TOWN OF MORAGA
REGULAR MEETING
February 9, 2022
Rovember, 191% MINUTES
6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
TELECONFERENCED MEETING LOCATION ONLY
*COVID-19 NOTICE*
THIS MEETING WAS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (AS AMENDED BY AB 361), WHICH AUTHORIZED
TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT, DURING CERTAIN PROCLAIMED STATES OF EMERGENCY. THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMED A STATE OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO COVID-19 ON MARCH 4, 2020.
THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING WAS NECESSARY SO THAT THE TOWN COULD
CONDUCT ESSENTIAL BUSINESS AND WAS PERMITTED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE SAFETY OF ATTENDEES.
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this meeting was held via teleconference only, and was not physically open to the public. Town Councilmembers and staff teleconferenced into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting was
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Renata Sos.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Mayor Renata sos, Vice Mayor Steve Woehleke, and Councilmembers Sona Makker, Mike McCluer and Teresa Onoda Councilmembers absent: None
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Onoda led the Pledge of Allegiance.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Sos reported the Town Council had held a Special Closed Session on February 2, 2022 which included a Conference with Legal Counsel on Existing Litigation, PWRP Moraga LP v. Stars folding Co. LLC and Conference with Legal Counsel on Existing Litigation, Lafayette Bollinger Development LLC et al v. Town of Moraga, with no report out for either iter
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
There were no proclamations or presentations.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Town Council Regular Meeting 1 February 9, 2022
Lynda Deschambault, Moraga, reported Contra Costa County Climate Leaders (4CL) was working with 20 other organizations in Contra Costa County to opt to Deep Green 100 percent renewable energy. She asked the Town Council to consider a future agenda item to opt in to Deep Green and consider codes to ban natural gas for all new development.
6. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Acceptance of Consent Items
Consent Agenda Item 6.3 was removed from the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Sos reported no comments had been received for this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Woehleke/Onoda) to adopt Consent Agenda Items 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5 and
6.6. Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
6.1 Receive Accounts Payable Claims for: 01/28/2022 Approved ($282,682.08)
6.2 Approve Minutes for the Town Council Regular Meeting on Approved October 27, 2021
6.3 Town Council Goals for 2022 Removed
Adopt by Motion the Moraga Town Council 2022 Goals and
Priorities
6.4 Continued Use of Teleconferenced Meetings Approved
Consider Resolution 11-2022 Approving the Continued Use of Teleconferenced Meetings of Town Council and all
Committee and Commissions Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361
6.5 Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (MELO) Approved Consider Waiving the Second Reading and Adopting Ordinance 298 Amending Title 8, Planning and Zoning, Establishing Chapter 8.178 - Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance n Order to Require Water Efficient Landscaping Design anc Irrigation Practices Consistent with the Requirements of the State of California. CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061[b][3] - General Rule Exemption
6.6 Applications for CalRecycle Payment Program Approved Consider Resolution 12-2022 Authorizing the Town
Manager and Identify Designees to Submit Applications for All B. Consideration of Consent Items Removed for Discussion Town Council Regular Meeting 2 February 9, 2022
1. Town Council Goals for 2022
Adopt by Motion the Moraga Town Council 2022 Goals and Priorities Councilmember McCluer explained that he had removed the item from the Consent Agenda specifically to recap the discussion for Goal 1, which currently reads: Efficiently sustain core operations and services of the Town, maintain fiscal discipline, and continue to position the Town for long-term fiscal sustainability and operational efficiency. During the January 26, 2022 Town Council meeting the goal had been presented and he had presented a new goal to be considered as an addition to Goal 1, although ultimately the Town Council had accepted the goal as presented by the Mayor and Vice Mayor. At this time, he requested that Goal 1 be modified to include the following statement:
Develop a Financial Plan to fund the unfunded needs of storm drains, required asset replacement, and unfunded pensions on an ongoing and sustainable basis.
Mayor Sos and Councilmember Onoda had opposed the additional modification to Goal 1, with the Mayor pointing out that Goal 1 had been thoroughly discussed at the January 26 meeting, a Financial Plan already existed in a number of places, the Town Council would be looking at funding on an ongoing basis, and the Town Council had decided not to include the language or a version of the language that had been previously presented by Councilmember McCluer.
Councilmember McCluer questioned whether the Town had a financial plan. He explained that while studies had been done and unfunded needs had been addressed two years ago, the Town Council did not know where the funding would come from on a sufficient and sustainable basis.
Mayor Sos reiterated the plan already existed and the premise that Councilmember McCluer provided may not be entirely accurate.
Councilmember Makker agreed the Town Council had thoroughly vetted Goal 1 at the last meeting and agreed the goal should remain as presented.
Vice Mayor Woehleke was comfortable leaving Goal 1 as written. He commented that long-term renewal of infrastructure was part of the normal budgeting process and while there was value in highlighting it and acknowledged it had been left out in the past, he suggested the message was there in the goal as stated.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Sos reported no comments had been received for this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Woehleke/Onoda) to adopt by Motion the Moraga Town Council 2022 Goals and Priorities, as shown in the February 9, 2022 staff report. Roll Call Vote: 4-1.
7. ADOPTION OF MEETING AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Sos reported no comments had been received for this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Town Council Regular Meeting 3 February 9, 2022
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/Woehleke) to adopt the Meeting Agenda, as shown. Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
8. REPORTS
A. Mayor's and Councilmembers' Reports
Mayor Sos - Stated she was pleased the Town had activated its social media presence and the housing survey had a high level of participation consistent with current Town Council Goal 11. She read into the record an e-mail she had received from a resident regarding the Mobile Moraga App and encouraged all residents to download the Mobile Moraga App on their phones given all the benefits it provided.
