental and for sale, that's connected to the market feasibility
report, right? Yeah, and I think in the in our ordinance, that was some of the reason why the
for rent income distribution was lower at an average of 80. Whereas the for sale was an average
of 120 with a cap of 150% AMI. So acknowledging that the for sale would would would require less
subsidy would be would be less affordable in the terms of the income distribution.
not going for those very low levels that require more subsidy.
Okay. So Moraga is, I guess, I'm sorry, I'm just not,
the TOC guidelines do require 15 percent or no.
Like is Moraga out of sync then with the TOC guidelines?
I guess I'm still not TOC policy won't apply to them, right?
Because it's transit.
They're not.
Right.
They don't.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Of course.
that. Yeah, same with probably.
Danville. But Walnut Creek, it
would apply to. It would apply
to Walnut Creek. Yes. And it.
It I'm just not fully
comprehending. I think the
percentages and how that works,
but it looks like most
jurisdictions have a lower
percentage. Um, requirement
for. Yeah, and so and that
that feasibility question is
and they said, yeah, the market is good. The values are high. We can show under, in these districts under a build out scenario, we can show that this would still be developed. And so that was the threshold for should it be at 15% or not. But 15% was aimed at because of the TOC wanting that level.
May I just ask you to clarify this, TOC, that you keep talking about it like it's...
I thought the TOC was suspended and isn't effective right now, so we're talking...
How much of a died should that be, and I know it's on our agenda for next week, but it's
really critical because you're talking like it's a standard we need to hit.
No, it was really a test standard.
I wouldn't say that it was considered, I mean, so for instance, the single family analysis
that was done, it was very clear as they initiated it that it was not going to be anywhere close
to 15%.
So they didn't even try.
They moved it to 4% and they asked if it was feasible, and it was not.
So they said, okay, we have clear evidence.
This is not feasible at 4%.
This actually should be exempt.
This shouldn't be included in an inclusionary housing ordinance.
And then the question about the other ones was, can 15% be tolerated and would the profit
margin still be met to make a project go forward?
And the answer was yes.
So I think that was the bigger thing is that it was a target that allowed potential future
funding access, and so it was an important target to test.
But that doesn't apply, is that right or wrong?
Does the MTC's TOC apply to our decision tonight?
No.
Or did it used to and it doesn't anymore?
It does not, it was a target.
So the idea of like,
this could potentially yield something in the future
cause it's uncertain.
It's there, you know, they're still working on the policy.
So it was a target.
It was not considered.
It had to be that level.
It is not in the present tense,
a thing we need to comply with.
correct? Thank you. Yeah. Follow-up. But we're anticipating it. I mean, I feel like it's
part of our, okay, I got a nod. Yeah, we're sort of anticipating it. Otherwise we'd change
it later. So I think what's important to note is that the TSC policy and hopefully we'll
get some more clarity over the next few months, but we'll report what we know at an upcoming
meeting is that they're going to try to look towards this being less of a compliance document
and more of an encouragement document in terms of developing policies that help to elevate
you perhaps above a base of eligibility for OBAG funding so that if you do these additional
things, you might become even more competitive for grants as opposed to being punitive in
the way that they're approaching it.
But there's still a lot of work to be done on that.
It sounds like they're going to kick this can until 2028.
So certainly that it's not a direct factor in considering an inclusionary housing ordinance
tonight.
If you want to choose something less than 15, you have the purview to do that.
And then if they come back with policy recommendations that encourage 15 and you want to raise your
program to 15, you can do that at a later date.
You have flexibility.
So by the way, Council Member Hoxie's had her hand up and I apologize.
That's okay.
I just have a few questions.
One statement that you made was
that the inclusionary housing ordinance
could mitigate no net loss.
Can you explain that a little bit?
Yeah, I think the question about getting units,
how to get units, and the fact that the arena
always is setting a capacity to get new housing units,
to get affordable housing units.
And so what the IHO can do is it can require a range of units in the housing element.
It's not just 1,359 units, it's in income distributions.
So this could help meet some of those income distributions.
