TOWN OF MORAGA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Rovember, 191% March 2, 2022
MINUTES
6:00 p.m. Special 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 AUTHORIZEL
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.
video. The meeting was conducted via Zoom Webinar.
CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Mayor Renata Sos.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Mayor Renata Sos, Vice Mayor Steve Woehleke and Councilmembers absent: None
Planning Commissioner present: Chair Brenda Luster, Vice Chair Kerry Hillis and Commissioners Marcus Bode, Karl Davis, Ben Helber, Nick Polsky, Graham Thiel
Planning Commissioners absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Planning Director Afshan Hamid led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ACTION
A. Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative
Receive and Discuss a Report on Housing Opportunity Sites and Rezoning Options Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. March 2, 2022 Mayor Sos explained that this was not an action item but an informational item/workshop on the Housing Opportunity Sites and Rezoning Options with input from the Town Council, Planning Commission and members of the public.
Town Manager Cynthia Battenberg stated the Town Council and the Planning Commission had been provided quite a bit of information on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), Housing Opportunity Sites, and process for rezoning to meet the RHNA with the purpose of this meeting to learn about the vision for the future. The Housing Element chapter of the General Plan outlined what the future of housing would look like for the next eight years. The Town of Moraga's RHNA was 1,118 units and the Town must ensure there was zoning to provide for the development of those units. With that in mind, the Town Council and Planning Commission was asked to provide input on their vision for Moraga for the future.
Planning Director Hamid commented as part of the Housing Opportunity Sites, Town staff had reached out to property owners impacted by the proposed modifications by sending over 300 letters. She had received telephone calls and e-mails from approximately 25 property owners.
She had also prepared summary notes and would continue to do so. As part of the overall project, an online survey with a QR code had been created to reach Spanish, English and Chinese speaking individuals who resided in the Town of Moraga and other sectors including renters, and staff would continue efforts to contact the Moraga School District (MSD), Saint Mary's College (SMC) and those who worked in the Town but could not afford to live in the Town, all in an effort to encourage participation in the online survey.
Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting, provided an extensive PowerPoint presentation for the Housing Opportunity Sites and Rezoning Options which included a recap of the Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative Components including the 2023-2031 Housing Element as required by state law, rezoning of key parcels, Focused General Plan Update, Bollinger Canyon Study Area Rezoning and Program-Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) covering the identified actions.
The findings of the Housing Needs Assessment and the background of the RHNA was provided with the Town of Moraga having been assigned 1,118 units, which had been broken down into four income categories: 445 units for Above Moderate Income, 172 units for Moderate Income, 183 units for Low Income and 318 units for Very Low Income along with the types of housing for each income category. A site would only be considered suitable to meet the needs of Low and Very Low Income housing if zoned to allow at least 20 units per acre and the potential sites were all highlighted and detailed in the staff report.
Visuals of the types of density were provided of housing projects in the cities of Lafayette, Palo Alto, Healdsburg, Mill Valley and the Town of Danville. Visualizations of the density in the Town of Moraga were provided and reflected a 33-dwellng unit per acre (DUA) at 327 Rheem Boulevard, 25 DUA at 344 Rheem Boulevard, 30-DUA at 660 Moraga Road, 28-DUA at 340 Moraga Road, 28-DUA at 2130 Ascot Drive and a 26-DUA at 2096 Ascot Drive.
Projects in the development pipeline that would count towards the RHNA were identified as projects which had already been approved or were pending and included Palos Colorados with 123 Above Moderate units; Palos Colorados with 15 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and with 15 Above Moderate units; Country Club Extension with 67 Above Moderate Units; Hetfield Estates with 7 Above Moderate Units; Moraga Center Specific Plan (MCSP) Area with 14 Multi-Family, 61 Moderate, and the MCSP Areas 15/17 Single Family with 36 Above Moderate units.
Mr. Miller explained how ADUs may be counted towards meeting a portion of the Town's housing needs even if they did not add floor space to an existing home. He explained that the criteria related to ADUs had been outlined in the staff report. Based on that criteria and pursuant to Table Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 2 March 2, 2022 1: "Development Pipeline" ADUs and Adjusted RHNA Totals, as shown on page 6 of the staff report, the Town of Moraga would be required to provide 484 Low and Very Low Income units, 72 Moderate units and 128 Above Moderate units for an adjusted total of 684 units.
Mr. Miller stated as part of the process staff had looked at identifying potential sites for the remaining Above Moderate Income needs and the Town had prepared an inventory of vacant land zoned for Low and Medium density residential development, with the pipeline projects identified in Table 1 excluded from this inventory since they had already been counted. Staff had determined that the Town had more than enough capacity to support the remaining 128 Above Moderate Income units and the focus was on the Low and Very Low Income and Moderate categories. The current capacity for single-family housing beyond the Table 1 projects was identified as well over 200 units.
Mr. Miller also highlighted the state mandated buffer requirements pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 166 which required cities and towns to include a buffer of additional sites beyond the RHNA in case some of the opportunity sites become unavailable during the planning period. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) required 20 to 30 percent of the total RHNA although larger buffers were encouraged. The buffer would provide more choices for development and more opportunities of housing, but recognized that not every site would turn over, and provided flexibility for owners of housing sites if they needed to build something else.