Vice Mayor Woehleke - No report
Councilmember McCluer - Reported he had attended the Audit and Finance (AFC) Committee meeting; Town Council Closed Session; Moraga Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting and briefed the Council on the discussions and the Chamber's efforts to survey Moraga businesses; the John Muir Land Trust (JMLT) Kick-Off webinar for the Harvey property; and had a conversation with the new General Manager of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA).
Councilmember Onoda - Reported she had attended the RecycleSmart meeting and briefed the Council on the discussions; JMLT Kick-Off webinar for the Harvey property; and briefed the Council on the work of the Art in Public Spaces Committee with a Poetry Reading planned for the Hacienda de las Flores in late April in partnership with Saint Mary's College (SMC). She also reported that on February 24 from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m., SMC had scheduled its opening for the SMC Museum with a celebration of African culture. She also read into the record information from RecycleSmart regarding the seismic shift to composting.
Councilmember Makker - Reported she had attended the Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency (LSBTA) meeting, briefed the Council on the discussions and reported on a new app which traced bus schedules and actual routes in real time; and had also attended a Closed Session of the Town Council.
B. Town Manager Update - Town Manager Cynthia Battenberg reported the State of California would be lifting indoor masking requirements on February 15, 2022, and the Board of Supervisors would align its policy with the State. She reported that the Town's Engineering and Planning Departments had been open by appointment only over the past weeks due to the Omicron variant but would reopen to the public on February 15. The Town Council meeting scheduled for February 23 would remain virtual but she was in discussions with other City Managers and it was possible the Town Council could return to in-person meetings as early as March.
Ms. Battenberg also reported that COVID-19 testing had been available at the Moraga Library on Mondays from 8:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. by appointment only, with Thursdays having been added also by appointment only.
The Moraga Housing Survey had been released with over 300 respondents to date and the survey would remain open until mid-March, was available in three languages, and information was posted on the Town website and social media.
Town Council Regular Meeting 4 February 9, 2022
Ms. Battenberg further reported the About Town newsletter had been updated and expanded, with the newsletter to be distributed each week with a focus on programs and events in the Town one week and a focus on Town Council actions and decisions the other week. The Town had also launched an Instagram account and had activated its Facebook account with the intent to get more information out into the community. In addition, spring break camps had been scheduled for April foundon, a Summer Mantenance positin and an
February 14 for the Senior Accountant position. Lastly, Moraga Police Department Lieutenant Brian South had resigned, effective February 11. The Town Council would consider a proclamation recognizing Lieutenant South's 20 years of service during the Town Council meeting on March 9, 2022.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ACTION
A. Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area
Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff on General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area
Mayor Sos clarified the Town Council was not being asked to take action at this time but to provide direction to staff regarding the zoning of the Bollinger Canyon Study Area and General Plan Amendment (GPA) and the rezoning and was not considering the approval or denial of a specific development proposal.
Planning Director Afshan Hamid introduced Public Works Director/Town Engineer Shawn Knapp, Police Chief Jon King, Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) Chief Dave Winnacker, Assistant Town Attorney Karen Murphy, Town Manager Battenberg, herself, Barry Miller with Barry Miller Consulting and Aaron Welch with Aaron Welch Planning.
Ms. Hamid reiterated the agenda item was a study session to discuss and provide direction to staff on a GPA and rezoning of the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area. A PowerPoint presentation was provided and included an overview of the Bollinger Canyon Study area and the Town's efforts for the Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative which included the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, rezoning of key parcels, focused General Plan Update, Bollinger Canyon Rezoning, and Program Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Ms. Hamid reported that a Notice of Preparation meeting would be held on February 17, 2022 via Zoom and the public was welcome to attend and provide comments.
Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting, continued the PowerPoint presentation and identified the Bollinger Canyon Study Area and surrounding areas and uses which consisted of 423 acres, 20 parcels and 13 property owners. The historic context and the prior County zoning for the Bollinger canvon study Area.
unincorporated Contra Costa County were all identified.
The Town Council 2022 Goals were detailed with the rezoning of the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area having been a Town Council Goal for the past few years.
Aaron Welch, Aaron Welch Planning, continued the PowerPoint presentation and identified the site characteristics of the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area with the property consisting of Town Council Regular Meeting 5 February 9, 2022
steep slopes, sensitive natural resources, outstanding visual and aesthetic value, High Fire Hazard levels, access and infrastructure constraints and potential connectivity to regional trails and open spaces. The policy framework with guidance from the Moraga General Plan and the regional policy framework of Plan Bay Area were all highlighted.
The General Plan and Zoning Objectives included the identification of the zoning designations to replace the Study District, take a fresh look at the area, understand the site constraints, consider the rural character, focus on the General Plan and zoning and not a specific project, use of existing General Plan and zoning districts to the extent possible and avoid parcel-by-parcel zoning. The existing conditions, land use, parcel size, and ownership were all provided with a suggestion for three parcel groups.
An overview of the proposed composition of Parcel Groups 1 through 3 and the different General Plan and zoning approaches were also highlighted with all details having been outlined in depth in the staff report.
