AGENDAREGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY

COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEYREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE OAKLEY

PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

Tuesday, April 23, 20196:30 PM

Oakley City Council Chambers, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561

MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley exists to build and enhance a quality community and toserve the public in a friendly, efficient, responsive manner.

VISION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley will be recognized as a model of civic participation and avibrant Delta community where families live, work, play, shop and visit.

Agendas are posted in Oakley at Oakley City Hall-3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista MiddleSchool-4901 Frank Hengel Way and outside the Library at Freedom High School-1050 Neroly Road;agendas are also posted on the City’s Internet Website www.ci.oakley.ca.us.

A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each item is available forpublic review prior to an Oakley City Council and/or City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to theOakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority meeting at Oakley City Hall, 3231 MainStreet, Oakley, CA 94561. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Oakley City Council,Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency or OakleyPublic Financing Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection,during regular business hours, at the front counter in the Main Lobby of the Oakley City Hall located at3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561.

Agendas may be picked up at the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for nocharge. To request information regarding placement on the City’s agenda e-mail distribution list, pleasecontact us at (925) 625-7000.

We provide social media options to stay connected to City Hall through Facebook, Twitter, Next Door andInstagram. Other opportunities to connect with City Hall include Peak Democracy, Oakley OnDemand andConstant Contacts. Please contact us at (925) 625-7000 for additional information or visit our website atwww.oakleyinfo.com

If you have a physically challenging condition and require special accommodations, please call the CityClerk’s office at (925) 625-7013. 1

Please keep cell phones/electronic devices turned off during the meeting. Please beadvised that City Council meetings are video recorded and attendees may appear onvideo.

1. OPENING MATTERS

1.1. Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Actingas the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley PublicFinancing Authority

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Kellie Nguyen, 7th Grade Student at Delta VistaMiddle School)

1.3. Proclamation recognizing April as "National Sexual Assault Awareness Month"(Mayor Alaura)Proclamation

1.4. Recognition of Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Graduates(Eric Christensen, Chief of Police)

2. PUBLIC COMMENTSAt this time, the public is permitted to address the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as theSuccessor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority onnon-agendized items. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance withState Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the postedagenda. The Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the OakleyRedevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority may respond to statements made or questionsasked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting on the matter. The exceptions under whichthe Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the OakleyRedevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority MAY discuss and/or take action on items notappearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code §54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3). Members of the publicshould submit any Speaker Cards for Public Comments in advance of the Mayor calling for PublicComments.

3. CONSENT CALENDARConsent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by theOakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley RedevelopmentAgency/Oakley Public Financing Authority with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or theOakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment 2

Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar forpurposes of public input may request the Mayor remove the item. Members of the public should submitany Speaker Cards related to the Consent Calendar in advance of the Consent Calendar beingconsidered.

3.1. Approve the Minutes of the Regular Joint Oakley City Council/Oakley CityCouncil Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley RedevelopmentAgency/Oakley Public Financing Authority Meeting held April 9, 2019 (LibbyVreonis, City Clerk)

Minutes-4-9-19

3.2. Accept Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek Cole, City Attorney)Memo

3.3. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 with F.J. Kennedy and Associates,Inc. (Kennedy and Associates) for On-Call Consulting Services Related to theClean Water Program, City Surveyor and Current Development Engineeringand Inspection Services for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., PublicWorks Director/City Engineer)Staff Report1. Resolution2. Amendment No. 2

3.4. Award of Construction Contract to Terracare Associates for the VintageParkway Streetscape Renovation Project - Capital Improvement ProjectNumber 227 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)Staff Report 1. Resolution

3.5. Establishment of the Rate per Equivalent Runoff Unit for FY 2019/20 andRequesting the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict to Adopt an Annual Parcel Assessment for Drainage Maintenance andthe National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (Kevin Rohani,P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)Staff Report1. Resolution for ERU Establishment2. Draft FY 2019/20 Budget

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS

4.1. Approve Master Fee Schedule (Deborah Sultan, Finance Director)Staff Report1. Resolution 3

2. Master Fee Schedule

5. REGULAR CALENDAR

5.1. Review of Appeal of City Manager’s Decision Regarding Recording a Notice ofViolation (462 Larchwood Place, Oakley, CA 94561, Contra Costa County APN035-361-028) CONTINUED FROM MARCH 26, 2019 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)Staff Report1. Contra Costa County Ordinance 80-142. Portions of 1979 Uniform Building Code

5.2. Resolution Adopting the Policy Framework on Emerging Housing LegislationRecommended by the Contra Costa Public Managers’ Association. (BryanMontgomery, City Manager)Staff Report1. Resolution2. Policy Framework recommended by the Contra Costa Public Managers' Association3. Summary of CASA Compact and related proposed legislation4. Housing Policy Frequently Asked Questions

5.3. Proposed Amendment to Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.14.014 RegardingFalse Alarm Fees (Eric Christensen, Chief of Police)Staff Report including Attachments 1 and 2Proposed Ordinance Amendment with Tracked Changes

5.4. Amendment to Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.12.04 Related to Exception ofHemp and CBD Products from Marijuana Ordinance (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

Staff Report1. Ordinance

6. REPORTS

6.1. CITY MANAGER(a) City Manager’s Report

6.2. OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THESUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions andBoards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency

4

(b) Requests for Future Agendas

7. WORK SESSION

8. CLOSED SESSIONS

8.1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORSPursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6(a)City Designated Representatives: Mayor Claire Alaura, Councilmember RandyPope and Derek Cole, City AttorneyUnrepresented Employee: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager

8.2. Report Out of Closed Session (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

9. ADJOURN

5

PP RR OO CC LL AA MM AA TT II OO NNSexual Assault Awareness Month 2019

WHEREAS, In California there were 14,724 forcible rapes in 2017 and 274 forcible rapes reported in Contra Costa County in the same year; with an increasing number affecting adolescents; and

WHEREAS, sexual assault affects every person of Contra Costa County as a victim/survivor or as a family member, significant other, neighbor or co-worker of a victim/survivor; and

WHEREAS, many citizens of Contra Costa County are working to provide quality services and assistance to sexual assault survivors; and dedicated volunteers help staff 24-hour crisis hotlines, respond to emergency calls and offer support, comfort and advocacy during forensic exams, criminal proceedings, and throughout the healing process; and

WHEREAS, staff and volunteers of Community Violence Solutions and its Rape Crisis Center, Children’s Interview Center, Prevention Dept., HOPE Therapy Services and Anti-Trafficking Project programs in Contra Costa County are promoting education by offering training to schools, churches, and civic organizations, as well as medical, mental health, law enforcement, education and criminal justice personnel regarding sexual assault issues; and

WHEREAS, it is vitally important that continued educational efforts to provide information about prevention and services for sexual assault be supported and enhanced; and

WHEREAS, it is critical to intensify public awareness of sexual assault, to educate people about the need for citizen involvement in efforts to reduce sexual violence, to increase support for agencies providing sexual assault services, and to increase awareness of the healing power of creative expression; and

WHEREAS, Community Violence Solutions Requests public support and assistance as it continues to work toward a society where all women, children, and men can live in peace, free from violence and exploitation.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I, Claire Alaura, Mayor of the City of Oakley, join with the members of the Oakley City Council in proclaiming April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month!

April 23, 2019

Claire Alaura, Mayor

6

Minutes of Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley

Public Financing Authority held April 9, 2019

1) OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority

Mayor Claire Alaura called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. In addition to Mayor Alaura, Vice Mayor Doug Hardcastle and Councilmembers Sue Higgins, Randy Pope and Kevin Romick were in attendance.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Student at Oakley Elementary School)

Gabriel Hernandez led the Pledge of Allegiance.

The City Council thanked him.

1.3 Proclamation Declaring April as Autism Awareness Month (Trevor Varner and Jeff Varner)

On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Alaura presented a proclamation to Trevor Varner and Jeff Varner, declaring April as Autism Awareness Month. She mentioned Trevor wrote her a lovely letter with some great ideas for a future local park and she responded to him in writing;thereafter, she learned April is autism awareness month and she invited him to accept the proclamation.

Jeff Varner introduced his son Trevor and daughter Amber who are both autistic. He mentionedit is challenging for the kids and parents, and parents are learning as they go. He added he is pleased the City has brought awareness to autism. He thanked everyone who attended in support.

1.4 Proclamation Declaring April 7-13, 2019 as National Library Week (Andrea Freyler, Community Library Manager)

On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Alaura presented a proclamation to Oakley Community Library Manager Andrea Freyler declaring April 7-13, 2019 as National Library Week.

1.5 Oakley Library Update Provided by Community Library Manager Andrea Freyler

Oakley Community Library Manager Andrea Freyler thanked the City Council for the proclamation. She mentioned National Library Week is a time to celebrate the many resources, programs and expertise libraries provide. She shared an example where she was able to assist in providing a resident access to online services. She mentioned the Library is seeing a rise in people using its computers to update resumes since EastbayWorks closed. She shared that

7

during the summer, libraries across the county will have an all-abilities play group where families can come together and meet. She shared that buttons are offered while supplies last for anyone who fills out a form and submits it to the Library indicating why they like the Library or if they like it on Facebook. She mentioned the Library card is free and provides free and discounted museum passes, and free access to resources, i.e., online newspapers, Rosetta Stone to learn a language, and lynda.com. She shared that last year, the Library circulated 88,688 items, 65,000 people walked through its doors, and over 5,000 people attended events at the Library. She added that the Library hosted fantastic speakers (first Mayor and current Mayor) for the 20th City Anniversary Celebration kick-off event. She mentioned that during Spring Break, Library STEAM programs attracted over 300 participants. She shared she truly believes libraries are the cornerstone of democracies and promote free exchange of ideas and information for everyone, as well as foster civic engagement. She expressed she is honored that the City Council claimed this week as Library Week and encouraged everyone to use Library resources. She concluded by mentioning the Library will begin its Kindergarten Count Down series of workshops at the end of April.

2) PUBLIC COMMENTS

David Weiss commented that he spoke in January regarding allowing CBD oil sales in Oakley and he feels Oakley has regressed in that all product has been removed from shelves in Oakley. He mentioned attitudes have changed regarding cannabis and hemp, the oil is universal and can help with issues such as anxiety and inflammation, and he would like to request to allow it to be sold. He explained it is a growing industry and Oakley could benefit by allowing manufacturing or processing, there are 53,000 uses for hemp and he is not sure why it is not allowed.

Mayor Alaura commented that Mr. Weiss brought to the City’s attention that stores in Oakley were selling such products and the City has notified those stores that they are in violation of the Municipal Code. She asked staff if there has been any follow up since the notices were sent.

City Attorney Derek Cole commented he believes those stores have received the notices and staff is close to bringing a draft ordinance to the City Council for consideration that would address the matter.

3) CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approve the Minutes of the Regular Joint Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency and Special Meeting of the Oakley Public Financing Authority Meeting held March 26, 2019 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)

3.2 Accept Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

3.3 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Approving a Rezone (RZ 05-18) from the General Commercial (C) District to the Planned Development (P-1) District for the Village at Main located at 1731 Main Street (APN's 037-100-048, 037-100-049, 037-100-13, 19 and 23) (Joshua McMurray, Planning Manager)

3.4 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt a Tree Maintenance Ordinance (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

8

3.5 Adopt a Resolution Recognizing the Importance of the 2020 U.S. Census-"Be Counted California" (Bryan Montgomery, City Manager)

3.6 Adopt a Resolution for the Purchase of Traffic Signal Poles and Equipment from AZCO Supply Inc. for the Empire Avenue/Gateway Drive Signalization Project -Capital Improvement Project Number 230 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

3.7 Acceptance of Subdivision Improvements Associated with Subdivision 9183 (Stonewood 3 Unit 1) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

Mayor Alaura pulled item 3.4 for discussion.

No online comments or public speaker cards were submitted for the remainder of the Consent Calendar.

It was moved by Councilmember Romick and seconded by Councilmember Higgins to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)

Item 3.4

No online comments were submitted for item 3.4.

De Wallace shared she is a homeowner in Oakley and a widow living on one income; she has two trees on her property. She inquired if she is required to remove the trees if she will she havea lien on her property or receive financial assistance.

City Manager Bryan Montgomery responded he is happy to meet with her and provide answers to her specific situation and it sounds like the trees are located on her property.

Ms. Wallace confirmed the trees are located on her property.

Mr. Montgomery provided Ms. Wallace his contact information for further discussion.

It was moved by Councilmember Romick and seconded by Vice Mayor Hardcastle to approve item 3.4. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)

4) PUBLIC HEARINGS-None

5) REGULAR CALENDAR

5.1 Fiscal Year 2018/19 Third Quarter Report on the Capital Improvement Program (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani presented the staff report.

Mayor Alaura inquired if any additional parking will be incorporated into the design for the athletic field park.

9

Mr. Rohani responded that currently additional parking is not being incorporated; however, staff is aware the parking is heavily used for Koda Dog Park and in the future, parking for the entire campus may need to be evaluated. He shared there is currently landscaping at the intersectionof Oxford and Winchester that could be a future potential area for parking.