Some sites may develop below their presumed yields but when the buffer was added it meant that the Town must provide 556 Low and Moderate Income units, and 244 buffer units for a total of 800 units.
Additional criteria for adding the buffer had been included in the staff report and Mr. Miller explained that pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 686, the units could not be all in one place, the Town must avoid sites larger than 10 acres and smaller than 0.5 acres in size, must prioritize vacant sites over those with active uses, include sites with landowner interest, and assume realistic capacity with a focus on the MCSP and Rheem Center areas.
An overview of the inventory of potential sites with maps was provided with more than 100 sites having been evaluated. It was determined there were no sites outside the MCSP and Rheem Center areas suitable for rezoning to higher density housing, which had led to zoning policy questions. Staff provided recommendations based on site inventory, State law and input from residents. Staff requested that the Town Council and the Planning Commission provide input on the following questions.
MCSP R-20A and R-20B Zones
Should the maximum density in R-20 be raised from 20 to 24 units per acre? Options to consider: (a) increase to 24-DUA (316 units) or (b) increase to 30-DUA (396 units).
MCSP Office-Residential Zone
Should the allowable density in the MCSP Mixed Use Office-Residential Zone be increased from 20 to 24 units per acre, with eligible sites counted as housing opportunity sites?
Options to consider: (a) increase to 24-DUA and count potential housing sites here; (b) leave at 20-DUA and do not count sites here and; (c) drop the density standard and use a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.25 for housing.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 3 March 2, 2022 MCSP Retail-Residential Zone
3. Should the allowable density in the MCSP Mixed Use Retail-Residential Zone be increased from 20 to 24 units per acre, with eligible sites counted as housing opportunity sites?
Options to consider: (a) increase to 24-DUA and count potential housing sites here; (b) leave at 20-DUA and do not count sites here and; (c) drop the density standard and use a FAR of 1.25 for housing.
MCSP Commercial, Moraga Ranch, and Planned Development (PD) Zones
4. Should housing be allowed in MCSP's Non-Residential Zones? Options to consider: (a) allow housing in all zones at 24-DUA; (b) allow housing in Commercial Zone only at 24-DUA and; (c) do not allow housing here. (Could also allow housing only when density was being transferred from elsewhere in Moraga)
Map D: MCSP Zones Where Housing is not Currently Allowed
5. Where should housing be allowed in the Rheem Area?
Options to consider: (a) allow 24-DUA in Community Commercial (CC), Limited Commercial (LC) and Suburban Office (SO); (b) allow 24-DUA in CC and SO zones (not LC) and; (c) allow 24-DUA through an overlay applied to specific sites (and no housing elsewhere).
Mr. Miller detailed the background for each zoning policy question and the rationale for the identified options. He also outlined the intent to engage the community through the use of the Balancing Act Tool which had been made available to the Town through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and which would be launched on Monday, March 7 where residents could use an app to place housing on different parcels/areas until they reached 800 units, a tool which had been used successfully in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Miller also detailed numerous upcoming and ongoing community engagement activities including community meetings/workshops tentatively scheduled for March 30 and 31, 2022; letters and meetings with property owners and stakeholders; online housing survey; outreach to community groups; information on the project website; information in the About Town newsletter; noticing and advertisements for upcoming meetings; project mailing list and MakeMoragaHome website link; and past outreach efforts and meetings with civic organizations and the Bollinger Canyon Special Study Area outreach efforts. Also, community meetings had been planned in October and November 2022, Town Council and Planning Commission study sessions, and a booth at the Pear and Wine Festival.
Next steps included the refinement of the opportunity sites and contacting property owners, additional community engagement, Town workshops and use of The Balancing Act Tool during the month of March, with follow-up study sessions on site and potential zoning changes in April, the development of draft housing policies and programs in May, the review of the working draft of the Housing Element and submittal to HCD in June, and the EIR and drafting of zoning text/code amendments during the summer of 2022. Revisions to the Housing Element and zoning text would occur during the fall of 2022, with adoption of the final document in January 2023.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 4 March 2, 2022 Mr. Miller added there had been 550 responses to the housing survey as of March 2, 2022, including 13 in Chinese and one to two in Spanish, which offered a good representation of the community. Residents were encouraged to continue to participate in the survey.
Responding to questions about the PowerPoint presentation from the Council and the Planning Commission (the questioner's name is listed at the end of the answer in parenthesis), Ms.
Battenberg, Ms. Hamid, and Mr. Miller clarified:
• Should the Town Council and Planning Commission consider Option C for the policy question Should the allowable density in the MCSP Mixed Use Retail-Residential Zone be increased from 20 to 24 units per acre, with eligible sites counted as housing opportunity sites? Most of the zoning areas only existed in the area under consideration and if changing the FAR in the CC District, as an example, it would change it in all CC Districts in the Town. Option C would create the opportunity to have a more varied mix of unit types and was an incentive for smaller and more units on the property but the determination for the number of units for FAR would be market driven. The drawback for Option C was the level of unpredictability and the unknown of the number of units. (Planning Commission Chair Luster)
• Student resident housing at a university if a dormitory or group quarters would not count towards the RHNA. Individual apartments or family housing for students may count towards the RHNA and would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on who was living in the unit and how the units had been designed. (Planning Commission Vice Chair Hillis)
• Staff had conducted some early outreach with Saint Mary's College (SMC) which had a representative present via Zoom who had shown interest in considering the off-campus site at the Rheem Center. (Planning Commission Vice Chair Hillis) • The Town Manager had conversations with numerous representatives in leadership at SMC over the past four years who had all indicated the desire for more housing in Moraga and more places where SMC students may gather. SMC was looking for small businesses and housing opportunities for its students and SMC needed the free market to develop sites given the need for student housing.