Different options had been considered and had been identified as Option A: Rural Residential, 5-Acre minimum (RR-02); Option B: Rural Residential, 10-acre minimum (RR-01); Option C: Non- MOSO Open Space (N-OS); and Option D: Residential, 1-DU/AC, with the details for each option and the staff rationale whether or not to consider either option outlined in the staff report.
Based on the proposed options, staff recommended Option A for Parcel Group 3 since it would be consistent with the majority of the zoning in the County and Lafayette, consistent with the Rural Residential minimum parcel size in many cities, reflected the actual parcel sizes in the County, provided transition from The Bluffs at 1-DUA to ranch land/regional park areas to the east and southeast, considered environmental constraints, limited access, natural resources, provided objective standards and provided opportunity for economic return for property owners.
For Parcel Group 1, staff recommended Option D: 1 dwelling unit per acre, and for Parcel Group 2, Option C: Non-MOSO Open space. A composite map with the surrounding area was displayed to show how the property may appear if Option A were to be considered.
To manage future land use, it was noted that the General Plan and zoning did not approve projects, they merely set the rules and standards future projects must follow. Future projects would be required to meet the Hillside and Ridgeline Ordinance, fire access, safety and building, emergency vehicle access (EVA), grading, traffic, circulation and safety, and utility requirements as well as all mitigation measures identified by a project specific environmental review.
Ms. Hamid provided an overview of the key issues raised during the neighborhood meeting held on January 25, 2022, which topics included evacuation capacity, fire hazards, traffic, road safety and need for infrastructure. The next steps for the project included a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Scoping Session for the Advanced Planning Initiative on February 17, 2022.
The Draft General Plan and Zoning proposal for Bollinger Canyon were scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission in May 2022. The Draft General Plan and Zoning proposal for Bollinger Canyon would then be considered by the Town Council in June 2022, and the release of the Draft EIR for the Advanced Planning Initiative was slated for the fall of 2022, along with adoption of the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments for the Advanced Planning Initiative by January 2023.
Ms. Hamid asked the Town Council to provide by motion, direction to staff on the General Plan designations and zoning as follows: Parcel Group 1: 1 dwelling unit per acre. Parcel Group 2:
Non-MOSO Open Space, and Parcel Group 3: Rural Residential, 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres.
Responding to the Council, staff, the consultants, and MOFD Fire Chief Winnacker clarified:
Town Council Regular Meeting 6 February 9, 2022
• Parcel 2 consisted of 136 acres, and Parcel 1 comprised 24.7 acres. • A Program level EIR would be prepared for the project and the EIR for the Advanced Planning Initiative would evaluate any impacts and provide mitigation and the process to be followed for future development. Most issues on a site-specific level would be addressed by a project level environmental review when a development was proposed. A project application would be reviewed by both the MOFD and Moraga Police Department. • The Bollinger Canyon Zoning Principles had been developed by staff and the consultants to guide the rezoning effort based on Best Practices and the Advanced Planning Initiative effort in terms of the desired outcomes of the process. • The next steps in the process were again detailed with each step to include public comment and other community engagement efforts, ie. surveys and workshops. The community engagement process thus far was detailed and the efforts to reach out on several platforms would continue. Meetings with property owners had also been provided. • The tools to manage future land use were reviewed and it was emphasized for any project, the other factors a project would have to meet would come into consideration at the project level. Natural features and access issues had been evaluated, which was the reason staff had proposed Option A for Parcel Group 3 as opposed to one-acre lot sizes or something more dense given constraints in the area, with a series of maps included in the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area White Paper, which had considered the natural constraints. • The MOFD would review both the project-specific EIR and the development application and provide input, and the project would be required to meet the requirements of the MOD Fire Code in addition to State fire and safety laws which applied related to Fire Hazard Severity Zones and other things related to the MOD's ability to provide for safety in the area. The MOFD did not include evaluation of evacuations which was a Moraga Police Department function. It was noted that CAL FIRE Maps were due to be updated and released soon and it was expected there would be a significant expansion of the areas considered Moderate, High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. • The Moraga Police Department would review any project to ensure the ability to evacuate the area in a timely and safe manner and would review constrictions related to roadway width and length, and the number of trips needed to evacuate people and vehicles and any impacts to the daily routine of Police Officers.
• As part of the Council direction, staff and the consultants would draft the standards and language, which were scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in May 2022 and the Town Council in June 2022.
• Parcel Groups 1 through 3 were again highlighted. As previously noted, Parcel Group 2 consisted of four parcels totaling 136 acres, all under one ownership. The properties were part of Harvey Ranch and were agricultural in use and the owner was currently working with the John Muir Land Trust (JMLT) to dedicate all four parcels as permanent open space, which effort was not seen for Parcel Group 1 and the consultant did not envision it would happen for Parcel Group 2. Parcel Group 2 also included steep slopes along Bollinger Canyon Road and was not consistent with Parcel Group 3. Parcel Group 3 was also adjacent to the 1-DUA along the entire eastern boundary and a portion of the Lafayette boundary.
• All public comments from the Neighborhood Meeting, including comments from the property owners in the Parcel Groups, had been provided to the Town Council.
Town Council Regular Meeting 7 February 9, 2022
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Suzanne Jones, representing Preserve Lamorinda Open Space (PLOS), stated PLOS supported the staff recommendations for rezoning Parcel Groups 1 and 2, but were concerned with the treatment proposed for Parcel Group 3. The staff recommendation for Parcel Group 3 included the creation of a completely new zoning district that would apply solely to four landowners in Moraga and raised issues of fairness and the potential appearance of spot zoning. Also, there was a lack of evidence to conclude that Parcel Group 3 could support 1 to 5 acres, and there had been no constraints or hazard analyses in the staff report to back that up. If the Town did not have the time or resources for such analyses now there was another option since the Town already had a zoning district created just for this type of area identified as Non-MOSO Open Space, which was already being recommended for Parcel Group 2.