Mayor Alaura commented Phase 1 is complete for the Recreation Center and inquired if Phase 2 will be forthcoming where the modular building is currently located when funding becomes available.

Mr. Rohani responded staff is working on Proposition 68 grant funding for Phase 2 of theRecreation Center and the 55-acre park at the end of Sellers Avenue. He mentioned the City has a consultant working on both projects and grant applications are due in August.

Mayor Alaura thanked him for the report.

No action was required of the City Council.

6) REPORTS

6.1 CITY MANAGER(a) City Manager’s Report

City Manager Bryan Montgomery announced that the Recreation Center Open House will be held Saturday, April 13, beginning at 1pm and the building is being used this week for Science Week. He mentioned at the Recreation Center Open House there will be an opportunity for people to participate in providing ideas for the Oakley Community (55-acre) Park. He announced another community meeting will be held Wednesday, April 17 beginning at 6:30pm for input on the park; staff will send an invitations to people who attended the earlier discussion about the park and send out notice of the meeting through social media. He also announced the City will hold its Strategic Planning meeting at the Recreation Center April 16 beginning at 5:30pm to prepare for the upcoming budget and the Rock the Chalk and Red Sand Projectevents will be held April 27, 10am-2pm, at Civic Center Plaza. He expressed appreciation to everyone who made the Recreation Center possible and thanked the City Council for its leadership to support it.

6.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency

Councilmember Romick reported he attended a Reclamation District 21-37 meeting in Stockton; the District manages levees on the east side of Marsh Creek, north of the canal and along the river on the Gilbert and Emerson properties. He explained money funnels through the District for the Department of Water Resources (DWR) restoration project occurring on E. Cypress. He mentioned the restoration project is in progress, things are drying out so water is being rechanneled and there is constant disking to keep invasive species out and to keep ground squirrels from creating burrowing owl habitats. He mentioned they have already had to create a

10

special area for burrowing owls. He also mentioned there is a nursery growing cattails; they have a 2-year cycle to be in the ground and survive which will start this year and they hope it will be ready by 2021. He added that they are working on redirecting the creek and DWR will create bridges and trail systems on the 1,200-acre restoration project. He also reported a couple of weeks ago he met with Amtrak representatives and San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority ; they took a walking tour of the train platform station behind the Oakley Bistro to examine the best area for the platform at grade level so the least amount of money is spent on the platform build. He shared they plan to tear down the Antioch station structure in 2019 to make it more visible and Amtrak was pleased with the visibility Oakley’s train platform will provide from Main Street.

Vice Mayor Hardcastle reported he attended a Tri-Delta meeting with Councilmember Romick and encouraged anyone who does not have a vehicle to contact Tri-Delta because it offers many bus stop routes in Oakley and also offers ambulatory shuttle services to doctor appointments and shuttle services to shopping. He commented it is funded by the federal, state and county and encouraged everyone to use its services.

Councilmember Higgins provided kudos to Team Oakley and Mayor Alaura for hosting the Mayors’ Conference. She announced the Red Sand Project will be held April 27 in the Civic Center Plaza to bring awareness to human trafficking and exploitation.

Councilmember Pope announced the next Habitat Conservancy meeting will be held April 22 at 2pm in Clayton. He mentioned it is a public meeting and everyone is invited. He also reported he attended a meeting with the City’s garbage franchise contractor regarding foreign nations’ impact on local recycling and the City will be working with them over next 1-2 years regarding recycling efforts. He announced it is Distracted Driving Awareness Month and encouraged everyone to put down distracting items and just drive.

Mayor Alaura announced Diablo Water District will hold a meeting on April 24 at 7:30pm at its office on Carol Lane to discuss redistricting. She reported she attended a Police Chief AdvisoryCommittee meeting where an update was provided on crime in the City and it is low (Oakley is within the top 25 safest cities in California) and there will be campus lock down drills conducted at all elementary schools over the next two weeks (the kids have already been doing the drills;the only change is Oakley Police will be on campus). She also reported the Mayors' Conference was a great success; she received great feedback from attendees and the facility is beautiful. She mentioned at the Conference, mayors discussed appointments to committees and nominations to the CASA legislative task force. She shared that Tri-cities have put together a policy framework and legislative positions how CASA will affect their cities and it is highly recommended that cities or groups of cities do this. She mentioned the mayors of East County discussed creating a framework during their last Delta 6 meeting and she instructed the City Manager to discuss it with other East County City Managers and collaborate so East County is not lost in a crowd and its voice is heard. She announced the Friends of Oakley and Oakley Police Department will host an Easter egg hunt and pancake breakfast April 20, 9am-11:30am at Freedom Basin and the hunts will be divided by age group so all can participate.

(b) Requests for Future Agendas

There were no requests for future agenda items.

7) WORK SESSIONS-None

11

8) CLOSED SESSION

8.1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONPursuant to Government Code Section 54954.5(e)Title: City Manager

8.2 Report Out of Closed Session (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

9) ADJOURN

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Respectively Submitted,

Libby VreonisCity Clerk

12

Date: April 9, 2019

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Cc: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager

From: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney

Subject: Closed Session Report-Out Memo

FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2019

Background and AnalysisThe City Council considered the following closed session item at its meeting held April 9, 2019:

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONPursuant to Government Code Section 54954.5(e)Title: City Manager

No reportable action was taken.

Fiscal ImpactNone.

RecommendationReceive and file this report.

AttachmentsNone.

MEMORANDUMOffice of the City Attorney

13

STAFF REPORT

Approved and Forwarded to the City CouncilDate: April 23, 2019

To: Bryan H. Montgomery, City Manager

From: Kevin Rohani, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer

Subject: Approval of Contract Amendment # 2 with F.J. Kennedy and Associates, Inc. (Kennedy and Associates) for On-Call Consulting Services Related to the Clean Water Program, City Surveyor and Current Development Engineering and Inspection Services for FY 2018/19

Background and AnalysisOn July 1, 2018, an agreement was executed between the City of Oakley and Kennedy and Associates for an on-call consulting services agreement related to the Clean Water Program, City Surveyor services and Development Engineering services. The contract was limited to a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 for FY 2018/19.

On November 13, 2018, Amendment No. 1 was executed between the City of Oakley and Kennedy and Associates, which increased the contract not-to-exceed amount to $400,000 for FY 2018/19.

The amount of construction work on private development projects in Oakley has continued to increase, especially along the East Cypress Road corridor at the Emerson Ranch and Gilbert Ranch Subdivision sites. Staff has needed to increase the amount of work being performed by consultants in order to meet development project inspection needs for site infrastructure improvements. In addition, the construction work at the new ARCO/AMPM and 7-Eleven/Chevron projects on Laurel Road, andthe new Medical Office on Main Street during FY 2018/19, will require additional inspection services to keep these projects on schedule.

As a result, staff is requesting an increase of $200,000 in the contract amount for FY2018/19.

Fiscal ImpactApproval of the resolution will increase the not-to-exceed contract amount by $200,000 for FY 2018/19. Private development projects and the City’s Cleanwater Program will

14

fund the services on an as needed basis. The private developers will be fully paying all costs associated with the consultant services, and there will not be any City General Funds used in this contract.

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution amending the agreement with Kennedy and Associates and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Attachments1) Resolution 2) Amendment No. 2

15

RESOLUTION NO. __-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEYAPPROVING CONTRACT AMENDMENT # 2 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH F. J. KENNEDY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (KENNEDY AND ASSOCIATES) FOR CONSULTING SERVICES; INCLUDING CIVIL DESIGN RELATED TO THE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM, CITY SURVEYOR, DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2018 the City executed an agreement with Kennedy and Associates for engineering and surveyor Consulting Services with the not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 for FY 2018/19; and

WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the City Council of the City of Oakley approved Contract Amendment # 1 with Kennedy and Associates; and

WHEREAS, after review of the expenditures to date for FY 2018/19 and projecting costs for these services through the end of this fiscal year, Staff determined that the original contract and the Amendment #1 not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 is not sufficient to provide consultant inspection services to cover theconstruction workload for the remainder of FY 2018/19; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Oakley that Contract Amendment # 2 with Kennedy and Associates is hereby approved. A copy of the Contract Amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley, California, this 23rd day of April 2019 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT:

APPROVED:

_________________________Claire Alaura, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date

16

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF OAKLEY AND F. J. KENNEDY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. RELATED TO THE ON-CALL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR FY 2018/19 FOR CIVIL DESIGN RELATED TO THE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM, CITY SURVEYOR AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SRVICES

This Amendment is entered into by and between the City of Oakley, a municipal corporation(hereinafter referred to as “City”), and F. J. Kennedy and Associates, Inc., a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”), effective as of the 23rd day of April, 2019.

RECITALS

A. On July 1, 2018, City and Contractor executed an Agreement for on-call consulting services related to the Clean Water Program, City Surveyor services and Development Engineering and inspection services (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”); and,

B. On November 13, 2018, City and Contractor executed Amendment No. 1 which increasedto the not-to-exceed contract amount from $150,000 to $400,000 for FY 2018/19; and,

C. City and Contractor now desire that the following amendment be made to the Contractor’s services: increase to the not-to-exceed contract amount from $400,000 to $600,000 for FY 2018/19; and,

D. Except as provided herein, all other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

AGREEMENT

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Oakley, a municipal corporation in the State of California, has authorized the execution of this Amendment in duplicate by its City Manager and attestation by its City Clerk under authority of Resolution No. ___-19, adopted by the Council of the City of Oakley on the 23rd day of April, 2019, and the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed in duplicate.

City

City of Oakley, a municipal corporation

By: Bryan H. Montgomery, City Manager

ATTEST:

_______________________________________Libby Vreonis, City Clerk

Contractor

F. J. Kennedy and Associates, Inc., a California Corporation

By: Frank J. Kennedy, President

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________________Derek P. Cole, City Attorney

17

STAFF REPORT

Approved and Forwarded to the City Council

DATE: April 23, 2019

TO: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager

FROM: Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer

SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contract to Terracare Associates for the Vintage Parkway Streetscape Renovation Project – CIP 227

Background and AnalysisThe City’s adopted FY 2018/19 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget designates funding for various infrastructure repair and replacement projects. This is consistent with the City’s goals to improve the quality of the City’s public infrastructure and to enhance the quality of life for our residents.

The Vintage Parkway neighborhood was constructed over 3 decades ago by Contra Costa County. As part of the conditions of approval, the areas along Vintage Parkway were landscaped to the County standards of that time. The aging and deterioration of the landscape and irrigation infrastructure along Vintage Parkway has been a concern and focus of City staff for improvements. Over the course of several months, staff worked with design consultants and contractors to create and fine tune a scope of work to renovate this landscaping and irrigation system. A project bid set was prepared and advertised for the project.

The scope of work for Capital Improvement Project No. 227 includes: The removal of existing shrubs and broken irrigation components from within the planters along both sides of Vintage Parkway, the repair and installation of new irrigation components, and the installation of shrubs and plants as identified on the project plans.

Once completed and after the new plants get established, Vintage Parkway will have a much more refined look for the enjoyment of its residents and will complement the street repair and resurfacing project that will take place on this street in 2020.

Fiscal ImpactTerracare Associates was the only bidder for the project at a cost of $79,135.00. Thecurrent FY 2018/19 budget for this project is $100,000 funded by the Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District Fund Zone 3-1.

18

Staff Recommendation On April 11, 2019, one (1) bid was received for this project. Staff reviewed the bid and determined that Terracare Associates was the only entity and is the most responsive to the City’s bid process.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the construction agreement with Terracare Associates, for an amount not to exceed $79,135.00, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement.

Attachments1) Resolution

19

Resolution No. __-19 Page 1

RESOLUTION NO. __-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH TERRACARE ASSOCIATES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VINTAGE PARKWAY STREETSCAPE RENOVATION PROJECT – CIP 227

WHEREAS, City Staff prepared the plans and specifications for the construction of the Vintage Parkway Streetscape Renovation Project; and

WHEREAS, the plans and specifications were publicly advertised for bidding, with the bid period closing at 2:00 P.M. on Thursday, April 11, 2019; and

WHEREAS, One (1) bid was received prior to the close of the bidding process; and

WHEREAS, Terracare Associates submitted the lowest responsible bid for a total cost of $79,135.00 for the work; and

WHEREAS, the FY 2018/19 budget included $100,000 for the project, funded from Lighting and Landscape Assessment District Funds; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the Agreement with Terracare Associates for the construction of theVintage Parkway Streetscape Renovation Project - CIP 227, for an amount not to exceed $79,135.00 is approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute said Agreement.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 23rd of April, 2019 by the following vote:

AYES:NOES:ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:

_______________________Claire Alaura, Mayor

ATTEST:

Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date

20

STAFF REPORT

Approved and Forwarded to the City Council

DATE: April 23, 2019

TO: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager

FROM: Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer

SUBJECT: Establishment of the Rate per Equivalent Runoff Unit for FY 2019/20 and Requesting the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Adopt an Annual Parcel Assessment for Drainage Maintenance and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program

Background and AnalysisThe City of Oakley joined the Contra Costa Clean Water Program in March of 2000 to implement its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program as required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. To fund the City’s participation in the program, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was authorized by Assembly Bill 2768 to impose an annual assessment on behalf of member cities. The annual assessment is based on an Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) which is defined as the service charge rating assigned to each parcel based on its land use.