• Staff was also working with SMC to conduct outreach to its students and faculty regarding the Housing Element and participation in the survey. (Planning Commission Vice Chair • The MCSP Area was being considered as the primary housing opportunity site since it offered more housing opportunity sites given its size, scale and designation as a Priority Development Area (PDA) at the regional level. (Planning Commission Vice Chair Hillis) • Live/work spaces could be explored through the zoning regulations. (Planning Commission Vice Chair Hillis)
• Dorm style apartments would not count towards the RHNA since the only occupants would be students, a gray area in terms of inconsistency on the State's part in how it treated different communities that had colleges or universities. As long as the units were not limited only to students the housing could be for students and faculty. (Councilmember Onoda)
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 5 March 2, 2022 • The online housing survey deadline was March 15, 2022. A final analysis of all results should be completed in about two weeks with a report to be presented to the Town Council and the Planning Commission.
• If the MCSP Area was rezoned it would allow the opportunity to rebuild the property, with the next step to write development and design standards that would go into new zoning regulations for those areas. Anything that was removed would have to be designed in such a way as to be something the Town wanted. (Planning Commissioner Bode) • Very Low Income housing was typically built by non-profits and for income-qualifying seniors. It would have to be clarified how the potential accumulated wealth a senior may have from the sale of their residence affected eligibility. The population that had been identified as being in the greatest need was Very Low Income homeowners and senior renters. (Planning Commissioner Davis)
• Area 14 of the MCSP being shifted away from seniors to the general population and it was up to the property owner's discretion to determine the type of development desired. The Town determined the zoning for the development and the parcel was zoned R-20, which allowed 20 units per acre of multi-family housing, residential units, or if senior housing it could be increased to 30 units to the acre. If either of those developments were affordable, they could take advantage of the 20 percent density bonus provided by the state. (Planning Commissioner Davis)
Neither senior market rate nor student housing had been recognized as a specialized area for zoning. A senior housing developer could determine certain criteria for allowing residents to own or rent, but that was not necessarily a zoning decision. The Housing Element identified seniors as a special needs group regardless of income and staff had looked at the unique needs of older adults in the community, irrespective of income, in terms of the types of housing needed to cover all spectrums. The Town could consider more policies that dealt with specific types of senior housing that would be separate from what the State was asking the Town to do. (Planning Commissioner Davis) As previously stated, the Town was required to identify areas to meet the RHNA category income requirements for the 6t Cycle Housing Element, HCD would follow through on the practicality of execution for whatever had been zoned, the Town could not control whether or not development occurred if the market did not support it, but the Town would have to put realistic zoning in place that supported the type of development the Town could support and the State could accept. The State would question a situation where the Town did not develop a single required unit in the next few years while neighboring Lamorinda communities were developing the required units, which would result in monitoring and consequences. (Vice Mayor Woehleke)
• The housing units may be affordable by design if they were, for example, Junior ADUs (JADUs) which served Low and Very Low Income but which were not rent restricted.
Affordable housing was housing with a deed restriction which included a financing source, where the occupancy was limited. The 800 units previously identified covered Low and Very Low income categories and some of those units would be market rate units. The Low and Very Low Income categories were not applied to ADUs. (Vice Mayor Woehleke) • As previously stated one of the next steps in the process was to review the existing zoning regulations and determine whether aspects of the Town's existing development standards made it difficult for a developer to build. (Planning Commissioner Thiel) Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 6 March 2, 2022 • A Regulatory Constraints to Development Report would be presented to the Town Council/Planning Commission in the near future. Town-owned properties included Commons Park, Town Offices, Hacienda de las Flores and roadway medians but the Town did not own any potential sites for development. The Town was a relatively new town without significant land ownership, funding or redevelopment agency, which had been an economic engine for many cities to fund affordable housing. The Town had struggled to meet its infrastructure needs. (Planning Commissioner Thiel) • The current 5' Cycle Housing Element was available on the Town website and included information on the governmental constraints and barriers specific to Moraga, which included action plans that were being reviewed by staff and the consultant team and may possibly carry over. (Planning Commissioner Thiel)
• Table 1, "Development Pipeline" ADUs, and Adjusted RHNA Totals, as shown on Page 6 of the staff report included projects where there was an active application or entitlement that had already been granted. Where there was a concept plan, the application was on hold or was inactive, it would be listed in the Housing Element but not as an active project.