Ms. Jones detailed why she believed applying Non-MOSO Open Space zoning uniformly to both Parcel Groups 2 and 3 because it would be fair, safer and simpler. She suggested that zoning designation would also give the Town the ability to make point-by-point findings as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to ensure that the densities allowed would protect the environment, follow the General Plan and not jeopardize public safety. It would also still allow for the five-acre density that staff had recommended but only if the density could be supported by the facts.
Further, the Non-MOSO Open Space Zoning District was already in the MMC and in the General Plan and the Town had decades of experience using it. There was no need to reinvent the wheel and the zoning designation did a better job protecting the Town's legal interests since it treated landowners more uniformly with a tried-and-true existing zoning district and eliminated claims of spot zoning and unfair treatment as well as reserved the planning discretion for the Town.
Retaining as much planning discretion as possible was more urgent than ever when considering that the State Legislature was continuing to weaken planning authority. She asked the Town Council to pursue this effort fairly, safely and simply and use the tools the Town already had for the best outcome for the community and consider the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation for Parcel Groups 2 and 3.
Emmet Ong, Moraga, reported he had provided written comments and he supported the comments offered by Ms. Jones as did many from The Bluffs neighborhood. Having reviewed the reports, he believed there was no evidence for the conclusion that Parcel Group 3 could be done in a safe manner even through a rezoning standpoint. He questioned how physical constraints and limited access had been considered since the property was locked and asked how the consultant had considered that which should be answered prior to the Town Council considering a zoning designation for Parcel Group 3. He asked that the Town Council instruct the consultants and Town staff to place into the public record exactly how they had considered the physical constraints and the limited access in reaching their conclusions.
Dave Trotter, Moraga, a resident of The Bluffs neighborhood, endorsed the comments offered by Ms. Jones. He suggested the designation of Non-MOSO Open Space should be applied to both Parcel Groups 2 and 3 since it maximized the Town's ability, did not create potentially troublesome expectations of development and densities that would be in existence with a 1- or 5-acre analyses and it made sense to zone the Harvey property as Non-MOSO Open Space given no guarantee a sale to JMLT would occur. He also suggested although the Town planned a scoping session in the next week on CEQA, there would be a Preferred Alternative that would be analyzed as part of this project. As a former Councilmember, he suggested the Town Council should be following the Preferred Alternative that had been laid out by the prior speakers and direct staff for the purposes of environmental study and moving forward to go with what the Town already had on the books, and which the Town had a track record of applying successfully and make Non-MOSO Open Space the zoning designation for Parcel Group 3. This zoning designation would get the Town Council Regular Meeting February 9, 2022
most scrutiny in a Program Level EIR and the Town had already done quite a bit of analytical work for the property as part of a prior project presented to the Town Council in 2018.
Lynda Deschambault, Moraga, Executive Director of 4CL, concurred with the previous speakers.
She read into the record the description of the property from the staff report, with the General Plan stating that the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation was the type of property being described pursuant to the factors previously described. She asked the Town Council to direct staff to place both Parcel Groups 2 and 3 into the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation.
Dave Bruzzone, Moraga, advised that his lawyers had submitted a letter to the Town Council which had provided a counterpart to some of the inaccuracies he believed were in the staff report and identified many of the recommendations as off-point. He suggested a detailed study should be done before the Town recommended any zoning designation. He thought his property was being treated differently and commented that 17 of the parcels had already been subdivided, contrary to what the General Plan stated. He urged the Town Council not to approve any development until a proper analysis had been done.
Mr. Bruzzone emphasized that rezoning the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area would impact the Bruzzone's solely and they had been put into a holding pattern for the past 40 years since they could not subdivide or improve the property until a proper analysis had been done. He noted the Bruzzone property was large enough to accommodate an environmentally-sensitive development that would be far denser than the five acres the Town had ordained to designate on the property whether through the Rural Residential or Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designations. If the Town were to incorrectly zone the property, it could at the onset make the Bruzzone property unviable for development.
Mr. Bruzzone asked the Town Council not to make a decision and designate any of the properties other than 2-DUA as other large properties in Moraga had been designated based on subsequent EIR's which had limited development in the appropriate areas.
The following e-mail was received after 5:00 p.m. and read into the record:
Laurie and Charlie Lucker, Dear Mayor and Council Members, We are also writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed rezoning for Bollinger Canyon, and echo our neighbors' concerns about the safety of our current Bluffs neighborhood should option A be adopted, and up to 52 additional homes be built in the study area. Safety of all Moraga residents and the community and should be your number one priority. Fire incidents are on the uprise in California, and it's a real concern for our area, especially with our egress and ingress restricted to Bollinger Canyon, (and St. Mary's Road!) Please decline to adopt any recommendation to rezone for new housing until the safety of our neighborhood has been evaluated. Thank-you.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Sos declared a recess at 8:12 p.m. The Town Council meeting reconvened at 8:18 p.m. with all Councilmembers, staff and consultants present via Zoom.
Vice Mayor Woehleke asked staff to clarify the differences between the designation of Non- MOSO Open Space and Option A.