Prior to incorporation, the County collected $16.20 per ERU in the Oakley area. The estimated level of effort and corresponding budget for Oakley’s first two years as a member of the Clean Water Program required that the rate per ERU be increased to $20.65. That rate allowed the City to achieve the minimum requirements of the 5-Year National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit that was in effect at that time. In FY 2003/04, anticipating a change in the permit requirements and an increased level of effort, the rate was raised to $25.00 per ERU.

In early 2004, the Countywide permits were amended to include new development and re-development requirements that were very stringent and time intensive. Since that time, the required monitoring, reporting, and administration efforts have become more burdensome and the permit fees charged by the Regional Water Quality Control Boardhave increased. The most recent permit, referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit,or MRP is even more restrictive. To cover these costs, the rate was raised to $28.00 per ERU in FY 2004/05; and to the maximum rate of $30.00 in FY 2005/06. When the Stormwater Utility Areas were established by the legislation, maximum rates were

21

established for each participating agency. Oakley’s maximum rate is $30.00 per ERU and can only be increased by a vote pursuant to Proposition 218. This results in a total budget estimate for FY 2019/20 of approximately $526,000.

In FY 2004/05, the City added a part-time Stormwater Coordinator to manage the program. In 2011, the duties of the Stormwater Coordinator were shifted to the incumbent Senior Engineer who still handles them with assistance from a consultant. This operation plan is proposed to remain unchanged for FY 2019/20.

The core activities of the program include drainage facility maintenance, street sweeping, and monitoring and reporting on the stormwater components of the City’s new development, industrial and commercial inspection, municipal maintenance, public education, and illicit discharge activities. The City is also continuing to implement the new permit provisions by tracking and monitoring all stormwater control features associated with new development and conducting public outreach activities that complement the countywide effort through presentations to the local schools and other mediums such as the Oakleaf Newsletter and during our annual Public Works event. The City pays nearly $75,000 to the Countywide program annually for their activities, which include extensive public education, coordination of the annual report, representation to the regional boards and other stakeholder groups, negotiation of permit requirements, and other administrative activities. Oakley’s Stormwater Coordinator sits on the management committee that establishes the Countywide program budget, and a concerted effort has been made to keep the costs to a minimum. Staff has prepared a draft line item budget for the City’s cleanwater activities that is attached to this report for reference, and will be included in the annual City FY 2019/20 budget process. The budget may be modified as part of the Citywide budget hearings and approval, but provides a logical nexus and justification for the proposed rate.

The agreement between the City and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) requires that the City determine the rate per ERU annually prior to May 1st. The District has requested that the City submit certified resolutions in April so that they can schedule the item for a specific Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors hearing.

Fiscal ImpactAdoption of the resolution will authorize the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to collect approximately $526,000.00 from the property tax rolls on Oakley’s behalf to fund program costs. Funds are disbursed from the District to the City as outlined in the Program agreement.

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution Establishing the Rate per Equivalent Runoff Unit for FY 2019/20 and Requesting the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Adopt an Annual Parcel Assessment for Drainage Maintenance and the NPDES Program.

22

Attachments1) Resolution for ERU Establishment2) Draft FY 2019/20 Budget

23

Resolution No. __-19 Page 1

RESOLUTION NO. __-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY ESTABLISHING THE RATE PER EQUIVALENT RUNOFF UNIT FOR FY 2019/20 AND REQUESTING THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO ADOPT AN ANNUAL PARCEL ASSESSMENT FOR DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE AND THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PROGRAM

WHEREAS, under Federal Water Pollution Control Act, prescribed discharges of stormwater require a permit from the appropriate California regional water quality board under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program; and

WHEREAS, the City of Oakley (City) did apply for, and did receive, anNPDES permit which requires the implementation of selected Best Management Practices to minimize or eliminate pollutants from entering storm waters; and

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to utilize funds received from its Stormwater Utility Area (SUA) for implementation of the NPDES program and drainage maintenance activities; and

WHEREAS, at the request of the City, the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District) has completed the process for formation of an SUA, including the adoption of the Stormwater Utility Assessment Drainage Ordinance No. 93-47; and

WHEREAS, The SUA and Program Group Costs Payment agreement between City and District requires that the City annually, by May 1st, determine the rate to be assessed to a single Equivalent Runoff Unit (ERU) for the forthcoming fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Oakley does determine that the rate to be assigned to a single ERU for FY 2019/20 shall be set at $30.00.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby request the District to adopt SUA levies based on said amount.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 23rd of April, 2019 by the following vote:

24

Resolution No. __-19 Page 2

AYES:NOES:ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:

_______________________ATTEST: Claire Alaura, Mayor

______Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date

25

Oakley Clean Water Program BudgetFiscal Year 2019/20

Task Number

Task Title FY 2019/20 Proposed

Description/Comments

1 New Development and Construction Controls 4,000.00$ Funds costs related to new development and construction activities

2 Public Education and Outreach 4,000.00$ Funds costs related to public education and outreach activities; includes newsletter publication

3 Municipal Maintenance 7,000.00$ Funds costs related to municipal maintenance activities4 Industrial and Commercial Inspections 5,000.00$ Funds costs related to the inspection of industrial and

commercial businesses for water quality compliance5 Illicit Discharge Control 5,000.00$ Funds costs related to identification and clean-up of illicit

discharges6 Monitoring 2,000.00$ No special water quality monitoring activities have been

identified at this time for this year.7 Special Studies 5,000.00$ No special studies other than those related to the anticipated

new permit have been identified at this time for this year.8 Watershed Management 5,000.00$ Anticipates a contribution to the watershed organization9 Permit Fees 15,000.00$ Annual RWQCB permit fees11 Agency Administration 3,000.00$ Costs for attending mandatory meetings and workshops and

program related conferences and training.12 Group Costs 75,000.00$ Oakley share of the overall CCWP costs including assessment

levying13 New Permit Implementation 6,000.00$ Special studies and consultant assistance related to new permit

requirements14 Street Sweeping 170,000.00$ Annual street sweeping contract15 Drainage Maintenance 70,000.00$ Funds eligible drainage maintenance activities such as catch

basin cleaning16 Total Staff Costs 75,000.00$ Staffing costs necessary to implement the goals of the

stormwater management plan.17 Overhead 75,000.00$ Offsets overhead costs to the PW&E Division

Total Project Costs 526,000.00$ Estimated FY 2019/20 ERU's 17,533.00Proposed FY 2019/20 Fee Rate 30.00$

26

STAFF REPORT

Approved and Forwarded to the City Council

DATE: May 23, 2019

TO: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager

FROM: Deborah Sultan, Finance Director

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Establishing a Master Fee Schedule and Updating Certain City Fees

Background Information and Analysis

The City's Strategic Plan includes a bi-annual review and update of the City’s Fees, consistent with the goal to ensure, with only a few exceptions, that fees for City services are sufficient to fully recover the cost of providing those services. A cost of service study was prepared in keeping with the strategic objective and goal. As part of the 2017/18 fiscal year audit, the auditors recommended that the City adopt a master fee schedule. The attached fee schedule is response to that recommendation.

Like prior studies, the fees are a result of the calculation of the cost of providing services offered by the Planning Division, the Public Works/Engineering Department, the Administrative divisions and departments and the Police Department. With few exceptions, new full cost recovery is recommended for fees the City charges and deposits collected for the listed services.

Legal RequirementsState law contains a number of provisions which affect a City’s establishing and updating City fees. They can be summarized generally as follows: a City may set fees to recover the full cost of providing services, but fees cannot be levied in excess of the cost of service or for general revenue purposes. A Cost of Service Study may be used as the basis to calculate and set fees to recover the full cost of providing services; and to make findings that the fees reflect a reasonable estimate of the cost of providing the applicable services.

As for the process of adopting fees, State law requires that changes to the City’s fees be presented to the City Council at a public hearing; and that there be two publications of the meeting notice, so that advance notice is provided to any party that requests to be notified of any proposed fee adjustments, and that the full package of the proposal is made available to the public no less than 10 days prior

27

to the Hearing. In addition, approved changes may take effect no less than 60 days after approval.

Staff has met the publishing and noticing requirements for the proposed changes herein, and Staff is recommending that any changes approved pursuant to this item become effective on July 1, 2019, which is 68 days from tonight.

Fiscal ImpactThe fiscal impact of the recommended action is not expected to be significant overall. The recommendations generally include minor increases and decreases to the existing fee levels.

Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution establishing the City’s Master Fee Schedule and incorporating the proposed changes in fees to become effective July 1, 2019.

Attachments1. Resolution2. Master Fee Schedule

28

RESOLUTION NO. __-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEYADOPTING A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Oakley has the authority to establish fees for City services and;

WHEREAS, the City finds it necessary to recover the costs of providing certain City services and said fees do not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the services for which fees are imposed; and

WHEREAS, the consolidation of all City fees will assist the public, as well as Citystaff in readily locating fees and to continue governmental transparency; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Master Fee Schedule will supersede any previously adopted or established fee for specified City services; and

WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule will be evaluated each year to ensure that services are provided while consideration is taken into account in regards to cost recover for services provided by the City; and

WHEREAS, public comment has been received on the compilation of existing fees into a Master Fee Schedule (Exhibit “A”) and proposed fee modifications contained within the Master Fee Schedule.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY DOES HEREBY FIND, PROCLAIM, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and the City Council so finds and determines

Section 2. That the fees shown in Exhibit “A” are hereby adopted and supersede any previously established fee for the identified City services.

Section 3. The fees shown in Exhibit “A” shall become effective July 1, 2019

The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Oakley held on the 23rd day of May 2019 and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

29

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:____________________________Claire Alaura, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________Libby Vreonis, CITY CLERK

30

MASTER FEE SCHEDULEEFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Passport Photos $15.00

Passport Execution Fee $35.00

Copying (8 ½ x 11) $.40 1st page$.25 thereafter

Copying (8 1/2 x 14) $.65 1st page$.50 thereafter

Copying (11 x 17 or color copies) $1.00 1st page$.75 thereafter

Promotional Materials Cost + 10%

Return check fee $25/$35 $25 for 1st returned check, $35 for

subsequent

Zoning / subdivision map Time & materials charge

General Plan Copy Time & materials charge

Subpoena Services $24 per hour plus $.10 per page

Subpoena Witness Fees $275 plus $.575 per mile travel

Research & information services Time & materials charge

Administrative hearing Time & materials charge

Administrative penalty citation $100 for 1st citation in one year, $200 and $500 for subsequent citations in one year

Copy of meeting on flash drive Varies, fee is cost of recording media only

31

Filing Fee for Notice of Intent to Circulate an Initiative Petition

$200 deposit. Deposit is refunded if, within one year of the date of filing the

notice of intent, the elections official certifies the sufficiency of the petition

Business License Annual License $100 plus $10 per full time equivalent

employee

Transfer of license or location $10Lost license/duplicate license $10*For businesses opening after the start of the fiscal year the annual license is pro-rated

by quarters

PLANNING DEPARTMENT SERVICES

Variances $2,900 DepositTime & materials charge

Conditional Use Permit

Zoning Administrator Fees for Conditional Use Permit or Variance

$3,500 DepositTime & materials charge

$649

Sign Permit Fees: Administrative Approval Planning Commission Approval

$81$406

Development Plans/Design Reviews:Zoning Administrator Review repaint/re-

façade $162 Zoning Administrator Review - All others $1,215

Planning Commission/City Council Review - Minor (ZA referrals, significant painting/facades) $2,400 Deposit

Time & materials charge

Planning Commission/City Council Review - Major (Tent. Map- Homes, New Commercial/Industrial Construction)

$4,000 DepositTime & materials charge

SUBDIVISIONS: Major subdivision $12,000 plus $100 per lot/unit

over 5032

Parcel Maps $5,500 Deposit Time & materials charge

Reversion to acreage $1,900 Deposit

Time & materials charge Condo conversion tentative map $7,000 plus $100 per lot/unit

Rezoning $6,500 DepositTime & materials charge

General and Specific PlansPreliminary Review “Merit” Review for Applicant

Completion of Review – In house completion

Completion of Review – Consultant

$2,000 DepositTime & materials charge

$10,000 Time & materials charge

Contract + 25%

Appeals:Applicant Appeal $1,500 Deposit

Time & Materials charge

Neighbor/Non Applicant Appeal $109

Administrative Permit Extension $162Public Hearing Permit Extension $1,000 Deposit

Time & Materials charge

Trees:Application to destroy, cut down or remove protected tree $450 per tree

Only charged if not part of a project

Appeal of decision to destroy, cut down or remove protected tree $140

Zoning Verification letter $50Additional HCP Application Review Fee (for applicable projects)