The list of sites that had the potential for future housing that did not have an active application before the Town would be identified in that section as opposed to Table 1, which listed approved projects or an active application where housing was anticipated to be built between 2023 and 2031. (Councilmember McCluer) • The potential number of units that could be generated through SB 9 had not been quantified at this time. In general, those units would not be affordable units and the State was looking for the Town to show where the Town could build housing at 20 units per acre or more. (Councilmember McCluer)
The state was not mandating a 20 percent buffer to total RHNA units but recommended a 15 to 30 percent buffer which was in writing as part of guidance from the HCD. It would be in the Town's interest to have a larger buffer since it would allow the Town to have the flexibility to use some of those sites for something other than Low Income housing in the Some communities had provided a 40 to 50 percent buffer. (Councilmember McCluer)
• As stated in paragraph two of Page 9 of the staff report, The owner of each site may develop the site in any manner that is consistent with the underlying zoning regulations, and it was clarified it would not be zoned but designated as an opportunity site in the Housing Element for Low or Very Low Incomes. Inclusionary housing and whether there should be a requirement for a percentage of new housing to be affordable would be part of future discussions. Many cities had implemented an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (Councilmember McCluer)
• Staff had spoken to several property owners within the Rheem Center who had generally provided positive feedback on the zoning effort and staff had reached out to the primary property owner at the Rheem Center itself and there was interest in this effort. SMC was also interested and there were initial indications for a positive conversation on the topic of rezoning and allowing for a higher density. The primary property owner of the Rheem Center had been made aware of this effort by Town staff a year and a half ago and had engaged an architect and was working on some plans that were important since that information could be used as part of this effort. Other property owners of large sites had also been encouraged to do the same so that if there was anything that could be addressed in the zoning it could be done now rather than requiring a separate General Plan Amendment. (Councilmember McCluer)
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 7 March 2, 2022 • Clarified the existing zoning in the Rheem Center Area and in the CC Zoning District where staff had estimated 160 units for the CC zoned properties, which number was relatively low compared to the actual potential. Staff noted that a second and third story could not be added to a current building; there was a process which required the consolidation of all businesses that were active and productive, to accommodate and move them to free up an area to build a new structure which was limiting since it would happen in phases, and some of the more productive businesses may not want to relocate or had a larger footprint and could not move to another storefront, all of which was a complicated process. (Councilmember McCluer)
• Higher level direction could be provided without making a decision on whether to use FAR or density but feedback was important as to whether the opportunity sites were ideal for the housing to be created. More information would be provided in the future on the use of FAR or density. Inclusionary housing was an implementation tool and once the zoning was in place the Town Council could discuss what percentage of the units should be Low or Very Low Income. (Councilmember Makker)
• Clarified the RHNA allocation, subtraction of units in the development pipeline, a likely-to- be-developed standard, and knowledge there were sufficient potential projects for single- family on low density zone sites to eliminate any remaining need at the Above Moderate Income level. The consultant was comfortable the bottom line of the development pipeline was defensible, subtracting that and adding the buffer must also be defensible, and the consultant clarified Table 4, Summary of Preliminary "Realistic Capacity" Estimates by Zoning District, as shown on Page 19 of the staff report. (Mayor Sos) Mayor Sos declared a recess at 7:55 p.m. The Joint Town Council/Planning Commission meeting reconvened at 8:04 p.m. with all Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, staff and consultant present via Zoom.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Sarah Speron, Saint Mary's College (SMC), Vice President of Facilities, emphasized that housing was a big issue for SMC students, faculty and staff who were challenged to live in Moraga. It would be advantageous for those people to live and work in Moraga. She explained that SMC had been working with staff on the opportunities with the SMC Rheem Center property and the SMC Campus Master Plan had identified the need for housing with a unique opportunity at the Rheem Center due to the option for graduate student/family/faculty housing in that area. SMC was also considering a requirement for students to reside on campus for the first two years which would mean they would not have any housing left for juniors or seniors, requiring those students to live farther away and commute to Moraga. There were also opportunities to reduce traffic impacts with housing on campus and increase bus routes which would alleviate much of the traffic around Campolindo. SMC was very supportive of the Rheem Center being rezoned for Mixed- Use, Multi-Family given the many opportunities in the area.
Ashley Coates, Moraga, recently Co-Founded Inclusive Moraga, dedicated to meeting the needs of the community by encouraging high-quality multi-family developments in the core areas. She supported almost all of the rezoning efforts up to 24 units per acre but did not know enough about the FAR to determine whether it made sense to consider a FAR as opposed to a density approach.
She suggested they may still have trouble developing enough units for Very Low and Low Incomes if they did not have enough high density zoning other than 24 units per acre. She suggested that some areas should be considered for higher density zoning.
Dave Bruzzone, Lafayette, thanked staff and the consultant for meeting with the property owner as part of an earlier meeting. He referenced the third paragraph of Page 9 of the staff report, Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 8 March 2, 2022 which reads: It is important to point out that the designation of a parcel as a "housing opportunity site" does not preclude its development with above-moderate income housing or a non-residential use. The owner of each site may develop the site in any manner that is consistent with the underlying zoning regulations. However, if the proposed use is something other than low- or moderate-income housing, the Town must make a determination that it still has sufficient capacity on other opportunity sites to meet its RHNA (this is why the list of sites includes a "buffer"). If the Town cannot make this determination, another site needs to be identified to make up the lost capacity before the project is approved, and expressed concern there could be a conflict where another site could not be found and the Above Moderate Income condition would apply to the other categories and the underlying zoning may be changed.
Mr. Bruzzone emphasized that many of these issues had been discussed during the implementation of the MCSP and he and his consultants had spent a lot of time with staff on suggestions that he felt had been ignored. He suggested there were a number of constraints, and the rezoning process may go through some of the previous steps. He pointed out that for the R-20 areas, he had suggested to staff the 20-DUA areas could not be achieved under much of the existing rules. The option to raise it to 24-DUA may not be realistic, and while staff and the consultant had the background to remediate problems, he was unsure there would be a political will to do that. Of the 800 units, he was also uncertain that Moderate Income units had been included although he acknowledged that the discussions specifically related to Low and Very Low Income units. He looked forward to additional interaction with staff on this effort.