Ms. Hamid stated that one of the benefits of Option A (Rural Residential, 5-acre minimum) for Parcel Group 3, was they would be able to provide more definition and staff would return to the Town Council with very clear zoning standards to help shape any future project. Non-MOSO Open Space was based on a CUP, which was broad, open and very subjective. Option A would be very objective, and the Town would have much more control.
Town Council Regular Meeting 9 February 9, 2022
Mr. Miller added the primary difference was that residential was conditionally permitted in MOSO and would be permitted by right in the Rural Residential zoning district. Beyond that, similar development standards and other aspects of the zoning district could be modeled after some of the elements of the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation.
Vice Mayor Woehleke reviewed his extensive preparations for the item. Based on the information provided, he found that staff's work had considered an appropriate range of alternatives. He recognized that the job of the Town Council was to represent all citizens of Moraga, and he detailed his background and reason for having run for Town Council in 2018 at which time he had visited almost all residences in the Town. At that time, residents had offered a range of issues as priorities and open space was important to all Moraga citizens, with few having identified themselves as open space crusaders. Most residents were aware that Moraga was surrounded by open space, much of which was protected already.
Vice Mayor Woehleke also referenced Measures J and K, which had been on the ballot in 2008 and which related to open space. Both initiatives lost and the defining reason was that Moraga residents did not want to pay for litigation unless necessary. Based on the information provided, he agreed with the staff assessment since it best represented Moraga's values and was supported by being most consistent with local precedence, i.e. the County, with the area adjacent part of the County. If moving forward with the Option A zoning designation, other factors would be taken into account, and they would end up with a variety of lots. He had concerns with spot zoning and one of the alternatives was to zone the Harvey Ranch property 1 to 5-DUA. While that may not have a wide range of support there would be consistency. Again, there was no guarantee that Harvey Ranch would be sold to the JMLT.
Vice Mayor Woehleke was also cognizant that prior to the Town's incorporation the property was zoned 2 to 3 per acre and could have been built that way with the center core of The Bluffs lot sizes really 2 to 3 per acre. Now they had different conditions, additional sensitivities and he was not proposing 2 to 3 per acre but it was not infeasible. He did wonder whether the value of information provided by a more specific detailed evaluation would provide better clarity on how to best move forward in this case but was uncertain the schedule and funding would allow that to occur, particularly given the unknowns with fire protection and egress that may have a greater impact on the viability of any development.
both Measures J and K and found that one of the reasons for incorporation of the Town was the zoning the Town was coming up with. Looking at the map shown as Figure 11 of the White Paper, it identified Valley Hill Drive where the creek traveled further north and from that point to the property line as flat land, the only flat land on the property with the exception of the tops of the ridges 15 to 20 acres out of 186 acres, and where a day camp was currently located with cows settling just above the creek in a somewhat flat area. The remainder of the area was very steep.
The Harvey Ranch property included some flat areas with more flat land on the Harvey Ranch parcel than on Parcel Group 3.
Councilmember Onoda found what had been defined as Non-MOSO Open Space added up to what the Harvey Ranch property and Parcel 3 should be zoned since they both met the definition of Non-MOSO Open Space, with low development capability and with the characterizing factors that had been previously identified. She noted a ridge on Parcel 3 was very visible from many different areas and from St. Mary's Road. She suggested it was good for the Town to have discretion and she would rather have that discretion for such parcels than not. She agreed it was not guaranteed the Harvey Ranch property would be sold to JMLT. She also opposed spot zoning which caused problems. She suggested they should have reasonable expectations for the landowners if they were to build and suggested 5-DUA was not a reasonable zoning designation for Parcel Group 3 for the reasons described. She suggested that Non-MOSO Open Space was the correct zoning for the properties.
Town Council Regular Meeting 10 February 9, 2022
Councilmember Makker found the staff presentation salient for the discussion of the Advanced Planning Initiative which staff pointed out would serve as a cohesive long-term framework for future growth and development in the Town intended to provide supportive housing goals, policies and quantitative objectives to meet the Town's future housing needs. The Town Council had previously agreed that zoning the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area was a goal and priority for the Advanced Planning Initiative.
Councilmember Makker commented that one of the parcels in Parcel Group 3 had been earlier identified by the Town Council as one that should receive a residential designation and to make that decision the Council had been provided a number of options. She commented that when she had been appointed to the Town Council, she had made a commitment to be thorough, objective and diligent in how she reached her decisions. She suggested she had done that and had reviewed the history of the property, maps, annotated maps, walked and seen the property for herself and had spoken to residents who had reached out to share their perspective, and had multiple discussions with staff and the Town Attorney to dig into the details of each of the proposed options and core planning concepts relevant in this matter.
Councilmember Makker found the two main options for Parcel Group 3 were Options A and C.
She had reviewed the options within the context of the Town Council goals to achieve the Advanced Planning Initiative, and while the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation was appealing, upon closer reading of the MMC and the General Plan there was also an argument that Non-MOSO Open Space was primarily an agricultural designation and did not allow residential development as a right. The Town Council had committed to exploring new designations for residential development, which Option A would provide.