$700 DepositTime & materials charge

Geologic Review Contract + 25%

Gun ordinance annual license $219

Home Occupation Permit $109

33

Large Family Day Care $244

Mobile Vendor $129

Development Agreements: Preliminary Review (“Merit” Review for applicant $500 Completion of Review $3,000 Deposit

Time & materials charge

Construction and Debris Plan (Solid Waste Diversion $41

Residential Density Bonus Review $1,400 DepositTime & materials charge

PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING

Encroachment Permits:Small Encroachment Permits:Concrete Driveway/Pathway Addition (back of sidewalk)General Encroachment PermitTree RemovalDebris Box/Storage Container

Pool All Fees includes inspection + current USA fees

$387

$467$160$105$227

Large Encroachment Permits:Large Permit <= $10,000Large Permit > $10,000

Utility company or district project

$1,391Based on estimate, Time and

materials chargeTime & materials charge

No inspection notification for permitted work $455 + inspection feesMiscellaneous Road Permit Applications: House Move Review $613 House Move Inspection $230 Extra Legal Load $16

$16 set by State; or $100 per year + $100 security deposit

Road Closure Permit Ext/Mod (Major Utility Project)

$3,135

Temporary Road Closures, Construction, Special Events:34

Non-Profit applicant $57 All Others $799Subdivision Monument Checking1 - 2 Monuments3 - 5 Monuments6 - 9 Monuments10 or more new monuments

Error resolution / Discussion

$532$647$762

$877 plus $66 per monument over 10

$1,026Map CheckingFinal map Parcel MapBase map revisionCertificate of correction reviewAmended map revision

$6,500 + $34/lot$3,000 + $34/lot

$834 + county fee$1,500

$1,500 + $34/lotRoad Vacations: Map Exists No map exists

$2,302$2,302

Road Miscellaneous Road Name change – Public Road

Address Change/Private Road Name Change

$1,602 + $265 For 1 intersection + $64>1

$801

Public Improvement Plan ReviewPlan review $25,000 or less $25,000 - $50,000 $50,001 or more

Landscaping plan review (Parks Department)Commercial Site Plan ReviewC.3 Compliance ReviewBridges or major structures

$4,000 + 8% of improvements$6,000 + 6% of improvements$7,500 + 2% of improvements

over $50,000$2,000 + 2% of improvements$7,500 + 2% of improvements

$4,200$15,000 + 6% of improvements

Related Review:Drainage review (no improvement plans)Condition of approval compliance check (no improvement plans)Certificate of complianceLot line adjustment

$2,400$2,000

$2,800$3,900

Public Improvement Inspection$100,000 or less$100,001 or more

Commercial Site Plan InspectionBridges or major structuresLandscaping (Parks Department)

$6,000 + 6.5% of improvements$15,000 + 4.5% of

improvements over $100,000$6,500 + 2% of improvements

$14,000 + 7% of improvements$3,500 + 8% of improvements

35

Floodplain ManagementFlood zone determination – office review` $80/lot $402 max for adjacent lotsFlood zone determination - Field visit review $432 + $67/lot $734 max for

adjacent lotsFloodplain management compliance $48Floodplain permit application $2,000 depositFloodplain base map revision $56/lotFloodplain map amendments $2,000 deposit

Grading:Plan review:$100,000 or less

$100,001 or moreInspection:$100,000 or less$100,001 or moreStock Pile Permit

$3,000 + 3% of improvement value

$4,000 + 1% over $100,000

$5,000$6,000 + 1% over $100,000

$2,700

POLICE SERVICES

Abandoned Vehicle No chargeABC Permit $50Accident Report –property damage only $5Accident Report – Injury (1-20/20+ extensive $5Photos to CD $25Booking Fee $564Citation Sign Off/vehicle Inspection Resident Non-Resident

No Charge$39

Clearance Letters Resident Non-Resident

$12$25

Concealed Weapons Fee: Initial Fee (plus State fingerprinting Processing fee) Renewal (plus State processing fee)

$450 plus Current DOJ fees

$75 plus current DOJ feesCrime Reports $5DUI Emergency response recovery cost recovery

Actual cost for staff, equipment, lab work

False alarm response (more than 2 in 30 days $100Livescan applicant fingerprinting/Rolling Fee $21+ current DOJ fees

36

Gun Storage Services pursuant to Court orders

Administrative processing fee (per incident)

Storage Fee/month or fraction thereof per gun

$12

$5

Parties & nuisances – subsequent calls for service

Hourly charge

$415 minimum

Review of Local Criminal History $25

Rotational Tow Application Fee $350

Special event permit – No ABC liquor license letter required $411

Special event permit – non-profit with or without ABC letter $411

Second hand dealer/pawn shop $165 plus current DOJ fee

Solicitor/Peddler permit $245

Subpoena duces tecum (Per EC 1563)

Production of documents only

Appearance request (officer/records)

$24/hour + $.10 per page

$15

$275

Vehicle Abatement $492

Vehicle Repossession (VIN verification charge (individuals only) $15

Stored vehicle release –recovered stolen vehicle

Stored vehicle release

No charge

$100

SPECIAL PERMITS & LICENSES

Adult Business Permit $1,704

Massage Parlor Permit $1,196

Masseuse Permit $364

Bingo License New Renewal

$50$10

Public Dance License $406

37

Sound Amplification License $406

Taxicab Owner Permit $316

Taxicab Driver Permit $316

SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES

A. BUILDING FEES

Total Valuation Fee

$1.00 to $2,000.00 $69.25

$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.000

$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $391.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00

$50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00

$100,000.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00

$500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00

$1,000,001.00 and UP $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.65 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof

Other Inspections and Fees:

1. Inspections outside of normal business hours per hour

(minimum charge – two hours) $69.25

2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305.8 per hour $69.25

38

3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated per hour $69.25

4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans $78.50

5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both---Actual costs

6. Energy compliance fee: Equal to 25% of the Building fee applicable on all structures with heaters or any conditioned space

7. Access Compliance fees: Equal to 25% of the Building fee applicable on all buildings except residential use buildings with fewer than four (4) dwelling units.

BUILDING VALUATION DATA SUPPLEMENT

The work listed in this supplement shall be valued based on the gross square footage of the work, or where noted, as a lump sum. Where actual costs are higher, those costs shall be used for the valuation.

1. Residential addition $ 94.80 Sq. Ft.

2. Residential remodel (to existing floor area) By Value

3. Residential use conversion from garage By Value

4. Sun room with 60% glazing, cabanas, other similar structures if conditioned space and Integrated with main Structure

$18.65 Sq. Ft.

5. Patio cover By Value

6. Deck

With Cover

$13.56 Sq.Ft.

By Value

7. Retaining wall By Value

8. Freestanding fence By Value

10. Portable Doughboy Pools or Portable Spa

(Electrical only)

With Gazebo or Decking

$156.16

Includes Applicable City Fees

By Value

11. Remodel or tenant improvement work in commercial buildings

By Value

39

12. Re-roofing-Single Family or Duplex $178.80

Includes Applicable City Fees

Commercial Building Re-roof By Value

13. Pre Fabricated home on permanent foundation (Use minimum Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing Inspection Fees)

By Value

14. Moved building By Value

B. ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES

1. New dwelling 15% of the Building Permit Fee

2. Addition or alteration to dwelling unit

20% of the Building Permit Fees, $69.25minimum

3. New Commercial building 25% of the Building Permit Fee, $69.25 minimum

4. Shell building 25% of the Building Permit Fee, $69.25 minimum

5. Commercial alterations & tenant improvements

20% of the Building Permit Fee, $69.25 minimum

6. Electrical Permit $69.25 minimum. See * note.

*An electrical permit is required for all electrical work regulated by the Electrical Code. Fees for work not included in items 1-5 above shall be calculated using Building Fees and based on the contract amount of the electrical work. Where such electrical work is performed in conjunction with a building permit, the fee may be added to that permit, and a separate electrical permit is required.

C. MECHANICAL INSPECTION FEES

I .New dwelling 10% of the Building Permit Fee

2. Addition or alteration to dwelling unit

15% of the Building Permit Fee, $69.25 minimum

3. New commercial building 15% of the Building Permit Fee, $69.25 minimum

40

4. Shell building 15% of the Building Permit Fee, $69.25 minimum

5. Commercial alterations & tenant improvements

10% of the Building Permit Fee, $69.25 minimum

6. Mechanical Permit $69 25 minimum. See * note below

A mechanical permit is required for all mechanical work regulated by the Mechanical Code. Fees for work not included in Items 1-5 above shall be calculated using Building Fees and based on the contract amount of the mechanical work. Where such mechanical work is performed in conjunction a building permit, the fee may be added to that permit, and a separate mechanical permit is not required.

D. PLUMBING INSPECTION FEES

1. New dwelling 15% of the Building Permit Fee

2. Addition or alteration to dwelling unit

20% of the Building Permit Fee $69.25 minimum

3. New commercial building 20% of the Building Permit Fee $69.25minimum

4. Shell building 20% of Building Permit Fee, $69.25 minimum

5. Commercial alterations & Tenant Improvements

15% of the Building Permit Fee improvements $69.25 minimum

6. Plumbing Permit $69.25 minimum. See * note below

* A plumbing permit is required for all plumbing work regulated by the Plumbing Code. Fees for work not included in Items 1-5 above shall be calculated using Building Fees and based on the contract amount of the plumbing work Where such plumbing work is performed in conjunction a building permit, the fee may be added to that permit, and a separate plumbing permit is not required.

41

E. MISCELLANEOUS FEES

I.Re inspections. When return trips to the site by an inspector are necessary as specified below a re-inspection fee shall be charged in the amount of $69.25 per hour.

2.

Owner-requested inspection of an existing building. The fee shall be based on an hourly rate @ $69.25 per hour, with a 1 hour minimum. If overtime is required the rate shall be $207.75 per hour with a 1 hr minimum.

3.

Inspection for Change of Occupancy. The fee shall be based on an hourly rate @ $80.00 per hour with a 1 hour minimum

4.

Investigation of work without permit. When a Stop Work Notice is issued for work being performed without permits or performed beyond the scope of existing permits, a special investigation and inspection shall be made before permits may be issued for such work. An investigation fee shall be charged equal to two times the amount of all permits fees required by this ordinance, with a minimum of $125.00. The fee is additive to the permit fees. This provision shall not apply to emergency work when it can be proven to the satisfaction of Building Official that such work was urgently necessary, that it was not practical to obtain a permit before the work was commenced, and that a permit was applied for as soon as practical.

PERMIT PROCESSING AND ISSUANCE PROGRAM

A. Plan Review 65% of Building Permit Fee. Applicable when plans are required beyond a plot or site plan.

B. Permit Review and Processing

25% of Building Permit Fee. (Subsequent houses also). Applicable when review for compliance can be determined through a plot or site plan, or references to a master plan previously reviewed and approved by the department ($78.50 per hour minimum.

C. Additional Processing Applicable when additional plan review is required due to: 1) incomplete or unacceptable follow-through by applicant on deficiencies found in the initial plan review; 2) significant revisions submitted after plan review is well underway; or 3) revisions submitted during construction to reflect field changes. Gees for such reviews shall be at $78.50 per hour.

42

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM

A. Building Inspection1. Building Permit The Building Permit fee shall be as set forth

in the Fee Schedule (Table No. 1-A)

2. Energy Compliance 25% of Building Permit or processing fees. Applicable on all structures with heated or air conditioned space.

3. Accessibility 25% of Building Permit or processing fees. Applicable on all building permits except residential use buildings with fewer than 4 dwelling units.

B. State of California Earthquake Assessment Fee

Residential: .10 per each $1,000 building Valuation.Commercial: .21 per each $1,000 building Valuation.

F. ADMINISTRATION AND OVERHEAD COSTS; ACTUAL COSTS

1. City of Oakley administrative and overhead costs are equal to 27% of all Construction Permit Fees. The City's administrative and overhead costs shall be included in the total amount charged for all Building Inspection Department services in a manner prescribed by the Building Inspection Department.

2. Actual costs include the City's administrative and overhead costs.

Section 2: Valuation

The determination of value or valuation under any provisions of the City Building Code shall be made by the Building Official. The total valuation to be used with the Fee Schedule shall be determined using the Building Valuation Data contained in the Building Standards magazine, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California. The data in the March-April issue of each year shall be used for the ensuing fiscal year. Work not listed in the Building Valuation Data shall be valued per the Building Valuation Data Supplement.

The valuation to be used in computing Construction Permit Fees shall be the total valuation of all construction work for which the permit is issued, as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, beating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems, and any other permanently installed equipment.

43

For industrial facilities, the value of process equipment and heavy machinery supported by the structure or by its own foundation shall be included. Contractor overhead and profit shall be included.

The valuation of grading, retaining walls, paving and other site work, and any demolition work, shall be included unless such work was included in other permits issued by the Building Inspection Department.

The valuation data is used to establish consistent criteria for calculating permit fees, and the calculated total valuation does not necessarily reflect actual costs. The County Assessor does not rely on these costs, but performs independent assessments of the permitted work.