So again, it's a tool that can it can kind of help make sure that the income distributions
get filled. But it's, you know, one of many tools and, and, you know, and state density
bonus is also creating affordable units in those income distributions. So there are different
ways to get at it.
Um, the Brenda Grove project that was built in random 2015 or so, had eight units in it
that were for teachers. What percentage of that project was that do you happen to know?
I don't know the total. Do you know the total number, Arinda Grove, total number of units?
It was in one of the slides, I think. But I know that the 8 was in the slide. I just
didn't know the total number or what percentage that was. I did not include this. I ask because
that's an example of a project that was single-family homes that did actually include affordable
housing. So I just thought it would be useful to look at that as something that we have actually
accomplished in Orinda. I'm concerned about exempting single family developments from
the policy if we adopt a policy because that seemed to have been something that was feasible
in 2015 at least. I think that was the time frame when Orinda Grove was built.
It had 73 units.
Right, so it was about 10%,
a little over 10%, right, 11%.
And then I wanted to ask about the in lieu fees.
Can they only be used by the city
to help build affordable housing
or can the city use them for other things?
They can be used, in lieu fees can be used
for the creation of affordable housing
the administration of affordable housing programs and activities. So it could help pay in some
respects for staff time, consultant time, and actual physical investments in affordable units.
Um, I'm unclear as to how we came to the 11 or more units as opposed to the eight that I think
it was Lafayette and some other jurisdictions had picked. Yeah, I think the discussion
internally was to really prioritize the smaller projects to try and encourage those to move
forward. So do you think that in general these policies are a hindrance to projects moving
forward? I think the question really is about the subsidy required that there is a calculation
in terms of and has to be understood as an additional cost, so the but I think that's
really the role of the market study is to test that and to say, you know, with this
additional cost, is the return occurring as this, you know, typical project or this Envision
project?
that was the market study was clearly saying that the rental products and the for sale
in the highest density, that those are very viable under these conditions.
Why do you think that the market forecast has changed so much since when Arinda Grove was built,
That's how it looks like.
And there's a lot of, uh,
a lot of, uh,
lots of things that I was wondering about,
which was obviously feasible to have more than 10% affordable at that
time.
Yeah. And I can't speak to her into Grove. I don't,
I don't know if any other.
Uh, the question was how did her into Grove move forward? Um,
they were state state density bonus law.
Um, that's a component of it.
They were, um,
was in negotiation with the developer? Yeah because the property was owned by the school
district. Correct portion of it. Yeah. I guess I'm just concerned about the 15% and I'm concerned
about not including single family homes. I might ask the question whether the land cost
because it was owned by the school district might have been a factor in the feasibility
you. I think it was market
rate. I think the land was
market rate. Well, and that's
you would you are closer to
that than the other people
here. So thank you. Did you
have other questions? Council
member Hoxie? No, thank you.
Those were my thoughts as we
were talking. Okay. Any other
questions? I had more, please.
Um, can you speak a little to
Well, no, single family, of course is discussed, but, and for sale and for rent, but does it make a difference if just, you know, I was asking condos versus townhomes versus, you know, larger, because one of the requirements is that, and I understand the equity
understand the equity perspective behind it is that the affordable units be the same size type
condition, etc. as the other units generally, right? And so how, I mean, do, is it easier? Yeah,
so that's one question. And the other thing I was thinking is in all these other communities we're
looking at, what usually happens? Do the units get built? Or are the in lieu fees paid? What
What happens in real life or does it differ and depend on the project?
Just if you could give me, maybe I'm the only one who needs this, a real 360 view on how
does this actually result in the housing getting built?
Yeah.
Well, I think one of the key components is that by setting the in lieu fee lower, applicants
are encouraged to fee out rather than to build anything.
So if you are lower in that level,
you might collect some money, but you
won't get as many units.
So there's that component going on.
Something's important about this table
is that Lafayette has a must-build ordinance.
They don't have an in lieu fee.
So they get units because they have to build them.
And so there's always sort of a toggle between getting units
and then having a fee and having that flexibility.
I think in terms of your question about typology
and unit size, the estimates we were doing
were more rough estimates.