Option A recommended a Rural Residential District to preserve the rural environment while allowing for property owner rights to develop within the defined development standards. It did not make any guarantees about future development, but it did facilitate residential development. In contrast, Option C, Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation would only allow residential development as a conditionally permitted use and she found that an agricultural designation made sense for Parcel 3, the character of the property lent itself to those uses, and it also as indicated by the surrounding homes lent itself to residential development. The Town Council had agreed to facilitate that, and a decision should be made to align with that goal. The site characteristics and the public safety concerns were also salient with comments and responses from members of the public who shared those concerns, and she emphasized those concerns should and would be considered at the stage of the development process where those factors would be heavily weighed and considered.
Councilmember Makker stated they were at the foundational stage of providing direction on residential development on the parcel while also not turning a blind eye to those concerns which would be on top of mind for everyone at such time as a project was brought to the Town Council.
She reiterated that Option A would offer a Rural Residential zoning designation which would oreserve the rural environment while allowing for property owner rights to develop within the defined development standards. She supported the staff and consultant recommendation for Parcel Group 3.
Councilmember McCluer expressed his appreciation to the consultant team for the objective information, good insights and opinions and Town staff for all their hard work. He too thanked those residents who allowed him to have views of the property from their residences and the property owner of the two largest parcels who had provided a past tour of the parcels. While he had not been through the Harvey Ranch property, he had driven past it. He noted the diverse denseness surrounding the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area which was key in determining the appropriate zoning and again identified the surrounding areas, uses and zoning designations.
He understood from a County Planner that the unincorporated County area was outside the Urban Town Council Regular Meeting 11 February 9, 2022
Limit Line (ULL) and therefore greater density was discouraged; however, the County was updating its General Plan and it was understood the property may be rezoned for five acres although no decisions had yet been made.
Councilmember McCluer was comfortable with that area being consistent with the other 5-acre zoning. As they transition from the 1-acre zoning of the semi-rural The Bluffs neighborhood to the west to a 5-acre agricultural zoning designation on the other side of the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area, he could see a transition from the Parcel Groups to 1-acre zoning moving to the 5-acre zoning in the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area as they moved west.
Councilmember McCluer suggested an extension of the 1-acre zoning from The Bluffs to the east was appropriate given similar topography and physical conditions and moving further east to the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area the topography and physical characteristics changed and were more challenging suggesting different densities. He agreed with the options offered for Parcel Groups 1 and 2.
Councilmember McCluer found that Parcel Group 3 was more challenging, and it was difficult to decide between Option A and the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation. He found that conditions such as access, hazards and the like required more review which may or may not reduce the maximum densities. He was willing to support Option A provided it would be reviewed against the General Plan policies including the Hillside and Ridgeline policies, access and fire hazards, reviewed and approved by the MOFD Fire Chief, and evacuation reviewed and approved by the Police Chief. He found that Option A would offer more clarity than the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation. He further suggested that clustering could be a good tool, but they had to be careful how it was used, which should be discussed further at a later date. Density transfers may be a possible solution to some of the issues raised but was at the option of the property owner subject to review and approval by the Town pursuant to the White Paper.
Mayor Sos also thanked staff and the consultants for all the hard work, analyses, and Best Practices. She thanked everyone for taking a large amalgam of information and reducing it to something that was understandable, digestible and able to be reviewed at this time. She also thanked the public for the engagement thus far including public comment, written comments, and participation in the community workshops.
Mayor Sos commented she too had reviewed all of the information including the discussions from the November 14, 2018 Town Council meeting, at which time the Town Council had considered a development application for the Bruzzone family portion of the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area. At the conclusion of that discussion, the Town Council had unanimously said no to the application but had also unanimously given staff direction to begin work on a residential density consistent with the General Plan. Also, as part of the Town Council Goals over the last several years, the Council had made rezoning the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area a priority.
Mayor Sos suggested the project was time sensitive, inextricably entwined with the other aspects of the Advanced Planning Initiative, they were working under state-imposed deadlines regarding the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) implementation and corresponding changes to the MMC and the General Plan, and were working under the watchful eye of the judge in the lawsuit related to the 2018 denial of the Bruzzone proposed project. Although the Town had prevailed in that litigation, the judge noted disapproval that the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area had remained a Study Area for over 40 years.
Mayor Sos again expressed her appreciation to Town staff and the consultants for providing understandable alternatives that could be considered. She liked the way the area had been separated into three parcel groups with Parcel Groups 1 and 2 fairly well settled. Parcel Group 3 was an open question and she appreciated the alternatives provided.
Town Council Regular Meeting 12 February 9, 2022
Mayor Sos found the starting point of the analyses was the General Plan, which called for a balanced approach under which this Town Council may ensure the protection of public health, safety and welfare and to further community goals while respecting the needs of individual property owners. Doing that balancing led her to conclude that Option A, Rural Residential, 5- acre minimum was the appropriate residential zoning designation under these circumstances. In reaching that conclusion, she too had looked hard whether the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation should apply but found it inappropriate in any circumstances for the reasons articulated in the staff report including that it was an Open Space designation and not a Residential development designation, and the only permitted use under that designation would be agricultural. While single-family homes may be allowed with a CUP, it was not a certainty.
Also, to zone the area as Non-MOSO Open Space arguably would not achieve the Town Council's goal originally articulated in 2018 of sensibly zoning the area for residential development consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the Non-MOSO Open Space zoning designation did not provide the clarity, consistency and the predictability that would promote a sound planning and development process.
Mayor Sos acknowledged the Rural Residential zoning designation would be new to Moraga and did not exist in the MMC, but suggested creating a new zoning designation for the area would be appropriate since the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area was special and unique and the Rural Residential designation acknowledged the character of the area and adjoining areas while also signaling that some residential development would be allowed so long as it was consistent with the General Plan and applicable laws such as the Fire Code, General Plan and Hillside and Ridgeline Ordinance.