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

Residential Development Impact Fees:

Fee Type Single Family(per Unit)

Multi-Family(per Unit)

Secondary Dwelling Unit

Oakley Traffic $12,406.33 $7,568.12 $3,557.02RTDIM (Regional Traffic) (to be adjusted 1/1/2018) 18,871.85 11,584.70 5,444.81Park Acquisition 913.39 596.94 280.56Park Improvement 7,936.97 5,186.52 2,437.66Public Facilities 3,436.21 2,250.44 1,057.71East County Fire Protection District 749.00 468.00 219.96Total $44,313.75 $27,654.72 $12,997.72

Commercial Development Impact Fees:

Fee Type Commercial (per 1,000 sf)

Commercial Recreation(per 1,000 sf)

Business Park (per 1,000 sf)

Oakley Traffic $3,275.27 $4,391.69 $7,517.78RTDIM (Regional Traffic) (to be adjusted 1/1/2018) 1,848.30 1,848.30 1,605.90Park Acquisition 0 0 0Park Improvement 0 0 0Public Facilities 507.52 405.68 1,013.36Total $5,631.09 $6,645.67 $10,137.04

44

Other Development Impact Fees

Fee Type Light Industrial(per 1,000 sf)

Utility Energy(per 1,000 sf

Other (as noted)

Oakley Traffic $4,391.69 $4,391.69 $12,406.33 (per peak hour trip)

RTDIM (Regional Traffic) (to be adjusted 1/1/2018) 1,605.90 1,605.90

$22,203.83 (per peak hour trip)

Park Acquisition 0 0 0Park Improvement 0 0 0Public Facilities 430.72 430.72East Count Fire Protection District

$452.00 per mobile home

General Plan $300.00 per gross acre

South Oakley Infra Plan

$352.00 per gross acre

Additional fees may be required by outside agencies, such as sewer, water, school impact, and drainage fees. The following agencies may charge additional fee amounts. Some outside agency fees may be collected by the City and transferred to the applicable agency.

Ironhouse Sanitary District – sewer connection feesDiablo Water District – water connection feesContra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – drainage impact feesOakley Elementary Union School District- school impact fees for all parcels east of Empire Avenue.Liberty Union High School District – school impact fees for all parcels east of Empire Avenue.Antioch Unified School District – school impact fees for all parcels west of Empire AvenueContra Costa Environmental Health – information on wells and septic systems.

CODE ENFORCEMENT

Annual Rental Registration & Inspection fee Fee for property not inhabited by tenants or vacant and not listed for rent on January 1st of each calendar year will be prorated on a monthly basis

$108*

Re-Inspection Fee $112

45

Non Compliance for Failure to Register & Pay Fee/Code Enforcement Violations: First Citation $100 Second Citation $200 Third Citation $500

Administrative penalty citation for Building and Safety Codes First Citation Second Violation of the same ordinance within one year Each additional violation of the same year within one year of first

$130$700

$1,300

Rental Property Owners failing to register and pay the annual fee by January 31st of the calendar year or within 30 days of renting the property will be issued an Administrative Citation.

Administrative Citations are in addition to the Rental Registration and Inspection Fee and any other citations issued for Building and/or Code Enforcement violations.

PARKS & RECREATION

USER GROUPS Group 1: Oakley Resident and Oakley Based Non ProfitsGroup 2: Non-Resident and Non-Oakley Based Non ProfitsGroup 3: Community PartnerGroup 4: Private Business, Group or Organizations

PICNIC AREA AND SPORTS FIELDS FEES:Facilities Group1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4Sports Area $7- hour $17- hour * $40 - hourCreekside and Nunn Wilson Park Group Picnic Areas (up to 100 people

$100 - day $125 - day * $200 - day

Crockett and Summer Lake Park Group Picnic Areas (under 50 people)

$75 - day $100 - day * $150 - day

A $150 damage deposit is due at the time of application to reserve any park or sports area.

46

RECREATION CENTER FEES:Facilities Group1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4Oakley Recreation Building Studio 1 Only available for parties with 50 or less people Monday - Thursday

$55 $75 As outlined in individual agreements

$100

Recreation Center Great Room Add on Kitchen to full room rental or side A for $100

Mon -Thu $150

Friday –Sunday

$225

Mon – Thu $175

Friday –Sunday

$250

As outlined in individual agreements

Mon – Thu $225

Friday –Sunday

$300Recreation Center Side A or Side B Add on Kitchen to full room rental or side A for $100

Mon – Thu $75

Friday –Sunday

$115

Mon – Thu $100

Friday –Sunday

$135

As outlined in individual agreements

Mon – Thu $125

Friday –Sunday

$150Kitchen Available Mon – Friday on $50 per hour Recreation Center Deposit $250, insurance required on all rentals. *Large events

and events serving alcohol will require $500 deposit and security

CIVIC ENTER PARK STAGE & AMPITHEATERTemporary Use Permit $100 application fee + $500 deposit

Special Event/Road Closure Permit (if required)

$50 application fee*

Park Rental Fee $250 per day *Additional fees may apply based on the nature of your event

Recreation Class Cancellation Fee $38 maximum or class fee if cancelled within 2 weeks of the first class

47

STAFF REPORT

Approved and Forwarded to the City Council

DATE: April 23, 2019

TO: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager

FROM: Libby Vreonis, City Clerk

Cc: Troy Edgell, Code Enforcement Manager

SUBJECT: (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 26, 2019)

Review of Appeal of City Manager’s Decision Regarding Recording a Notice of Violation (462 Larchwood Place, Oakley, CA 94561, Contra Costa County APN 035-361-028)

Background and Analysis

Appellants are property owners of 462 Larchwood Place, Oakley, California. They submitted an appeal of the City Manager’s Decision Regarding Recording a Notice of Violation against their property in relation to a violation of Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.1.1802 regarding minimum setback for accessory structures. The appeal and related documentation were submitted to the Oakley City Council at its meeting held March 26, 2019. During that meeting, the City Council heard staff and appellants’ arguments, instructed the City Attorney to obtain a copy of the 1979 California Building Code and the County of Contra Costa Code that would have been applicable to setbacks at the time the carport structure was constructed, and to provide the information to appellants no later than two weeks before the City Council meeting to be held April 23, 2019, the date which the matter was continued.

On April 9, 2019, the City Attorney provided appellants a copy of Contra Costa County Ordinance 80-14, adopted January 15, 1980, in which the County adopted the 1979 Uniform Building Code (UBC), included as Attachment 1, and he provided appellants portions of the 1979 UBC identified by Code Enforcement and Building departments as relevant, included as Attachment 2. He informed appellants that he purchased a copy of the 1979 UBC and invited appellants to review a copy of the full 1979 UBC available in the City Clerk’s Office. He also informed appellants they may submit further comment to the City Council, including any portions of the UBC, and that the City will be proceeding with the continued hearing on their appeal at the City Council meeting on April 23, 2019.

48

Fiscal Impact

Cost of City staff time well exceeds the $100.00 administrative citation issued to appellants, including, but not limited to responding to the complaint, corresponding with appellants, reviewing responding documents presented by appellants, scheduling and rescheduling the appeal hearings, and attending appeal hearings. Appellants have the option to seek judicial review of the City Council’s decision in which the City could incur additional expense.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the City Council review the attachments requested in relation tothe City Manager’s Decision and either confirm or deny the Decision.

Attachments1. Contra Costa County Ordinance 80-14, adopted January 15, 19802. Portions of 1979 Uniform Building Code

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

STAFF REPORT

Approved and Forwarded to the City Council

Date: April 23, 2019

To: City Council

From: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager

Subject: Resolution Adopting the Policy Framework on Emerging Housing Legislation Recommended by the Contra Costa Public Managers’ Association.

Background and Analysis

The City Council is well aware of the CASA Compact which sets forth a number of policy proposals to help address the housing shortage in the Bay Area. Here is a link to the CASA website for more information: https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/casa-committee-house-bay-area. Many of the key components of the CASA Compact are finding their way into bills now being proposed and considered by the State Legislature.

The Contra Costa Public Managers’ Association has prepared a policy framework that sets forth some key guiding principles to help with any advocacy work related to the emerging housing legislation. Staff believes this is the most comprehensive, yet concise framework that has been prepared and would be a good guide for City of Oakley officials to speak on the topic and any related bills before the Legislature.

Fiscal ImpactNone to this action.

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolution adopting the policy framework.

Attachments1. Resolution2. Policy Framework recommended by the Contra Costa Public Managers’

Association3. Summary of CASA Compact and related proposed legislation4. Housing Policy Frequently Asked Questions

64

RESOLUTION NO._________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY ADOPTING THE POLICY FRAMEWORK ON EMERGING HOUSING LEGISLATION

RECOMMENDED BY THE CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC MANAGERS’ ASSOCIATION

WHEREAS, the CASA Compact is a plan developed by a number of interested individuals to help address the growing housing shortage within the Bay Area; and

WHEREAS, in response to the recommendations of the CASA Compact, dozens of housing-relating bills are being proposed during this current Legislative Session; and

WHEREAS, due to the rapid rate in which housing legislation is moving through the State legislative process, the City Council desires to adopt a policy framework as a basis for upcoming advocacy work; and

WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Public Managers’ Association has prepared a policy framework on the emerging housing legislation.

BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Oakley, California recognizes the need for increased housing opportunities and hereby adopts the policy framework recommended by the Contra Costa Public Manager’s Association, a true and exact copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

BE IT FURHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Oakley, authorizes the Mayor, City Councilmembers and the City Manager to conduct all appropriate forms of advocacy work regarding the emerging housing legislation within this adopted policy framework.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley at a meeting held on the 23rd of April, 2019 by the following vote:

AYES:NOES:ABSTENTION:ABSENT:

APPROVED:

__________________________Claire Alaura, Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________________Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date

65

CONTRA COSTA PMA MEMBERS

Antioch – R. Bernal Lafayette – N. Srivatsa (Acting CM) Pleasant Hill – J. Catalano/A. Murray

Brentwood – G. Vina Martinez – M. Sappal (ACM & PC) Richmond – C. Martinez/I. Perdomo

Clayton – G. Napper Moraga – C. Battenberg San Pablo – M. Rodriguez /R. Schwartz

Concord – V. Barone / K. Trepa Oakley – B. Montgomery San Ramon – J. Gorton

Danville – J. Calabrigo /T. Williams Orinda – S. Salomon Walnut Creek – D. Buckshi/F. Robustelli

El Cerrito – K. Pinkos/A. Orologas Pinole – M. Fitzer/H. De La Rosa

Hercules – D. Biggs Pittsburg – G. Evans

DATE: April 11, 2019 TO: Laura Hoffmeister, Conference Chair

Gary Pokorny, Executive Director Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference

FROM: Michelle Fitzer, Chair

Contra Costa Public Managers’ Association RE: Recommended Policy Framework on Emerging Housing Legislation ______________________________________________________________________________ The Contra Costa Public Managers’ Association (PMA) is an organization comprised of city managers representing the nineteen cities of Contra Costa County. The Contra Costa PMA works collaboratively to share information, discuss and find solutions on issues of regional significance. As an association of professionals who are committed to serving the public, the Contra Costa PMA has reviewed the CASA Compact and discussed the implications of legislation that has emerged out of that effort. Based on this analysis and given the rapid rate in which housing legislation is moving through the state legislative process, the PMA recommends that the Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference consider adopting the following housing policy framework as a basis for upcoming advocacy work. RECOMMENDATION Position Statement: Contra Costa cities recognize and fully endorse the need for increased housing opportunities - especially for people earning below the area median income. While we appreciate its intent, the CASA Compact is a high-level document with only limited detail. Small and medium sized cities, representing 66% of the Bay Area population, were not well represented in its creation. As such, the Contra Costa Mayors Conference wants to ensure that their member cities’ voices are heard as the details of legislation are being crafted and encourages MTC, ABAG and the State Legislature to collaborate with all cities on all housing legislation so

66

Recommended Contra Costa Housing Policy Framework Page 2

that we can collectively formulate feasible solutions to address the Bay Area’s housing needs. Therefore, it is the consensus of the Contra Costa Mayors Conference that: 1. We support removing barriers to planning complete communities and ensuring

that adequate resources are available for new infrastructure (roads, schools, parks, etc.) and municipal services (e.g., public safety) to serve our growing population.

2. We support regional solutions that take a balanced approach and consider the

needs of housing, transportation/transit, and jobs together (never one at the expense of the other). Building housing without adequate transportation or other infrastructure would exacerbate - not alleviate - the affordable housing crisis.

3. We support every city’s ability to establish tenant protections as they deem

appropriate for their residents. 4. We support incentives for the production of new accessory dwelling units (ADUs)

including (a) streamlining the entitlement process; (b) eliminating all fees - including pass-through fees charged by utilities and special districts; (c) developing standardized state-approved floorplans similar to Factory Built Home plans; and (d) counting ADUs - by right - as very low, low, or moderate units in the RHNA attainment reporting process.