Kendall Langan, Moraga, stated he opposed the consideration of live/work spaces noting the Town of Moraga was a bedroom community and many in the community were currently involved in organizations that actively reduced growth through growth Ordinances. He questioned when the Town would recognize the effort of the Town Manager who put into place development restrictions after State code had been set as part of SB 330 and other regulations that preceded SB 330, related to height, setback and density restrictions which he suggested defied the law. He suggested a public hearing should be held on this issue in that the Housing Element had clearly been driven by Town interests because the Town Council decided what group it wanted to help, either students or seniors.
Mr. Langan suggested the Planning Commission did not realize this problem was 20 years old and it happened because of those who resisted growth, which was also the reason for empty retail spaces. As the owner of commercial retail space on Country Club Drive, he wanted to build a 10-story building and include residential units. He questioned whether 24 units to the acre was proper and suggested it should be at least twice or three times that figure. He urged the Town Council and the Planning Commission to listen to the consultant who had raised some exceptional points. He again referenced SB 330, SB 9 and SB 10 and many other laws and suggested Moraga was being damaged due to prior decisions.
Dave Schnayer, Moraga, thanked the consultant for the thorough and informative presentation, althouah he took issue with the notices to the community and the surveys which had only come rom a portion of the community. He referenced the Rheem Theatre historical desianatior discussion and the use of billboards and the reader board across from Commons Park to notify the public. In this case, he found there had been a lack of public notification on one of the biggest issues in Moraga. He hoped the Town would engage the entire community not just a portion of the community. He also read into the record a statement from the Moraga Country Club (MCC) disclosure for its members which read: Land underlying the last ten holes of the golf course is subject to ground leases, a major one being with the Town of Moraga and he asked whether that land was owned by the Town.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. March 2, 2022 Responding to public comment, Mr. Miller clarified that densities higher than 24 units per acre may be considered but that number had been recommended since it was modest compared to existing, however 24 units per acre would not include a density bonus. He also clarified that the 800 units had included 72 Moderate Income units once the pipeline projects had been subtracted since they would not get Above Moderate Income housing in traditional new rental housing.
Ms. Battenberg further clarified that Town-owned sites also included Mulholland Ridge, a couple of hundred acres acquired as Open Space in exchange for development of some of the parcels along the exterior of the Open Space, and some of the acreage Moraga Country Club leased from the Town for the back-nine..
Planning Commission Chair Luster commented that on a number of occasions the Town Council and Planning Commission had made arguments that development should be allocated as much as possible in the center of the Town, specifically in and around the commercial areas of the MCSP and Rheem Centers, which would help to retain green hills, open space, views of the ridgelines and serve to facilitate the development of livable areas in Moraga. She commented that with the Housing Element Update, the Town had the opportunity to proactively guide development for the future of Moraga.
For Question 1, Planning Commission Chair Luster chose Option (b), increase to the maximum density of 30 units per acre (396 units) which increased the opportunity for more senior housing.
Question 2, Option (a), increase to 24 units per acre and count potential housing sites here while also considering the FAR option since she liked the idea of creating the density and having more here and consider the FAR option for the same reasons. For Question 4, she supported Option (c) keep the zoning as is, and not allow any housing in this area to avoid any tunneling effects that could come about from clustering tall structures on the corners of the intersection since it would be in the scenic corridors and keep it a small commercial center creating more retail and restaurant opportunities.
Planning Commission Chair Luster commented that along with increases in zoning, the design guidelines would have to be more specific regarding height, style, variation and colors to ensure that developments were in keeping with Moraga's aesthetic, with a focus on development in a beautiful way. With the potential for very dense growth, she strongly recommended language be added in the code that would require developers to either add or improve roads based on some agreed-upon trigger, and establish a fund or specific fee the Town could bank with each new development for schools or school expansion so that the burden of a new school would not be placed on the last developer by default because they happened to have met the threshold for population increase. She was otherwise excited to see the use of The Balancing Tool in action.
As to Question 5, Planning Commission Chair Luster suggested all three districts be Mixed-Use Retail and Residential in the Rheem Area with an emphasis on the Moraga design boundaries.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Hillis commented he had formerly lived across from the Rheem Center and therefore had some bias about the space being underutilized and he was aware of the time it had taken for a well-thought out plan for the center. He suggested the Rheem Center was a gateway to the Town and in order to adequately say what would work there and given SMC's interest in development at that location would help resolve vehicle miles traveled issues the Town would face. Having more information on the Rheem Center would also be helpful for the Town to make wise decisions for the future. Choosing how to rezone the untapped community assets, the MCSP Area and the Rheem Center would be critical since both centers had the most access to infrastructure and travel. He would be interested to see the traffic impacts of loading all the potential developments at the MCSP Area when there were opportunities elsewhere in the Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 10 March 2, 2022 Town. He suggested data from the community or from potential homebuyers on where Moragans were commuting would be beneficial to know along with ways to ensure that the traffic conditions were not made worse, which could be considered through live/work spaces which was where the economy was moving.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Hillis did not have sufficient information to properly assess and respond to the policy questions especially considering the clear and obvious opportunities there may be at the Rheem Center and how that could impact the livability of the community.