Mayor Sos shared the fire safety and evacuation in the case of emergency concerns that had been raised by residents which challenges would be addressed, thoroughly and vigorously if there was an actual development proposal for property in the area. At that time, the Planning Commission and Town Council with input from the public would apply the operative Fire Code vit input from the pubi would . and the many laws and guidelines that would further the goals of protecting public safety and health and maintaining the semi-rural feel of the community.
Mayor Sos was in favor of directing staff to come back with a package that included the necessary code changes to effectuate the recommended zoning and the appropriate General Plan Amendments and also requested that staff lay the tracks in the General Plan and in the MMC for transfers of development rights out of this area into other areas of Town. She expected when staff and the consultants came back with a zoning package it would include a detailed analyses of how the zoning designations for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 conformed with the letter and spirit of the General Plan so that the Town Council could make the requisite foundational findings and that there would be recommended vigorous development standards that would be associated with the new zoning district, and in the spirit of not reinventing the wheel they could borrow Best Practices and provisions from existing zoning areas.
Based on the discussion, Mayor Sos confirmed there were four Councilmembers who were supportive of providing direction to staff consistent with the staff recommendation with some caveats for additional information consistent with the recommendations contained in the staff report and in the White Paper.
Ms. Battenberg asked for a motion from the Council providing direction to staff so it was clear.
ACTION: It was M/S (Sos/Woehleke) to direct staff to proceed with the development of Zoning Ordinance and associated General Plan Amendments that were consistent with the recommendations for Parcel Groups 1, 2 and 3 contained in the February 9, 2022 staff and Town Council Regular Meeting 13 February 9, 2022
consultant report, and incorporate and take into account Councilmembers' comments during the discussion portion of this proceeding. Roll Call Vote: 4-1. Noes: Onoda.
B. Fiscal Year 2021/22 Mid-Year Budget Review and Adjustments Review and Accept Fiscal Year 2021/22 Mid-Year Revenue and Expenditure Report and Consider Resolution 13-2022 Approving Mid-Year Adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget
Administrative Services Director Annie To reported the Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) had reviewed the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Mid-Year Budget and Adjustments and provided feedback and those comments had been incorporated into the staff report and the PowerPoint presentation on the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Mid-Year Budget Review and Adjustments which was provided at this time by both Ms. To and Ms. Battenberg.
The Town Council was asked to review and accept the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Mid-Year Budget and Expenditure Report and adopt a resolution approving Mid-Year Amendments to the FY 2021/22 Mid-Year Budget.
Ms. Battenberg advised the Town Council had been provided a redline version of the resolution contained in Attachment A to the staff report prior to the meeting to clarify the AFC had not made a recommendation but provided feedback on this item.
Responding to the Council, Ms. To and Ms. Battenberg clarified:
• There had been an adjustment in property taxes due to receipts exceeding what had been assumed in connection with the 2021/22 budget, but a similar adjustment had not been made in sales taxes. Town staff had consulted with the Town's sales tax consultant and no adjustment was needed because what had been budgeted was in line with the six- month collections. Budget adjustments were not typically made unless significant. The increase in property tax revenue had been significant enough to be brought to the attention of the Town Council.
• Adjustments in the Parks and Recreation Department expenditures and revenues were intended to provide the Town Council with the details of what was happening as a result of the contract with Wedgewood Weddings at the Hacienda de las Flores.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Sos reported there were no public comments for the item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Councilmember McCluer commented the contract with Wedgewood Weddings was a savings, although staff had suggested spending some of those savings which he understood would be discussed as part of the budget process. He noted the information provided had not shown the reasons why the actual results were $500,000 and $44,000 less than forecast creating an increase in the budget from 5.7 percent to 12.1 percent over the new actual. In his opinion, they should have started with what they had for the current year since they had some actual information and they should then do the forecast, which was the base. Then they could create a budget for the next year and identify goals and priorities, and while typically the forecast and actuals were very close but when the actuals were significantly different than forecast, in this case $544,000, it raised the question whether the budget should or should not be adjusted.
Councilmember McCluer stated if the Town Council had known in June what the actual was, which was actually spent, the increase being discussed would have been 12.1 percent or over $1 Town Council Regular Meeting 14 February 9, 2022
million, requiring an explanation and analysis. He recommended the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Mid- Year Budget Review and Adjustments be approved, as presented, except for an overall review of expenses and he asked staff to do a high-level analysis. He understood the staffing situation but suggested it was prudent to have additional information.
Ms. Battenberg explained that at the November 2021 Town Council meeting, the Council had been presented the results of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The ACFR indicated there were some expense savings which were in the Police Department as a result of vacancies, which vacancies resulted in the Police Chief and Lieutenant not only covering patrol shifts but working graveyard patrol shifts which were not savings that would be good practice to continue to budget for.
There were also savings in the Parks and Recreation Department due to COVID-19 since there were no classes, contractors had not been paid to provide those classes, and there was a net decrease in the revenue as well. The Town wanted to provide those programs and would continue to incur those costs and pay those contractors for their services. Savings had also been realized in the Storm Drain Maintenance Program, with some funding having been carried over from previous years and they were now budgeting those projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with a shift in how it was being handled and there was also $60,000 in street maintenance savings.