I mean, like some of the discussion about an 18, 1,180 square foot unit, you know, that is a multiplex style. And that that was some of the way that is figured as a multi-family building, not necessarily as smaller independent structures.
Council Member Mokani, I can just speak from my own personal experience in my other town where we were the fastest growing community and we had an inclusionary.
people pay the fee, or they look for alternative methods of compliance, which is also a way
in which people in Arinda could also look to do that.
Depending on what your land areas are, I've dealt with people who have donated property
as a way to meet an alternative method of compliance.
were very popular as well, or then looking for creative ways in which to try and advance
the efforts of creating more affordability that maybe isn't directly in their project.
Largely land dedications if you had three acres and you needed two, maybe you could donate a half
acre to a non-profit affordable builder and then that piece could be built. It's all in the project
economics, but basically they try to figure out how they could meet the intent of what the city
would like to see without overburdening their projects to the point where they're not feasible,
and then they just try to be creative. So there's just a variety of ways they could try to comply.
The thing about collecting fee is that you can take that fee and leverage that for a project.
So a Vistoverde type project where they were running into some challenges, right?
They had some gaps they needed filled.
Oftentimes cities, when they have these funds, can step in and help to assist to
close those gaps or help meet overall project wants and desires that the
community might have, and then you're creating true 100% affordability in
those projects that you may not, you might be able to leverage your money
further, maybe making an investment of $150,000 a unit
and getting more units created through the collection
of an in lieu fee.
So oftentimes that's the approach developers
like to look towards is paying the in lieu.
And so you can set your policy however you want.
You can set it to where it may encourage them, in this case,
to instead of being out of moderates,
they might want to build the moderates
because there's such a small delta
between what they could collect and rent
between market and moderate.
But it might encourage them to fee out of,
they're very low or low requirements.
And those, when you take those monies
and then you partner with an Eden
or Saha Housing or Midpen,
you actually can probably create more units
through that process.
So that's my experience.
Thank you, that's helpful.
You have more questions?
Oh yeah, but with regard to waiver,
you said applying the requirements would take property.
I didn't understand what that meant.
It was on one of the slides.
So an applicant could argue that the burden was too large
for the 15% that they couldn't make that and it was too large
and that they needed an exemption.
And it constituted a taking legally.
Oh, thank you.
OK, that's it.
I had a few, so if you guys have more questions,
chime in at the, along the way.
I just wanted to correct one thing,
cause there was something in your slide
and that you said verbally that developing
and adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance
as required by the housing element,
but I don't think that's correct.
I believe what is required is to study
an inclusionary housing ordinance.
Yeah, and basically it's an implementing action
and there are many implementing actions
and it has a timeframe associated with it,
but it does say if found appropriate for your community,
then you have a year to adopt.
So you have to find it appropriate first.
Yeah.
No, we don't find it appropriate.
We have still complied with our housing element.
Yes.
Given that we've studied it and we brought it.
Yeah.
And then it really is a question for HCD about progress
in your housing element and, you know,
and how many implementation actions you have completed.
Okay. Let's see. You mentioned that we're an outlier not having an inclusionary housing ordinance, but are we also an outlier and how much housing we built relative to our neighboring communities?
I don't have any fingers on that, do you?
How much housing have we built?
I think we were we were we were doing the tally of like in the 10 years that you you have some you have
60 approved units, but and but you have certainly developed Monteverde, which is 67 plus eight Norena Grove
So, you know, you're you're not not 300 but you know more than 50, you know, you're in that zone
One project and it's all affordable. Is that correct?
Yes
Okay, so we have not built any market rate housing in the last 10 years
But sorry, I'm talking about multi-family. I'm sorry multi-family multi-family
Have we built any market rate multi-family?