Planning Commissioner Bode supported changing all zoning as shown in Table 4 of Page 19 of the staff report. He acknowledged that pursuant to the information in the staff report, the Town did not have to build the units, but the Town must demonstrate that the zoning was in place for the target to be met. He acknowledged discussions on what could be done to make Moraga more of a college Town and suggested it was housing, access to restaurants, bars, and activities that students participated in. SMC's proximity to the Rheem Center was one of the approaches that could be taken in terms of what could be done in the Rheem Center from a residential standpoint and from a student standpoint to make it more encouraging.
Planning Commissioner Davis stated he could support an option to increase 24 units per acre to 30 units per acre if made more specifically for seniors, which would be consistent with past planning action. In terms of FAR versus density, he commented that in the 1970s there had been Section 8 housing dropped in middle income residential family districts throughout the Bay Area, which had very mixed results. One of the things that would have mitigated those mixed results would have been if those developments had been planned for anyone other than the most needy and if they were to allow Low and Very Low Income units to be developed in such a way where there was a mix of class and culture, they would be more likely to have a happy outcome as opposed to building a unit designed to accommodate those without means. If facilities were designed for a mix of people, he suggested they would create a happier community. Based on the information presented, rather than replicate the social efforts of the 1970s, he suggested that could be done through FAR rather than the dwelling units per acre assessment.
Planning Commissioner Helber commended the efforts of staff and the consultant and was impressed with the level of detail in the information provided. He spoke to the existing deficit of Very Low, Low and Moderate Income units and the required buffer resulting in the total number of RHNA units. He referenced ADUs, was attracted to the affordable by design component, and spoke to Page 5 of the staff report which had identified the number of ADUs produced in the Town between 2000 and 2021, and the estimate of ADUs to be produced in the future.
Planning Commissioner Helber noted the Planning Commission had been provided the Annual General Plan Implementation Report at its March 1, 2022 meeting, at which time it had been reported that two ADUs had been completed in Moraga for 2022, but it had shown the ADU Ordinance adopted in 2020, had produced an uptick in ADUs, with two more ADUs permitted and seven ADUs entitled. He found that the estimate of ADUs had been too conservative and suggested it would not be a stretch to double the number of ADUs to be produced over the next eight years, which would provide more Very Low, Low and Moderate units. He wanted staff to review whether the estimates for ADUs had been too conservative.
Planning Commissioner Helber also spoke to the issue of FAR in lieu of maximum density and supported looking into that option further but cautioned if eliminating the maximum density, it would not mean they had to have some type of controls since FAR controlled form-based zoning, which was not an easy guideline in zoning controls and involved a lot of work. He cautioned if going the FAR route, it may require form-based zoning to justify not having a maximum density and he questioned what they would get for all that effort in that if form-based zoning was to be considered it must be done thoughtfully and intentionally.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 11 March 2, 2022 Planning Commissioner Helber commented in terms of the housing opportunity sites, he liked the strategies staff recommended be utilized, not concentrating in one area and spreading out evenly in different areas so not one portion of the Town would be carrying the burden of the identified sites. As to Question 1, he supported further study of Option (a) to increase to 24 units per acre.
For Question 2, Option (a) increase to 24 units per acre and count potential housing sites, Planning Commissioner Helber stated that would also be worth further consideration. He supported Question 3, Option (a) increase to 24 units per acre and count potential housing sites here but would also like to see the Town preserve its retail character and there was a way to allow for residential and still preserve the character. He was open to the options described in Question 4 but wanted to make sure they were preserving the Moraga Ranch Overlay character, an important character feature of the Town. For Question 5, he was also in favor of exploring the described options.
Planning Commissioner Thiel echoed the comments raised by Planning Commissioner Helber related to ADUs. He was aware of modular and prefabricated companies which had launched ADUs and there was opportunity in Moraga for rental and affordable by design ADUs, either for seniors, small families, or student housing on existing single-family home lots. He supported general increases in the 20 and 24 units per acre districts across the majority of the sites as identified as well as preserving the retail and Moraga Ranch areas.
Planning Commissioner Polsky thanked staff and the consultant for the excellent report. He also appreciated the passion on this topic and as a new Planning Commissioner it filled him with pride and hope. The consultant had identified some key infill sites and he expressed his hope that the planning was for the long term, not just the next eight years but years into the future. He also liked the idea of more collaboration with SMC, which was one of the big appeals of living in Moraga. Keeping students in Town would help to alleviate traffic, keep tax dollars in the Town and provide a sense of community. He wanted to see a focus on the shopping centers, which was where the key infrastructure existed in the Town and which should be a key area of focus for the future.
Councilmember Onoda suggested one of the priorities was to keep the Town beautiful, preserve its natural charm, and if adding more buildings the Town needed a theme. The Rheem Center had a Spanish style she found attractive and would like to see continued. She liked the idea of SMC being part of the Rheem Center and having a seat at the table and the property owners of the Rheem Center involved as well. In terms of traffic and fire, the Rheem Center included three exits out of the Town, up and down Rheem Boulevard to St. Mary's Road to the City of Lafayette and Moraga Road to Lafayette.