Ms. Battenberg did not recommend the Town increase its budget for any of those services since they were part of essential services provided to the community. Ms. To agreed with the Town Manager's recommendation.
Councilmember Onoda thanked Councilmember McCluer for his questions given his finance background and the Town Manager's in-depth knowledge of the Town's dollars. She also commended the new Administrative Services Director and appreciated all the comments.
ACTION: It was M/S (Sos/Onoda) to adopt Resolution 13-2022 Approving Mid-Year Adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget, subject to an amendment to the fifth whereas clause of Attachment A, Resolution 13-2022 Approving Mid-Year Amendments to the FY 2021-22 Budget, to read:
WHEREAS, the Town's Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) reviewed the FY 2021/22 mid- year revenues and expenditures at its meeting held on February 1, 2022, and provided input to the Town Council; and
Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
C. Joint Moraga-Lafayette Surface Seal Project
Consider Resolution 14-2022 Authorizing Implementation of Phase 2 of the 2021 Street Resurfacing Project (CIP 21-401) by Approving an Agreement with the City of Lafayette for the 2022 Joint Moraga-Lafayette Surface Seal Project; Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute the Agreement and Issue a Notice to Proceed if the Lowest Bid is Within 20% of the Town's Construction Budget of $345,000; and Authorizing the Town Engineer to Issue Contract Change Orders for up to 10% of the Contract Amount, as May Be Necessary
(CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt)
Public Works Director/Town Engineer Shawn Knapp presented the staff report and recommended the Town Council adopt the proposed Resolution.
Town Council Regular Meeting 15 February 9, 2022
Responding to the Council, Ms. Battenberg explained that the item normally would have been on the Consent Agenda, but that additional funding had been included in the Mid-Year Adjustments for the project to ensure the streets were all surface sealed and the item had to come after approval of the Mid-Year Adjustments.
Mr. Knapp added the Town's agreement would be with the City of Lafayette to list Moraga streets as part of the contract. Lafayette would be the contracting agency managing the contract with the construction firm and the Town would manage all inspections, internal management and Lafayette would provide the bid process. All three of the agencies involved in the project were working diligently to get the project out as soon as possible to maximize the opportunity to get the lowest prices. By combining projects, there would be economies of scale with more project streets and materials that contractors locally would be mobilized to do for one area further reducing costs.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Sos reported there were no public comments for the item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Councilmember McCluer thanked the Public Works Director/Town Engineer for the strategic approach to bringing the bid in early before prices increased and for the great example of shared services with the City of Lafayette to leverage purchasing power and watch costs.
ACTION: It was M/S (Woehleke/Sos) to adopt Resolution 14-2022 Authorizing Implementation of Phase 2 of the 2021 Street Resurfacing Project (CIP 21-401) by Approving an Agreement with the City of Lafayette for the 2022 Joint Moraga-Lafayette Surface Seal Project; Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute the Agreement and Issue a Notice to Proceed if the Lowest Bid is Within 20% of the Town's Construction Budget of $345,000; and Authorizing the Town Engineer to Issue Contract Change Orders for up to 10% of the Contract Amount, as May Be Necessary. (CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt) Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
Library Lease and Service Agreement
Consider Resolution 15-2022 Approving a Library Lease and Service Agreement with Contra Costa County to Operate the Moraga Library and Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute the Library Lease and Service Agreement Parks and Recreation Director Breyana Brandt presented the staff report and recommended the Town Council adopt the proposed Resolution.
Responding to the Council, Ms. Brandt clarified the fiscal impact as shown in the staff report and advised that the agreement had been reviewed by the Administrative Services Director and reviewed and signed off by the Town Attorney's office. The hours of operation for the Moraga Library had been identified in the staff report. Currently the County had no plans for Sunday hours of operation. The impetus was to standardize the hours of operation throughout the County and stabilize staffing schedules. She acknowledged there would be impacts on users absent the Sunday hours of operation.
Ms. Battenberg reported she had spoken to the County Library Director who indicated that all Sunday staffing in the past had been based on overtime staff, which had been unreliable. She had expressed to the County Library Director the Town's disappointment with the end of Sunday hours of operation which was not a good service to the community.
Town Council Regular Meeting 16 February 9, 2022
Ms. Brandt clarified the technology and infrastructure for the Library were the only significant shifts in the updated agreement and standardized language.
Ms. Battenberg added that which agency was to pay for what had not been included in previous agreements and that had been clarified in the current agreement. She further clarified the buy- up as part of Option C and related to funding of extra hours of operation but again did not include Sunday hours of operation.
The Town Council expressed its disappointment with the loss of Sunday hours of operation but were pleased the Library had improved technology and good Internet access.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Sos reported there were no public comments for the item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/McCluer) to adopt Resolution 15-2022 Approving a Library Lease and Service Agreement with Contra Costa County to Operate the Moraga Library and Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute the Library Lease and Service Agreement.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS
There were no Discussion Items.
12. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Onoda offered a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluer to request a future agenda item for the Town of Moraga to discuss opting to Deep Green with Marin Clean Energy (MCE).
Ms. Battenberg suggested the discussion could be considered as part of the upcoming budget process.
Councilmember Onoda withdrew her motion.
13. COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications.
14. ADJOURNMENT
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/McCluer) to adjourn the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Roll Call Vote: 5-
0. Respectfully submitted by:
Marti
Marty C. Mclnturf, Town Clerk
Approved by the Town Council:
Hahm
Renata M. Sos, Mayor
Town Council Regular Meeting 17 February 9, 2022