5. We support maintaining local control of the entitlement process. We urge the

State to recognize that cities control only the entitlement process and have no ability to produce housing, which is a developer- and market-driven process. Therefore, cities should be measured by entitlements when calculating RHNA attainment and not be penalized for being unable to produce affordable housing.

6. We support legislation that will return e-commerce/internet sales tax revenue to

the point of sale – not the point of distribution as currently mandated – to provide cities that have a significant residential base with a commensurate fiscal stimulus for new housing.

7. We support additional transportation investments to expand the Bay Area transit

network to provide connections from job centers to existing as well as planned future housing.

8. We support Governor Newsom’s investments proposed in the state budget that

will benefit California cities including a substantial increase in state funding for affordable and workforce housing and to address the growing homelessness crisis in our state.

9. We support utilizing each county’s existing housing authority – which are more

familiar with needs of their subregion - to serve as the governance structure that 67

Recommended Contra Costa Housing Policy Framework Page 3

administers new affordable housing funds and monitor housing production rather than establishing yet another agency to take on that role housing.

10. We oppose top-down or one-size-fits-all approach to housing densities and land-

use decision-making. 11. We oppose any diversion of existing revenue sources from cities.

As a county, we are grateful for the State Legislature’s leadership on these difficult issues and look forward helping to ensure that new housing legislation is crafted in a manner that is compatible with - and supports the diversity of – all local communities.

68

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 1

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH RELATED LEGISLATION

(information current as of 3/12/2019; subject to change)

1. Just Cause Eviction Standards: Adopt a Bay Area-wide requirement that landlords must cite specific "just causes" (both fault and no-fault) for an eviction. Landlords are required to cover relocation assistance in all “no-fault” evictions. Exemptions would apply. Objective: Protect tenants from arbitrary evictions.

CONCERN STATUS: Low, there is a potentially significant unfunded mandate if cities are responsible for administering/enforcing measures.

CONCERNS

Disincentivizes property owners, who spend a large portion of total income on housing cost, from making housing available for rent on the open market if they are required to provide relocation assistance.

Monitor legislative progress of these elements. If efforts move forward, advocate for amendments that would allow:

Implementation to occur after new regional funding sources are available for administration.

Administrative responsibility to be assigned to an existing regional agency (no new regional bureaucracy).

Mediation to be required as a part of a person seeking their legal remedies for unfair eviction.

Provide exemptions for homeowners with ADUs and owner-occupied duplex and triplex units.

AB 1481 (Bonta) [spot bill] – Non-substantive amendments to existing provisions of state law relating to residential tenancy

(intro: 2/22/19).

69

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 2

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH RELATED LEGISLATION

(information current as of 3/12/2019; subject to change)

2. Rent Cap: Establish a Bay Area-wide emergency rent cap that limits annual rent increases to “reasonable” amount. For an emergency period (defined as 15 years), the annual cap would be no more than CPI+5%. Certain exemptions and banking provisions would apply. Objective: Decrease the number of households at risk of displacement and to prevent homelessness.

CONCERN STATUS: Low, this element has the potential to be

counterproductive to multi-family housing production (rent cap

disincentivize investment).

CONCERNS

Production of housing units because it limits a project’s potential return on a high-risk investment;

Maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock because property owners would be unable to recoup these investments.

Tenant turn-over, leading to a potential “mis-match” between tenants and rental units, which could lead to a decrease in available housing stock. Once a tenant has secured a rent-controlled apartment, s/he may not choose to move in the future and give up the rent-controlled unit, even if housing needs change. Research information source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/

Rent control was recently defeated at the ballot box.

Monitor legislative progress of these elements. If efforts move forward, advocate for amendments that would allow:

Uninhibited production of new rental units and incentives for existing rental units to stay rental and not be converted to for-sale units.

Ensure landlords have ability to cover all necessary maintenance and administrative costs.

Allow a reasonable time period for newly

constructed rental units not be subject to rent

cap and then it can apply.

AB 1482 (Chiu) [spot bill] – Non-substantive amendments to existing provisions of state law relating to tenant rights

(intro: 2/22/19).

AB 36 (Bloom) [spot bill] – Stabilize rental prices and increase availability of affordable rental units

(intro: 12/3/18).

70

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 3

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH RELATED LEGISLATION

(information current as of 3/12/2019; subject to change)

3. Rent Assistance and Free Legal Counsel: Provide access to free legal counsel and emergency rent assistance for tenants with an urgent, temporary financial gap. Funding, policies and guidelines to be determined (presumably by the new regional housing authority) at a later time. Objective: Ensure right to legal counsel; provide funding for emergency/temporary rent gap.

CONCERN STATUS: Low, there is a potentially significant unfunded mandate if cities are responsible for administering/enforcing measures.

CONCERNS

Presumes all tenants lack resources to legal counsel while all landlords do not. The inverse could be true and result in abuse of the system on the part of tenants seeking to thwart a lawful eviction.

Monitor legislative progress of these elements. If efforts move forward, advocate for amendments that would allow:

Implementation to occur after new regional funding sources are available for administration.

Administrative responsibility to be assigned to an existing regional agency (no new regional bureaucracy).

A “means test” (demonstration of need) to be required before receiving free legal assistance.

SB 18 (Skinner) [spot bill] – “Keep Californians Housed Act” (applicable statewide):

Extend provisions of state law to grant month-to-month tenants a 90-day notice prior to eviction

Require State HCD to post landlord/tenant guide

Appropriate funds from General Fund to State HCD to provide and administer statewide rental assistance grants

Establish the “Homelessness Prevention and Legal Aid Fund”

(intro: 12/3/18, amended: 3/4/19)

71

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 4

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH RELATED LEGISLATION

(information current as of 3/12/2019; subject to change)

4. Remove Regulatory Barriers to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Extend existing state law to allow ADUs on single family lots and multiple ADUs in existing multi-family buildings with ministerial approval. Forgives code violations in grandfatherd ADUs. Impact fees to be based on a square foot basis and only on net new living area >500 SF. Objective: Increase more affordable units, provide income source for cost-burdened homeowners.

CONCERN STATUS: Low, cities have generally supported the production of ADUs by making it simpler, faster and cheaper to build these units.

CONCERNS

This Element indicates a lack of understanding that cities serve as a collection point for many pass-through fees to other public agencies (such as utility connection and school district fees), which represent the majority of all fees imposed on an ADU. For example, in the San Ramon valley, these fees represent 79-percent of the fees incurred by a typical 742 SF ADU. Given their disproportionate percentage of the total fee amount, limitations and reduction should apply to ALL pass-through public agencies.

Removing energy efficiency requirements is contrary to established State Green House Gas (GHG) reduction goals.

Reducing fees across the board without an evaluation of the impacts to public services and infrastructure is contrary to the fiscal sustainability of each city.

Code violations should not be forgiven if they pose health and safety concerns.

Full support and expansion of this element by:

Extending the fee limitation/reduction to all pass-through fees (including utility connection fees and school district fees), provided that the fees remain proportionate to impacts generated.

Developing standardized ADU permit plans in a range of sizes, pre-approved at the State level, allowing for minimal local plan check requirements (reduced plan check time offsets fee limitations).

Allowing cities to count, by right, ADUs that are “affordable by design” in the RHNA process (examples: count ≤ 550 SF ADU as “Low” and 551-1,000 SF ADU as “Moderate” income units).

Advocate for standardized Building Codes for ADUs

Ensure existing structures are brought up to Code for legitimate Health and Safety reasons.

AB 68 (Ting) – Accessory Dwelling Units - Land Use Requirements (applicable statewide):

Reduces ministerial approvals from 120 to 60 days

Restricts ability to impose standards related to minimum lot size, floor area ratio (FAR), setbacks, replacement of off-street parking if garage is converted to ADU

Prohibits local regulations from restricting ADUs if they are ≥ 800 SF and ≥ 16-feet high

Clarifies definition of “owner occupant” and restricts frequency of occupancy monitoring

Requires cities without ADU ordinances to grant ministerial approval consistent with state law

(intro: 12/3/18)

AB 69 (Ting) – Accessory Dwelling Units – Small Home Building Standards (applicable statewide):

Require State HCD to propose small home building standards to the California Building Standards Commission governing ADUs and homes ≤ 800 SF

Authorizes State HCD to notify State Attorney General if an ordinance violates state law

(intro: 12/3/18)

SB 13 (Wieckowski) [spot bill] – Accessory Dwelling Units – Reduce Impact Fees

(intro: 12/3/18)

72

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 5

ATTACHMENT 1

5. Minimum Zoning Near Transit: Establish state-wide minimum zoning for housing on all residential, commercial and institutional zones to allow ‘missing middle’ housing product types to be:

Minimum 36-feet high within ½-mile of high quality bus service, defined as a bus stop with 15-min headways (weekday peak) and 30-min headways (weekend)

Minimum 55-feet high (75’ with density bonus) within ¼-mile of a major transit stop, defined as a rail station or a ferry terminal)

Housing Overlay on Low-Density Commercial Sites: Make housing an allowable use on large commercially-zoned parcels near job centers with high quality transit. Tenant Protections: Sites rezoned would be subject to tenant protections, demolition controls and “no net loss” provisions. Affordable Housing: Required at levels not less than state density bonus law. Projects with 10-20 units should have option to pay in-lieu fee as its affordable housing obligation. Sensitive Communities: receive an automatic 3-year deferral on implementation while the city develops a context-sensitive plan. Objective: Spur development near transit.

CONCERN STATUS: High, as it ignores community context with the potential for significant displacement and land speculation near transit.

CONCERNS: This is a one-size-fits-all approach that:

Ignores community context – creating potential land use incompatibility issues with tall developments immediately adjacent to low density areas or within historic districts/downtowns.

Generates impacts on local infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, schools, traffic) while fee limitations proposed in Element 6 limits ability to mitigate those impacts.

Creates land speculation around transit zones, driving up land costs and in turn causing housing development costs to rise.

Requiring minimum height does not create density, as it is possible to build a tall multi-story project with lower density luxury units.

Unaware of the fact that transit service is not static in suburban cities; tying housing requirements to transit routes which may be eliminated due to budget cuts (or lowering demand) is problematic as it introduces density to areas that may not have any transportation.

Unaware of the fact that some commercially zoned properties are purposely zoned as such to serve predominately residential areas; as a State Green House Gas (GHG) reduction goal to lower vehicles miles traveled (VMT).

Does not include frequency thresholds or minimum headways for rail station or ferry terminal definitions.

Creates housing near transit but is unclear about proximity to jobs.

Oppose unless amended as follows:

Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to develop context sensitive community plans that achieves the overall goal of providing affordable housing around transit and a balanced land use framework.

Focus requirement on density not on height (as the latter does not necessarily result in more units) and allow cities to retain design quality control to facilitate local acceptance.

Establish realistic frequency thresholds to be considered for rail stations, specifically ACE or Amtrak train lines, which have very limited infrequent service.

Apply density increase as a percentage of adjacent land uses (example: 50% increase in density or height) in acknowledgement that not all communities take the same form near transit lines (example: San Francisco vs the Pleasanton/Dublin Area).

Establish increases contingent upon funding a transit agency’s ability to maintain headways for a specified number of years.

Allow a time period for cities to incorporate these requirements into their General Plans and obtain local feedback.

Exempt historic districts/downtowns where high-density housing is not compatible with the historic context of the area.

Monitor any legislation regarding the definition and requirements on “low density” commercial areas.

Balanced Approach: Pursue and support policies that maintain the delicate balance of jobs, adequate affordable housing, and a robust transportation network to connect new housing to jobs and daily services. Actively discourage policies that favors one of these at the expense of the others.

SB 50 (Wiener) – “Equitable Communities Incentive” (applicable statewide):

Qualified “job-rich” and or “transit-rich” housing projects would receive waivers in from maximum density controls, parking requirements, and up to three additional incentives allowable under existing Density Bonus Law

Additional waivers for projects located within ½-mile or ½-mile radius of major transit stop

Defers these requirements for “sensitive communities” until January 1, 2025

(intro: 12/3/18)

73

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 6

ATTACHMENT 1

6. “Good Government” Reforms to Housing Approval Process: Focused on streamlining the permitting process and how residential impact fees are set and enforced.

Streamlining (zoning compliant projects <500 units): Includes “locking” rules, fees and historic status at the date of the “application completeness”; permits no more than 3 de novo hearings for each project.

Impact Fees: Impose a state standard for establishing and imposing impact fees using objective standards rather than current “reasonableness” test. Allow for fee deferral (pay some fees at a later point in the development process).

Inclusionary Zoning: Establish state law that precludes inclusionary programs from being ‘additive’ (density bonus, housing impact fees, local inclusionary requirements). Requires in-lieu fees to be an option for fulfilling inclusion (i.e., ability to ‘buy’ out of providing onsite affordable housing).

Downzoning and Moratoria: State to set criteria for when these can be used locally.

Annual ‘Impositions’ Report: Recommends cities annually document any impositions (undefined) that would increase the hard cost (excludes labor and materials) of housing construction (such as fees and inclusionary zoning requirements.