Since we incorporated as a city. I can see what Sean is trying to think back
But I can't I can't think of any we've seen development of a D use right which is helping to meet some of our
housing element requirements, but we have yet to see and we're getting a lot of SB 9 applications as well
Which is a lot splitting so that people could theoretically build other units on their property, but
multifamily no and
There are some historic, you know, the 73 Brookwood, but that's pre incorporation. That's correct. Yeah
I just I'm gonna talk about that later. I just wanted to make sure I got that right that it's not that we
Yes, we don't have an inclusionary housing ordinance, but we also haven't had any history
of building multifamily on which to be having this conversation.
So we're kind of having it before housing happens.
And so it's just a slightly different fact set.
There was a comment in our last study session where a developer in Lafayette came and said
that the Lisa Wise study saying that 550,000 typical cost-to-bility unit was not a realistic
cost. Did you guys have a chance to look into whether that was a good estimate for the construction
cost per unit? Yeah, our consultant did not provide us with follow-up material, so we
don't have that to present, but I think his perspective, he certainly heard that and he
was like, hmm, any asked for more detail. But he said that
he didn't think they were at all on the same calculation
scheme. And so he disagreed with that assessment. But you know,
and do you know, for 550,000 a unit, can you describe about the
square footage and quality that you could build for that
typical construction price?
Yeah, I think the the scenario that the consultant was using
was that 1,180 square foot unit and the question about for rental versus for sale, you know,
I think that the conversation about the upscale finishes and the reality around the parking
and the commercial elements that are needed in the decor, you know, that's what was causing
some infeasibility and some extra costs. So there was recognition of that.
Okay and so what you're saying is the reason they thought it was infeasible and our consultant
study said it is feasible is that is not high-end finishes, not commercial, not a lot of parking.
That's without all those things that would drive the cost closer to a million a unit?
Yes however the scenarios were developed based on conditions today you know so in terms of
understanding what is allowable by right and and could be put forward as a development that you
you know, these scenarios were put forward under the zoning,
you know, with the parking relief, you know, near transit.
And so assessed as a sort of typical project.
What's allowed by right.
Okay.
I think that was,
I think all the other questions were asked.
While we're still doing questions,
was there anything else that, any other questions?
Okay.
I would like to ask if we have any public comment.
We got one letter as late correspondence,
but is there anybody who'd like to speak on this?
I don't see a lot of members of the public.
Okay, great, with that, I think,
and because it's a study session,
if you don't mind just sticking around
so we can just keep talking and give feedback
and ask questions, would anyone like to lead us off?
I mean, no, not really,
because I think I'm just,
I still generally favor some form
of an inclusionary ordinance, but I frankly am a little...
This is both helpful in that it's a lot of information.
The report is thorough, but it also, the presentation,
especially the slides raised more questions for me
and I'd like some time to process it and sit with it
and really sort of study the slides
and look at some of the ordinances
a little more in surrounding communities.
So I don't, you know, in terms of the different parameters, I guess I don't, I'm curious to
hear from my colleagues and maybe I'll be convinced, but I still have questions.
I'll just add one comment for now because I'm also not ready to make it, I'll collect
all my thoughts.
The whole point of this is to encourage development of affordable housing.
And we realize it's going to cost more money than the developer can afford. So we're giving
the opportunity to pay a fee. I'm wondering if our 15% encourages all that or if it's
too high and it doesn't really encourage that or do we not care because they're always going
to use the bonus density. That's not an answer. That's just putting it out there.
councilmember Hoxie I'm gonna cold call you yeah I'm just the only real-life experience I think
we've had in Arinda in the last 10 years has been Arinda Grove and they were able to build single
family homes with a little more than a 10 percent affordability number of units and I I'm concerned
that the 15 percent is too high and I'd like to think about whether or not that should be at more
We're at a level of 30 of a
10 or 12%. I think the in lieu
fee question is tricky and we
need to really think through
what we're trying to accomplish
with that. I I hear this study.
Saying that single family homes
aren't feasible, but they were
feasible. So I'm also.
Concerned about exempting them
from whatever ordinance we
sure about all the parameters and how to get to the right place with the ordinance so that
it accomplishes what we're trying to do.
I I'm supportive of having an ordinance.
I think that's important.