Councilmember Onoda supported an increase in the number of units to over 200 in the Rheem Center since it was the safest location in the event of an evacuation if there was a fire. She also understood the property owners of the Rheem Center wanted to get this done in a timely manner.
She wanted Moraga to be more of a college town and stated the Town had a lot to gain from that distinction. She also pointed out the Rheem Center was flat land and suggested it would serve the Town well since fewer businesses doing well would have to leave their business, and it would result in a smaller footprint of the buildings as opposed to what existed across the board.
As to Question 2, Councilmember Onoda could support 24 units to the acre for the R-20A and R-20B Zones, but Mr. Bruzzone had raised a good thought that did not mean that would be developable. She had walked the MCSP property with the Bruzzones and while the land along the creek was flat, there was a steep section that would require a tremendous amount of grading for 24 to 30 units per acre and the area would not lend itself to high density development. She suggested 3 units per acre and 12 units per acre on the orchard property were possible, but she questioned whether it was possible for such development to be walkable, particularly if Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 12 March 2, 2022 considering senior development. There was also only one road in and out on that side of the Town and Canyon was not a viable source.
For Question 2, Councilmember Onoda commented on the need to keep in mind the way the MCSP Office-Residential Zone appeared on the map. It was along the road and the Town had standards requiring the buildings to be 40 feet back, similar to Sonsara, and she wanted to keep those standards to ensure development did not appear to be too dense.
Councilmember Onoda was uncertain the Town would want 1,118 or 800 RHNA units and suggested they would likely want the 800 units and not more than that. As to Question 3, she She
would be careful with housing in the MCSP Retail-Residential Zone unless it was above shops unique opportunities and there should be special things in the ranch/farm area that other communities may not be able to do, which afforded the Town a tremendous amount of opportunity for charm and interesting community activities that could be considered in that area. Also, they needed the shops and parking, and if there was housing everywhere like Lafayette, 45 percent of the traffic would be trying to find a parking space and she did not want to see that happen in Moraga.
Councilmember McCluer thanked staff for all of the information provided and the surveys and suggested the Town could do even more. In terms of housing, he envisioned housing for all income types and professional levels and ages, providing an equal opportunity for all focused in the Town centers and without using Town finances for subsidies, which he suggested could be accomplished while maintaining the key core values of residents and the attraction of Moraga, and also balance the negative impacts to roads, congestion, school, fire safety and evacuation.
Councilmember McCluer found that in terms of the FAR versus density, FAR provided less clarity and the concept of smaller homes was popular, and while he was uncertain that would fit, he was open to listening for more information and suggested density would provide more clarity for all and meet the goals everyone wanted to achieve.
Councilmember McCluer appreciated and endorsed the caveats offered by the Planning Commission Chair for strong design guidelines to ensure beauty, roads and schools. As to the policy questions, for Question 1 he agreed there were flat areas in the MCSP R-20A and R-20B Zones for increasing density but as going up the hill, it was one of the most visible spots in the Town. For now, he could support 24 units to the acre. For Question 2, he supported 24 units to the acre. For Question 4, he suggested Moraga Ranch should be left as is with no development, and for Question 5 he supported all three of the proposed options as described in the staff report but did not support the numbers which equated to a 400 percent increase in an area with one way roads, no transportation or job centers and with fire and traffic concerns. He did not want more units than the minimum and suggested the residents had spoken on what they wanted the Town to do, and he would recommend a minimum buffer at 15 percent rather than 20 percent, which would reduce the 800 units and how they get there would be discussed further. Based on his calculations, the MCSP Area would have 688 units and the Rheem Center 270 units, which he suggested was a pretty good ratio.
Councilmember McCluer commented there was no requirement for property owners to build Low or Very Low Income units and found the effort to be a partnership between residents, the Town and property owners on how to build something that was somewhat reasonable. As part of the next steps, he wanted to see a formal meeting between the Town Council, the Planning Commission and property owners to allow a direct conversation, to get a feeling they were doing this together and to get a better understanding of the property owners' needs and how to accomplish the Very Low and Low Income units.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 13 March 2, 2022 Vice Mayor Woehleke thanked everyone for their input thus far. He recognized this was the data gathering phase, which was incomplete and because of that he was reluctant to answer the policy zoning questions but would provide his answers in writing to staff in the next few days.
Vice Mayor Woehleke noted the need not to ignore the potential Moderate and Above Moderate Income housing that was presently set aside since that housing could be one way to get a significant amount of the Very Low and Low Income housing and addressing that with the landowners would be important. He also recognized that a number of factors drove locating affordable housing along the Moraga Way and Moraga Road corridors, which he supported. He commented that since the 1990s when he had been a member of the former Design Review Board (DRB), it had been evident the Town was overbuilt in commercial and if the Town could use the 6" Cycle Housing Element RHNA to change that it should be done, and it may mean zoning used to encourage underutilized or unused Commercial. Also, Moraga was deficient in and would have been a great addition to the Town in providing independent senior housing.
Vice Mayor Woehleke commented that he had no recommendation at this time on the issue of FAR versus density criteria since more data gathering needed to be done. He recommended that staff come back to the Planning Commission and the Town Council once they had time to evaluate some of the alternatives, to return with some optional themes. As an example, if maxing out on the alternatives, there could be far more housing numbers than needed or if going the other way, far fewer. Once the alternatives were understood, a matrix could be prepared that would allow consideration of a number of themes. Possible themes could weigh the MCSP Area more heavily than the Rheem Center or the opposite, to create a balance, or the Very Low and Low Income units could be more widely distributed or there could be ways to place more emphasis on zoning that would increase the number in a particular area that was short for independent senior housing.