Objective: Remove ‘regulatory uncertainty’ perceived to be a major cause of economically infeasible projects.

CONCERN STATUS: High. This has the potential to significantly reduce public input in the review process which may lead to distrust and community concern.

CONCERNS: This is a one-size-fits-all approach that:

Disincentivizes developers to collaborate on delivering projects that best meet community needs (such as mitigating traffic and infrastructure impacts, offering community amenities).

Significantly reduces the ability to provide public input and the ability to satisfy the public concerns. Reducing public interest may lead to distrust.

Potentially eliminates ability to negotiate community benefits (services and infrastructure to support those who would occupy the housing) as a part of the development process.

Sends a mixed message regarding inclusionary housing, which has been the greatest single contributor to affordable housing in the Contra Costa. Elements of the Compact require inclusionary housing, while this element alleviates the inclusionary requirement for developers.

As written, this Element severely limits a city’s ability to use good design and planning techniques to integrate new affordable housing into the fabric of a community, which will likely result in further community resistance to affordable housing development.

Oppose unless amended as follows:

Require an “expiration date” for all fees and regulations locked at application completeness to ensure they are applicable to viable projects. Eliminates abuse by developers who might “lock” a future application to avoid addressing future federal, state or local requirements that may surface.

Require a “reset” should substantive project changes be introduced during the course of the development review process to avoid potential abuse of the system.

Maintain clear and objective standards and controls, and support fee deferral programs that ensure context sensitivity.

Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to develop context sensitive community plans that achieves the overall goal of providing affordable housing around transit.

Monitor any legislation regarding the definition and requirements related to an “impositions report.”

AB 1483 (Grayson) – Transparency in fees and reporting requirements (applicable statewide):

Compile zoning and development standards and development fees imposed and post on website, submit to State HCD and metropolitan planning organization (such as MTC)

Annually submit list of all pending housing development projects to State HCD and metropolitan planning organization (such as MTC)

(intro: 2/22/19)

AB 1484 (Grayson) – Restrictions on changes in housing and development fees after project submittal (applicable statewide):

Prohibits cities from imposing a fee unless it is specifically listed on the website at the time of project submittal

Requires cities to provide the project applicant the web location which lists all fees applicable to the housing development

Prohibits cities from imposing, increasing or extending fees on a housing development project that is in excess of the list provided

(intro: 2/22/19)

SB 330 (Skinner) – “Housing Crisis Act of 2019” (applicable statewide): Among other things, this would prohibit cities and voter-approved initiatives from down-zoning land, imposing housing moratoriums, imposing costly design standards, establishing caps on discretionary approvals, and establishes maximum 3 de novo hearings on housing proposals.

(intro: 2/19/19)

74

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 7

ATTACHMENT 1

7. Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives: Another permit streamlining effort to accelerate approvals of zoning-compliant projects and enable on-site affordability with financial incentives. Streamlining: Applies to zoning compliant projects that restrict at least 20% of onsite housing units to middle-income households, defined as 80-150% of area median income (AMI). Projects granted a statutory CEQA exemption and limited discretionary review. Financial Incentives include 15-year property tax increment abatement, cap on impact fees, parking standards reduced to 50% of local requirement. Projects to pay prevailing wage. Sensitive Communities: receive an automatic 3-year deferral on implementation while the city develops a context-sensitive plan. Objective: Build more moderate income housing units.

CONCERN STATUS: High. Much of the Contra Costa has limited developable lands remaining. However, the remaining new and infill developments generate impacts that rely on fees to mitigate. There should be no net loss of local funding.

CONCERNS: This one-size-fits-all approach generates many of the same concerns as described in Element #6. Additionally:

Potential to reduce property tax allocations for each City.

Caps on impact fees to a “reasonable” level is currently undefined.

Further caps on impact fees would eliminate funding sources to provide services and infrastructure (example: school, transit, etc.).

Requirement to pay prevailing wage is inconsistent with the overall goal to lower housing construction costs.

Reducing tax allocations given to each city without an evaluation that the impacts generated continue to be covered is contrary to the fiscal sustainability of each city.

Oppose unless amended as follows:

There should be no net loss of local funding.

Require outside agencies to cap/reduce fees to stimulate affordable housing.

Require an “expiration date” for all fees and regulations locked at application completeness to ensure they are applicable to viable projects. Eliminates abuse by developers who might “lock” a future application to avoid addressing future federal, state or local requirements that may surface.

Require a “reset” should substantive project changes be introduced during the course of the development review process to avoid potential abuse of the system.

Implement and maintain clear and objective standards and controls to ensure context sensitivity.

Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to develop context sensitive community plans that achieves the overall goal of providing affordable housing around transit.

Consider middle income household definition of

80-120% of area median income, consistent with

local standards (instead of 80-150% of AMI), which

makes units more affordable.

50% parking reduction from local standards

should initially be applied only in transit rich areas

where residents actually have to option to use

frequent and high quality public transit.

Projects should be required to agree to a 30-50 year

inclusionary requirement to receive the

streamlining and financial incentives listed.

AB 1485 (Wicks/Quirk) [spot bill] – Housing development streamlining for zoning-compliant projects, financial incentives for onsite affordability and prevailing wages. Would allow “sensitive communities” to defer implementation.

(intro: 2/22/19)

AB 1706 (Qirk) [spot bill] – Affordable housing streamlining, tax incentives and other benefits to developers of qualified middle-income housing projects.

(intro: 2/22/19)

SB 6 (Beall/McGuire) [spot bill] – Requires State HCD to provide list of local lands suitable and available for residential development (to be identified by cities as a part of their Housing Element). Database to be searchable and publicly accessible.

(intro: 12/3/18)

75

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 8

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH RELATED LEGISLATION

(information current as of 3/12/2019; subject to change)

8. Unlock Public Lands for Affordable Housing: Promote use of “surplus” and “underutilized” public lands (undefined) for affordable housing through legislative and regulatory changes. This would also create a database listing all publicly owned land in the Bay Area, limit approval process to no more than two years, and deploy 10 percent of underutilized/surplus public land to affordable housing development on an annual basis. Element also calls for policies to help expand the housing construction labor pool, including requiring trained apprentices and prevailing wages. Exceptions would apply to temporary housing built to address an emergency. Objective: Encourage re-use of public land for mixed income/affordable housing units.

CONCERN STATUS: High. The Contra Costa has varying amounts of public land between cities. However, the remaining public lands should include context sensitive community plans for each city.

CONCERNS: This is a one-size-fits-all approach that:

Ignores community context – creating potential land use incompatibility issues with tall developments immediately adjacent to low density areas or within historic districts/downtowns.

Ignores the fact that not all public lands have the same value for affordable housing development, as some large tracts of public land are located at the urban fringe, away from transit and is inappropriate for housing development that leads to sprawl.

Ignores the fact that ability to deploy land is driven by market forces, which cities do not control.

Disregards the efforts underway by local communities to plan vacant lands around transit in a context-sensitive manner.

• Limits a city’s ability to use good design and planning

techniques to integrate new affordable housing into the fabric of a community, which will likely result in further community resistance to affordable housing development.

Lacks a definition for surplus and underutilized land and how this proposal relates to the exiting Surplus Land Act requirement to offer surplus land to affordable housing developers and other public agencies.

Support with amendments as follows:

Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to develop context sensitive community plans that achieves the overall goal of providing affordable housing around transit.

Provide clear and objective standards for the definition of “surplus land.”

Should prioritize land around existing or

approved transit stops

Require projects to be consistent with locally

adopted land use plans that are already in

place (e.g. specific plans) and consistent with

objective local standards.

Monitor any developing legislation regarding the definition of “surplus/underutilized” lands. As appropriate, advocate for amendments that would allow:

Cities to partner with the public entity which owns the surplus land to ensure projects are developed in a manner consistent with local plans and design standards.

AB 1486 (Ting) – Public surplus land for housing development, among other things:

Expands definitions of “local agency” to include sewer, water, utility, and local and regional park districts, joint powers authorities, successor agencies to former redevelopment agencies (RDAs), etc.;

Defines “surplus land” to mean land owned by any local agency that is not necessary for the agency’s government operations

Defines the term “dispose of” to includes sale, lease, transfer or other conveyance of interest in real property;

Notification requirements to include council of governments (e.g., Association of Bay Area Governments or ABAG);

Limits negotiations on sales price and lease terms, including the amount and timing of payments

(intro: 2/22/19)

76

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 9

ATTACHMENT 1

9. Funding and Financing the CASA Compact: Raise $1.5 billion new revenue annually from broad range of sources including (but not limited to) property taxes, ¼-cent sales tax, head tax, and General Obligation Bonds (reissued every 5 years). Of the total $1.5 billion, $300 million would come from local communities (former RDA set aside and future tax increment). New revenue allocation formula:

- Up to 10% for local jurisdiction incentives - Remainder to tenant protection, preservation,

housing subsidies New revenue distribution formula:

- 75% to county of origin (“return to source”) - 25% to regional program (“revenue sharing”) Revenue collection and disbursement would be managed by a new regional housing authority (described in Element 10).

Objective: Fund elements of the Compact that requires public subsidy (e.g., rental assistance, free legal counsel, financial incentives, etc.).

CONCERN STATUS: High. Though not included in the Compact, the Governor has already suggested withholding SB1 funds from cities that do not meet their RHNA assignment. Most cities do not meet the RHNA assignment for at least low and very low units, mostly because such affordability requires significant local subsidies to even get built – the private market simply won’t build these units on its own.

CONCERNS

No “return to source” formula at the city-level, resulting in a greater perception of some communities being “donor communities” without having resources to meet its assigned housing obligation.

Vacant property tax could be punitive to small property owners, particularly if vacancy is beyond their control. Potential unfunded mandate if responsibility for enforcement falls upon local cities.

Commercial fees/taxes may be counterproductive if it drives employers out of the region and suppresses business retention.

The property tax “set aside” is punitive to those cities whose tax base is largely from property taxes.

Wide range of new taxes and fees may limit a city’s taxing capacity (limit its voters’ appetite to pass local funding measures).

Oppose unless amended to eliminate any reduction in current property tax or transportation funding to cities and amended as follows:

Defined return-to-source funding formula at a city level.

Regional “fair share” housing assignment (RHNA process) is correlated to level of funding received (i.e., the less regional funding a city receives, the lower the regional housing assignment) (e.g., we do not want to be donor cities).

Support for the following funding sources:

Statewide voter-approved sales tax or General Obligation bonds for affordable housing to pay for housing initiative.

AB 1487 (Chiu) – Changes to Housing Element Law (non-substantive)

(intro: 2/22/19)

AB 10 (Chiu) – Expands state’s Low Income Tax Credit Program by $500 million per year, up from $94 million, for farmworker housing projects.

(intro: 12/3/18)

AB 11 (Chiu) – “Community Redevelopment Law of 2019” would authorize a city, county (or a combination) to form an affordable housing and infrastructure agency; use tax increment financing to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects.

(intro: 12/3/18)

SB 5 (Beall/McGuire):

Authorizes cities to use ERAF funds for affordable housing or community improvement purposes;

Establishes the “Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program”

Authorizes cities, JPAs, infrastructure financing districts, affordable housing authorities (etc) to apply for program funding

(intro: 12/3/18)

ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) - Local government financing for affordable housing and public infrastructure:

Creating additional exception to the 1% limit on the ad valorem tax rate on real property

Reduces the voter threshold to 55% for local bonds for affordable housing or public infrastructure

(intro: 12/3/18)

77

Contra Costa County Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (April 2019) Page 10

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH RELATED LEGISLATION

(information current as of 3/12/2019; subject to change)

10. Regional Housing Enterprise (RHE): Establishes a new independent regional housing agency – formed through state legislation - to implement the Compact. It would have the authority to collect and distribute revenue, issue debt, buy/lease/hold land, and track/report on local progress. No regulatory or enforcement powers. Composition: independent board with representation from MTC, ABAG, and stakeholder groups that created the Compact.

Objective: Administers the Compact.

CONCERN STATUS: High. The Contra Costa Working Group does not support creating an unrepresentative layer of oversight.

CONCERNS

Creating an entity that is not comprised of elected officials does not allow it to be accountable to the voters or local needs, and appears to be structured to exclude local government input.

Creating a regional entity introduces another bureaucracy with its own unique set of requirements takes staff time away from facilitating housing production and committing it to report production (in addition to the ones filed with State HCD and Department of Finance).

Creates taxation without representation.

Existing agencies that could do the same functions, with

additional funding, are not being considered instead of a

new public agency.

Oppose because it is not representative of each city and includes taxation without representation.