And the reason the primary reason I think that's important is because quite frankly I don't like
the idea of not having one given the regional lay of the land where most of our neighboring
communities do. And that's simply, quite frankly, the state politics of housing. So
I do think we need an ordinance. Now, if I understand this, and I'm quite sure that
I don't even begin to understand this well, but it does from everything I've heard so
far, it sounds like the state density bonus would be more likely to be used than this
this anyway. It also sounds like this can be adjusted at any time in the future, and
it also seems like it can be waived or negotiated in some way with the city. So I guess I'm
not...15 sounds a little high compared, you know, I kind of agree, maybe it should be
10 or 12 or something, but the reality is I don't know that I think we absolutely need
an absolute precise answer because, one, we have so little experience with it, you know,
we don't know really what's going to happen and if somebody is really serious, then they're
going to tell us, you know, how it all is going to work.
They may not want to use it anyway and even if they do, it can always be adjusted in some
way.
I'm not worried about us getting perfection on day one.
I'm worried that by continuing to sort of drag our feet
that we're kind of exposing ourselves
to the political forces that are always looking
at communities like ours saying,
we're not complying, we don't have the right spirit
of what we wanna have happen.
And I don't think that's true.
I think we are trying to make this work.
So I would like to see the ordinance.
I have, it's so complicated as to what the exact whatever,
but I, again, I just don't think it's,
I don't think it's critical
that we have some super precise answer right away
because we can always adjust.
I'll make a few comments.
I mean, I know it's a study session,
so this is kind of free flowing.
The comment I make every time
is that you can't just look at one thing.
You may recall at the hearing
when we talked about the skilled labor concerns
with the contractor on Vista Verde,
there was all of this angst about how could the project
not make room in its budget for skilled labor.
And when we're talking about city impact fees
and how we need to get the fees
so that we can accommodate the infrastructure
that this growth is going to impose on the city,
we're gonna be all up in arms
about why can't a project make room in its budget
to pay us the fees.
And then when we see design and cheap materials
and stack and pack rectangles, and we get lots of criticism
from our citizens that, why didn't we
require higher design standards?
Or why don't we have enough parking in buildings?
And why don't we have more ground for retail?
All of those are goods.
They are all things that a good development project can bring,
along with subsidized below market units in that project.
and every one of those is competing
for whatever project, whatever profit margin is possible.
So what worries me is if we force,
I mean, my belief is that almost every project we will see,
and that's why I wanna look at the facts,
everything we've gotten has either used the density bonus
or it has been all affordable.
We haven't gotten anything that wasn't either affordable
or used the density bonus.
So to pass a law is a really big thing.
You don't just do it because you want people
to think you're good.
I actually think we would get more approval
from the people who watch housing
if we built some housing, right?
I actually think that would get us more credit
than whether we had a perfect statistical distribution
in every single project, then build some housing.
And to do that, I believe the better approach
is to allow applicants to decide all those trade-offs
about architectural design goods
and maybe bigger floor plans or maybe larger units
or parking or more ground floor retail
or whether they want to get that density bonus
and build a denser project
and include a lot of affordable housing
or maybe they want to do an all affordable project
because that's what kind of builder they are.
There's going to be, and frankly,
there's more financing,
the more affordable housing you provide,
whether it's all affordable or partial,
there's way better financing available
just because of all the incentives the state is putting in.
And so I just don't wanna pass a law now
if the MTC isn't holding up our money over it,
if we don't have a problem where we're out of balance.
I feel like we're out of balance
is not enough projects at all.
And to me, I actually would like to compliment
the planning staff.
This is really well drafted.
The draft ordinance, it feels like it incorporated
all the feedback from us and the public.
Was very thoughtful.
I'd rather see 10% than 15% if it's gonna go forward,
just based on the data.
But I had almost no comments on the ordinance
other than that.
I would just rather put it in our pocket
and give it a minute for our housing ordinances
that all the zoning we just did
to have a chance to see what comes forward.
So that's, it's the same thing I say
every time we talk about it.
Well, I'll chime back in on,
I would like to give it a minute,
but not more than a minute.
In other words, I would like to see it come back.
I mean, I am persuaded by the notion
that we don't have to be perfect on this, right?
Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.
I do think overall, this is something we should adopt.
I would like to, you know, take maybe a month or two
to look at the 10% versus 15%
and maybe look at some of just,
this is a lot of information, it's been really helpful.
The slide presentation I found to also be really helpful.
I wanna take some time to process that, frankly.
So, you know, I would like at least a couple weeks, but ideally I also don't want more
than two months necessarily.
And then I think we just need to make a decision, right?
But I do, I would, so personally, I would like to see this, it's very helpful.
The percentage is something, the thing I'm sort of looking at still, as well as just
want to better understand the feasibility studies and a little more myself.
But I'm leaning towards the, you know, a lot of the recommendations do make sense to
me.
And I just would like to have the opportunity to revisit them again sometime in the next
two to eight weeks to be very specific, but or thereabouts.
I'd like to understand more about Councilmember Hoxie's idea or concern that maybe we shouldn't
exempt single-family. I mean, how does this consultant reconcile that study versus what
actually happened at the Grove or into Grove? So would it be so bad to include single-family
housing if nobody uses it I mean I don't know why we you're smiling but I
mean no harm done anyway I think we should explore that thought and have a
little more rationale and try to explain that discrepancy and I'm getting closer
to deciding I probably don't need eight weeks I probably ready tomorrow or
or later tonight.
I feel like what council member G said is very persuasive.
It really is, and the experience of our city manager,
it sounds like it really comes down
to working with the developer, negotiating,
figuring out how, what needs to be waived,
what needs to be resolved and what,
where we're gonna put the fee
and all those other things that come up.
And that's how it's all gonna work out.
that's not going to be a fixed percentage is going to be negotiating and saying I can't
afford that. So let's do something else. Any final thoughts? Councilmember Hoxie. No,
I think in general, I am in favor of an inclusionary housing ordinance. I just think the devil's
in the details. I agree with Vice Mayor G that it doesn't have to be perfect and we
but we can change it as we go.
I like what Council Member Riley said about thinking
more about the single family issue.
And I'm still not sure about the percentage the 10 to 15%.
So I think I would like a little bit more information
and to hear what the Planning Commission has to say as well.
But I think we should move forward.
Thank you. Actually if we.
Can't ask. Could you give us a
little bit more insight about
the planning commission? Uh
feedback. Didn't you talk to
them recently or not since our
last study session? Not since
the last study session, so they
haven't been had this
information presented to. Okay
Can I? Can I make this? I'm
gonna suggest something. Take
it. You have an affordable
the council. We're making a
motion to remove the information
and council member, Mel Connie.
Last year, we stated their
purpose and purview inclusionary
zoning information and policies.
If this if if there's a desire
by the council to push some of
this discussion back on these
outstanding questions back to
the affordable housing
subcommittee to maybe help
refine a recommendation back to
the rest of the council on the
inclusionary zoning, we could
So that's going to be.
Turned for ongoing and as needed.
So if you want to have meetings related to inclusionary zoning,
we could do that in a smaller group so that we can answer some of the
questions that you all may have.
And maybe come back with a more firm recommendation in the future.
I just offer that up as an alternative to continuing to do this at a,
just remind me big picture of the process though actually I think is sort of what I envision which
is that this would then the things that I'm still mulling over are the percentages which it sounds
like a few of us are and then the I still also in Luffy's you know there's just a lot again I think
councilmember Hoxie said it said it well the devil is in the details with this stuff right so
there. Um but I do support
moving forward. Um but so what
are remind me at least what
are the next steps? Yeah. The
next step is if there was
interested in moving forward
as is, um, it would go to
Planning Commission hearing,
then come back to City
Council. However, I think
we've talked about a couple
alternatives. Um, one is a
subcommittee. Another
other cremations event. Thank you. I'm frankly open to any any one of those
things happening. I like the subcommittee recommendation because I do feel that
that was why we changed the charter because this was already being worked on
when we did that and it would allow something to come back fully baked
instead of us trying to kind of draft up here. I would support that but I'm not
not on that committee so I'm delegating work to people and looking to them for
know, the same people on the infrastructure subcommittee. And so I'd really want to make
sure that you would rather do that rather than send it back to planning and ask it to come back
fully baked via planning or something else. I'm willing but defer to my fellow council members.