He was happy to discuss the options with staff. He noted the Hacienda Foundation Board of Directors had used this approach and he looked forward to more options that warranted further consideration.
Councilmember Makker acknowledged and thanked staff for the thorough and helpful needs assessment which brought to the forefront the human faces of the people who lived and worked in Moraga. The Town had the obligation to attempt to solve the problem of being able to live and work in Moraga. She agreed that equal opportunity was important, and that this effort be done in a way that optimized for that. While there were a lot of constraints, a lot of good ideas had been offered to maintain the Town's charm through strong design guidelines. She strongly supported an exploration of the FAR concept and would like more information given the flexibility it would provide.
Councilmember Makker referenced the Rheem Center, supported the staff recommendation and was open to possibly increasing the number of housing units given the area had so much potential including exits through multiple routes and allowed engagement with SMC to bring the college energy into the space. As to Question 4, she suggested the area be left as is for many of the reasons already stated and given the parking issues and challenges, she could not look past.
She found there was the opportunity to add housing in the other opportunity sites and increasing to 24 units per acre could be supported, but whether it should be increased to 30 units per acre for Question 1, she was on the fence because of the reasons with respect to walkability and whether it was the right area for an increase in density but was open to more discussion. She supported the staff recommendation to increase to 24 units per acre and could see for Question 3 providing zoning for housing in the MCSP Mixed Use Retail-Residential Zone, even housing above shops could be the right direction. In general, she heard a lot about SMC and agreed that engagement was important. She would like more exploration around live/work spaces.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 14 March 2, 2022 Mayor Sos echoed the thanks to staff and the consultants for providing all of the data in a way to allow a productive and useful conversation for the Town Council, Planning Commission and members of the public, including those who had participated in workshops and meetings to date and to those who had responded to the questionnaire and housing survey in order to shape the future of the Town. She suggested this was a fantastic opportunity for the Town to create two vibrant residential commercial communities in the MCSP and Rheem Center areas, and the two areas could provide housing choices for seniors, employees of local businesses, teachers, young families drawn to the Town's excellent schools and those who wanted to be part of the community but had been precluded at this time due to economic circumstances.
Mayor Sos suggested the MCSP and Rheem Center areas would drive more retail, allow for strolling and gathering around eating establishments and create opportunities for sensible transportation alternatives to single occupancy car trips. She liked the fact that the opportunity sites that had been identified were in the two commercial centers in the Town and appreciated that staff and the consultants had heard the Town Council and residents express the desire that housing be kept in the center of Town and away from residential areas on the outskirts of the Town and open space areas, which were visually and environmentally more sensitive and more challenging from a fire, safety and evacuation perspective.
Mayor Sos suggested in the MCSP Area for the R-20 Zone, the MCSP Office Residential and Retail Residential areas should be moved to a designation of 24 units per acre, whether in the Mixed Use areas with FAR or with the zoning designation. She agreed more exploration was needed and she would like more information on the pros and cons of each approach with the end game being to be able to pave the way to achieve what they were trying to achieve. As to the rest of the MCSP Area, the Moraga Ranch Overlay and Commercial areas, she agreed those areas should remain as they were.
As to the Rheem Center, Mayor Sos found the area to be a big opportunity. She agreed it was vastly underutilized, the property had easy access and easier egress, with a connection with SMC both as a property owner and given SM's proximity. She wanted to see the Town do as much as possible in the Rheem Center, which may take some pressure off the other side of the Town since some of the sites were over 10 acres. She wanted to see the Rheem Center area of the Town be revitalized in a big way and this was the opportunity to do that.
Mayor Sos agreed with the need to develop a plan to reach out to the property owners and continuing to reach out to engage the community. She looked forward to the results and trying The Balancing Act Tool for herself. She again thanked everyone for their feedback.
In response to the Mayor, Ms. Battenberg appreciated the fantastic feedback and the fact the Town Council and the Planning Commission had dug into this topic.
Mr. Miller also thanked everyone for their feedback which was helpful and useful. More work needed to be done on the density versus FAR issue and staff would come back after that had been fleshed out more. He suggested the information provided was sufficient to allow staff to proceed to the next level and assess specific locations for the housing opportunity sites.
Ms. Battenberg reiterated that two community meetings had been scheduled towards the end of March with similar topics to gain input from the community as well as the use of The Balancing Act Tool and to discuss the housing survey.
Vice Mayor Woehleke reiterated his request for staff to return with some themes and asked whether there were other members who were aligned, and Ms. Battenberg advised that staff would bring more information to the Council and ask for direction.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 15 March 2, 2022
5. ADJOURNMENT
ACTION: Motion by Planning Commissioner Helber/Planning Commission Chairperson Luster and Vice Mayor Woehleke/Councilmember McCluer to adjourn the Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting at 9:22 p.m. In Recognition and in Solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Roll Call Vote: 12-0.
Respectfully submitted by:
Matic. Moonur
Marty C, McInturf, Town Clerk
Approved by the Town Council:
Reth
Renata M. Sos, Mayor
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 16 March 2, 2022