SB 5 (Beall/McGuire) – Establishes the “Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee” to administer “Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program”

78

Housing and Policy Framework

Frequently Asked Questions

79

1

HOUSING PAPER AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How is Affordable Housing Developed

1. What is a Housing Element, who approves it and when does it get updated?

The Housing Element is one of nine mandated elements in a city’s General Plan and implements the declaration of State law that “the availability of housing is a matter of vital statewide importance and the attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for all Californians is a priority of the highest order” (Gov. § Code 65580) Among other things, a Housing Element allows each community to take a local approach to identifying “how” and “where” their fair share of the region’s housing needs should be accommodated. A community’s Housing Element must be updated every eight years to demonstrate that an adequate amount of land (called “opportunity sites”) is available to accommodate its fair share housing assignment. The current Housing Element planning period is from 2015 to 2023. During the next update to the Housing Element, each city will likely need to identify new “opportunity sites” to meet future housing assignments. This update could begin in 2021 or 2022, and will require review and approval by each city’s elected council through a public hearing process that allows for community input.

2. What is a community’s “fair share” housing assignment and how is it calculated?

All California cities and counties are required to accommodate their “fair share” of its region’s housing needs through a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process. The “RHNA assignment” is comprised of four income categories: very low; low; moderate; and above moderate-income housing units. At the state level, based on population projections, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines each region’s share of the state’s housing need. In turn, each region’s council of governments (COG) allocates the regional share among its member cities and counties. The San Francisco Bay Area region’s COG is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Each city or county must demonstrate how they can accommodate their fair share RHNA assignment in its Housing Element. RHNA assignments are made approximately every eight years and are based on a formula that factors in the size of the community, its potential for housing and job growth, infrastructure and environmental constraints, and availability of public transit.

The RHNA process is not new and has been in effect since the early 1980s.

80

2

3. What is the relationship between multi-family housing and “affordable/low income” housing? Will these sites be developed with low income housing?

The RNHA process attempts to encourage development of housing at all income levels, with a focus on affordable housing. There is a presumed correlation between density (i.e. the number of housing units per acre) and affordability (i.e., housing built to higher densities is affordable to a greater segment of the population). However, it should be noted that RHNA process does not establish rental rates or sales prices. Ultimately, the type of housing built on these sites will depend on the housing market and local economy.

4. What is affordable or below market rate housing; and what are the definitions of very

low, low, moderate and above moderate income? This is housing that is offered at a price lower than the market rate. This is usually possible because of government subsidies and other programs that help lower the price or rent of housing. Affordable housing is usually limited to individuals and families that fit into a specific income category (ranging anywhere from less than 30% of area median income to 120% of area median income). Below is an example of the maximum income limits that were used by all Contra Costa County cities in 2018 for a family of four to qualify to buy an affordable home: [

Very Low: 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) or $58,100

Low: 80% of AMI or $89,600

Moderate: 120% of AMI or $125,300

Above Moderate: Anything above 120% AMI

5. Does the State require cities and counties to produce housing units? Under current State law, a jurisdiction is not required to build these housing units. Rather, it is required to ensure that there are lands available (called “opportunity sites”) that have the appropriate General Plan and Zoning designation to accommodate these housing units under market-driven conditions.

6. Where will this housing be located and does all affordable housing have to be higher density rental housing? Currently, the location of the housing is at the community’s discretion, but some of the current and pending state laws aim to facilitate higher density housing near fixed rail stations (e.g. BART and ACE Stations), high frequency bus routes, or in “jobs rich” areas. The density of the housing can vary depending on its location and local land use policies. Affordable housing can be either for-sale or rental housing. It is the goal of local jurisdictions to meet state and regional mandates in a manner that is compatible with its community character.

81

3

7. What is the State doing about the housing shortage?

In 2017, as a response to the statewide housing shortfall, State legislators crafted 15 new housing bills known as the “2017 Housing Package.” Collectively, the focus of these bills has been focused largely on holding local governments accountable (increased reporting and monitoring), reducing public process (permit streamlining), and identifying new funding sources. Despite the outright objection of many communities, the bills became law in late 2017.

8. How do State housing laws affect cities?

Cities are required by State law to ensure that sufficient lands are available to accommodate their “fair share” of housing units. This means that there must be a sufficient amount of land that is designated for all housing types. As a part of the required Housing Element update, cities must determine whether enough land is available to accommodate its RHNA assignment. If not, then the city is required to designate new “opportunity sites” for this purpose – usually through amending the General Plan and Zoning designation to allow for multifamily housing development. Under current state law, cities are not required to build housing units. Housing construction is still driven by the private market. Instead, a city’s obligation is to allow these units to be built (through General Plan and Zoning designations). Generally, new housing projects are still required to go through local land use entitlement review and public hearings. New legislation, in some cases, proposes to streamline this review process.

9. What happens if a city doesn’t comply with State housing laws?

Non-compliance could have a number of immediate impacts. First, any RHNA assignment that is not accommodated in one housing cycle will likely be rolled over to the next, increasing the amount of units, and potential land a city is required to designate for multi-family housing during the next cycle. Second, a city would become vulnerable to lawsuits for non-compliance. Third, a city would risk loss of significant transportation funding and become ineligible for a number of state and federal grants. If sued for non-compliance, a city’s ability to regulate and influence the design and planning of future multifamily housing proposals could be compromised, further diminishing local decision making over what gets built in the future.

10. What is CASA and the CASA Compact?

In July 2017, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) convened the Committee to House the Bay Area,

82

4

also known as CASA. CASA was charged with developing a “bold plan” to tackle the Bay Area’s housing challenges. In December 2018, CASA released the “CASA Compact: A 15-Year Emergency Policy Package to Confront the Housing Crisis in the San Francisco Bay Area.” The CASA Compact (“Compact”) is a wide-ranging 10-point plan that sets out to achieve three overarching goals for the Bay Area:

Produce 35,000 housing units per year

Preserve 30,000 affordable units

Protect 300,000 lower-income households The Compact is comprised of 10 “elements” intended as a package of actions to be implemented in its entirety. These elements include tenant protections, housing production mandates, diversion of local community funds and new taxes, as well as the creation of a new regional authority to implement these ideas. Representatives on CASA include major employers (Google, Facebook, Genentech), for-profit and non-profit housing developers, housing advocates, charitable foundations and elected officials from large cities and counties. Details about the CASA Compact can be found at MTC’s website: https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/casa-committee-house-bay-area/about

11. How or why was CASA created and will it become State law?

CASA was created as a response to the statewide housing concerns, described in a report published in 2017 by the State of California titled, “California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities.” However, much of the CASA analysis and recommendations are focused on the San Francisco Bay Area. CASA is not an actual legislative bill. However, it is recommended to be used as the framework for another round of state legislation in 2019, aimed at further expanding housing mandates at the expense of local government control.

12. What are the Contra Costa Cities doing to influence pending state legislation? With over 100 housing bills likely to be introduced by State legislators in 2019, the Contra Costa Cities are working together on a proactive and nuanced approach to advocacy and engagement. In addition to educating the public and stakeholders on these issues, the Contra Costa Cities' goals are to influence the legislative process and create a shared Contra Costa position on key topics. The Contra Costa Cities have prepared a “Housing Paper and Policy Framework” which will guide our efforts. While this approach provides common areas of concern, each city continues to pursue their own individual areas of concern that are unique to their needs.

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

1

ORDINANCE NO._____________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY AMENDING SECTION 4.14.014 OF THE OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING FALSE ALARM FEES The City Council of the City of Oakley does ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 4.14.014 of the Oakley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.14.014 False Alarm Fee.

a. For every false alarm in excess of three during any 90 day period or eight during any 12 month period, the subscriber of the errant alarm shall pay a false alarm fee. The fee shall gradually increase for subsequent false alarms in excess of three.

b. The false alarm fees shall be at least $50, but shall be included with the City’s Master Fee Schedule and may be adjusted by the City Council by resolution. The City’s Master Fee Schedule is available through the City’s Finance Department.

c. For purposes of this section, all false alarms within a 24-hour period shall be deemed one false alarm. Section 2. Severability. In the event that any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined to be invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portions shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) finding. This ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), Review for Exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that this ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore it is not subject to CEQA. Section 4. Effective Date and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation, or by publishing a summary of the proposed ordinance, posting a certified copy of the proposed ordinance in the office of the City Clerk at least five

91

2

(5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the ordinance is to be adopted, and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, publishing a summary of the ordinance with the names of the Council Members voting for and against the ordinance. The foregoing ordinance was adopted with the reading waived at a regular meeting of the Oakley City Council on _______, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: APPROVED:

_________________ Claire Alaura, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date

92

STAFF REPORT

Approved and Forwarded to the City Council

DATE: April 23, 2019

TO: Bryan Montgomery, City Manager

FROM: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney

SUBJECT: Amendment to Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.12.04 Related to Exception of Hemp and CBD Products from Marijuana Ordinance

Background and Analysis

Chapter 4.12 of the Oakley Municipal Code prohibits certain commercial activities involving cannabis (which our ordinance refers to by the now less favored name, “marijuana”). Included within this prohibition is the sale or distribution of any type of cannabis product.

As presently drafted, the City’s Marijuana Ordinance includes hemp and hemp products within the definition of “marijuana,” which means hemp-derived products cannot be sold or distributed within city limits. Like marijuana, hemp is a form of cannabis. Unlike marijuana plans, however, hemp plants product only trace amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, or “THC,” the chemical that creates a high when smoked or ingested.

Common products currently being marketed are cannabidiol, or “CBD,” products, which can be made from either marijuana or hemp plants. CBD products have extremely low amounts of THC, and do not produce any high when ingested. CBD oils and products are touted to have numerous medical benefits, but it does not appear than these claimed benefits have been accepted in the medical community.

City Staff has consistently cited parties and persons who have distributed or sold hemp-based City products within the city. In one case, an appeal by the recipient of such a citation lost an appeal before a City hearing officer. Absent a change to the City Marijuana Ordinance, staff intends to continue citing individuals for selling or distributing hemp-based CBD products.

In light of requests that the Council consider a change to the Marijuana Ordinance, this Office has drafted an ordinance that would exempt hemp and hemp-derived CBD products from that ordinance. (CBD products created from marijuana plants would still

93

be subject to the Ordinance’s prohibitions). This draft ordinance is presented to allow the Council to exempt such products if that is its pleasure.

Fiscal Impact

None.

Staff Recommendation

Should the City Council wish to exempt hemp and CBD products from the City’s Marijuana Ordinance, it should waive the reading of the ordinance, introduce the ordinance for first reading, and direct staff to place the ordinance on the next regular meeting agenda of the City Council for final reading and adoption.

If the Council does not wish to authorize the proposed exemptions, it should decline to introduce the ordinance. If the Council chooses this action, Staff will continue to cite individuals and entities who sell or distribute hemp and CBD products within city limits.

Staff is concerned that it lacks the ability in the field to distinguish hemp-based products from those made from marijuana plants. To partially address that concern, I have proposed optional language the Council can add to paragraph (a) of revised section 4.12.04 of the City Code. This optional language would allow only hemp or CBD products that are not eaten, ingested, or smoked. In other words, this option would only allow CBD products that are applied topically, or to the skin, or otherwise in a manner than cannot be consumed internally.

Even with this optional language, Staff remains concerned that it will not be able to properly distinguish hemp and CBD products from cannabis products in its enforcement activities.

Attachments1. Ordinance

94

Page 1 of 3

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY AMENDING CHAPTER 4.12 RELATED TO EXEMPTION OF HEMP AND CBD PRODUCTS

FROM MARIJUANA ORDINANCE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, Oakley Municipal Code section 4.12.104shall be amended to read as follows:

4.12.104 Definitions and Exceptions.

For purposes of this chapter:

a. "Marijuana" refers to any type of Cannabis plant, including Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and any hybrids of different types of Cannabis plants. For the purpose of this Code, hemp and CBD products made from hemp are not considered to be marijuana.

[Insert optional language to the end of the second sentence: “… provided the hemp or CBD products are not made to be consumed orally or smoked.”

b. “Hemp” refers to the industrial non-drug variant (containing less than .3% Tetrahydrocannabinol, or “THC”) that is cultivated for its fiber, hurd, and seeds.

c. “CBD” refers to Cannabidiol that is a chemical compound that comes from the hemp plant.

d. "Marijuana dispensary" means any facility or location, whether fixed or mobile, where marijuana is provided, sold, made available or otherwise distributed for any purpose, whether medical or non-medical.

e. "Marijuana dispensary" shall not include the following uses; provided, that the location of such uses is otherwise regulated by applicable law, and further provided any such use complies strictly with applicable law, including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5:

1) A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

2) A healthcare facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

3) A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

4) A residential care facility for the elderly, licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

5) A residential hospice, or a home health agency, licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

95

Page 2 of 3

f. "Delivery" shall have the same definition as set forth in subdivision (m) of Business and Professions Code Section 19300.5.

g. "Transfer" shall mean to make available, sell, transmit, give, distribute, or otherwise provide.

SECTION 2. CEQA.

The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and it concerns continuing maintenance activities.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.

The City Council of the City of Oakley hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or word of this Ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this Ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid. If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one (or more) section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

SECTION 7. PUBLICATION.

The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Oakley.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Oakley held on the ____ day of __________________, 2019, and passed and adopted on that date, by the following roll call vote, and shall be and become effective immediately:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

96

Page 3 of 3

APPROVED:

____________________________________________

Claire Alaura, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________ _________________

Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date

97