I'm certainly willing to do it. I just am not sure whether it's,
I'm not sure if it's going to speed things up. That's, that's because it strikes me that we're
We're still going to have to have a lot of discussion between, you know, two of us and
then bring it back again and I'm not, I'm not sure if it's speeding it up or, or not.
I was just thinking of it in the context of getting comfortable with Y10 or Y15, not 10.
We could try to maybe answer those questions, maybe sitting around a table or, you know,
comparatively how, I think you were looking at the comparison charts to how does this
sort of align with our how our surrounding communities are handling it. And we could
maybe try to explain that in greater detail and probably need to bring our consultant potentially
back to the table. And might require us to modify that agreement. So we can do that. I mean, these
things are never entirely easy. I've had an experience where I have an existing ordinance
and it took six meetings of the council to talk about changes to that ordinance. So I mean,
trying to establish it from the very beginning, it can definitely be a process. So I wouldn't,
I'm just trying to figure out a way for maybe a smaller group to meet, talk more candidly about
some of the concerns, raising the concerns of the council and seeing if we could try and
work through those at those meetings and bring back a more confident recommendation
from two members of the Council to the balance of the Council of how we should start off this
program if that's what you guys would like to do. I have a question and that is and I don't know
about our other jurisdictions in the county and what they did or not but I'm curious as to whether
in the process and you would know as our City Manager since you you know Dublin had such a
growth. Is it possible to get more input from people that are really in the development world?
I mean to me this is all there unlike I mean of all of us I assume the Mayor has the most
real life experience right of of like I have only sort of a conceptual understanding of
You know, I, because I understand construction overall, I understand kind of what a developer
would be thinking about, but I, you know, all the sub details of it. I mean, is it,
is it common for developers to want to offer up some more advice?
Oh, most certainly. Developers are often free with their advice to jurisdictions about what
that impacts the development of projects.
And sure, we could talk to some local area developers
and get more feedback.
I don't know if that was part of the stakeholder input
process that Lisa Wise did.
Yeah, there were a couple of focus groups
to kick off the process.
And so we have that information,
but there might be someone with experience
in the last six months that would also weigh in.
and what is it? What if we
asked the subcommittee to look
at specific questions like the
10 to 15% whether to include
single family home with a cost
that we're being used in the
study, actually realistic
market costs, maybe with some
input from developers, Um, six
39 PM be in movie and, um, you
know, things like that to some
for what it's worth, I liked that suggestion
and didn't have anything to add to that list.
Although when you look at the construction cost,
I really would ask you to look at the unit size
and quality of that because an apartment,
a TOD apartment in Berkeley or Oakland
is going to be different than a town home
in Lafayette or Danville.
And so I just want to make sure you guys
have a really good visualization of what that is.
but I thought that was a very good recap.
Does anyone else wanna, first of all,
do we support this direction
and do you have any questions you would add to that?
It sounds like it's gonna be a lot of like research
and a lot of time spent figuring out
what's going on in the other community towns.
I don't know, it seems really...
Would you rather just come back?
I'm concerned about the burden,
this sounds like a lot of work, I don't know.
My understanding is that the research has already been done
and is in the prior materials.
It's a matter of the planning staff explaining
and kind of going through the numbers.
But I don't believe there's any new research.
I believe it's going deeper on the research they have
at the planning department.
Yeah, much of it is.
I mean, we certainly have some input from developers.
It can always be augmented.
But yeah, and we have been talking about the differences
between the 4%, the 10%, the 15%.
So we would have that.
and then the single family home exemption.
Interestingly, we did actually have MTC review
the market study, and they saw the reason why
for that exemption, and they were okay with it,
which we were surprised.
We thought they might push harder.
But I think that bigger theme of there is a more
robust conversation that happens in a smaller group,
so it might be good to be able to get into those details.
I have another question, and maybe our planning staff
city manager have a better understanding of this. One thing that strikes me as leaving a big
question mark to me because again we haven't had hardly anything built in Orinda and we may not
even be classified as having that much opportunity to. So one of the things that comes to my mind is
if somebody, no matter how you structure this, if somebody decides rather than actually building
the units they want to pay the in lieu fees, if you're in a very big city or a city that has a
lot of development going on or whatever, I can understand where that makes sense in the in the
ability for the community to probably make that work somehow because you have a lot going on,
but we don't have a lot going on. So if we end up with like $250,000 in some account,
I'm curious as to what if we can't use it for anything or what if it's not enough money to
incentivize some other developer to want to... What ends up happening in those scenarios?
Well, there's always ways that you can use the money. Even if it's not incentivizing development,
you could use it on updating your ordinance. You can use it on staff time associated with
implementing any activities. You could theoretically use it towards, I mean, you could put a small
incentive together for a future nonprofit project, even if you only had $250,000 collected, right?
So there's various things that you can do.
I mean, that, that could help subsidize two units
theoretically in an affordable project.
Just won't have the same level of impact
that you're hoping to have.
Okay, that helps.
So it's, there are things you can do with it.
You can.
You know, I'm going to propose that we sort of go
with the city manager's suggestion of having one meeting
the affordable housing subcommittee to continue to consider these items and the other thing I did
have on my list actually was in Luffy's because it seemed just to. Yeah that was on my list too.
Right. And then come back here but with recommendations quickly unless unless
it makes more sense to simply come back to the council and not have this either way. We could
could also do like another another study session because I think like for me there was a lot
of information here and again I don't think I need that long to process it maybe longer
than councilmember Riley but but you know something else we did when we were doing the
housing element because remember three of us were newly elected as we had kind of two
one briefing sessions to be able to just ask questions of the city manager and
the planning director at the time so that would be the other way we could do
it would be two on one just meetings to go over whatever questions and whatever
things people want to understand deeply so not to muddy the water I like the ad
ad hoc subcommittee since I'm not on it.
If there's some concern that that won't allow you
on that subcommittee to bring forward something
that you feel you can present with good rationale
that you feel like this is what we recommend and why,
which would sort of be the goal.
Then another thing might be small group Q and A sessions
and then bring it back to the larger group.
I feel, Mayor, that you have a lot of knowledge and understanding of these issues and so I'm
really looking to Council Member Hoxie and Council Member Riley. I'm happy to participate
being on this subcommittee but if it's the sort of information and form, I want to make sure that
anybody who wants to be there for that discussion can be there for that discussion so I'm just sort
of asking for preference that way but we should decide and move on. I think I support the
suggestion with the subcommittee. It's been successful in the past with us. And I'm just
concerned about the burden because it sounds like a lot of one meeting. We're going to
do one meeting. Long meeting cover all the issues. I would like to add partial build
to that list of issues because they're going to work on the calculation of the formula.
But I still kind of think that's the reality that a developer would say, I can't do all
15, I can do seven.
It's a study session, so I know we don't have a formal action.
May I ask our presenter and our study manager if you feel that you've heard enough from
us tonight?
Well, I think we've got direction.
It sounds like you've kind of narrowed down what your remaining questions are, and then
we can regroup internally and figure out how best to, from a timing perspective, I know
We have some upcoming limitations with availability, so I don't know if it's going to come back
right away to the Council.
We've got other things we're going to be dealing with, but hopefully sometime this spring we'll
be able to put something together with schedules, what they are.
So we'll work around your schedule to do that.
Great.
Thank you.
And again, the materials for this were really, really well organized.
There was a lot to process, but it was a very good packet of information and presentation.
So thank you for helping us really get into the substance of the discussion.
Thank you.
And I also thought you really handled all these questions.
This was not easy and you were just super, super good on your feet.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Thank you.
I concur.
I really appreciate it.
With that, do we have any matters initiated?
Hearing none, I move we adjourn.
We are adjourned.
Bye, everyone.
Goodbye.
Aloha.
Bye!
Bye!
Bye!
Bye!
Bye!
Bye!