TOWN OF MORAGA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Rovember, 191% May 4, 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 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, Planning Commissioners and staff teleconferenced into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting was conducted via Zoom Webinar.
CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Renata Sos.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Mayor Renata Sos, Vice Mayor Steve Woehleke and Councilmembers absent: None
Planning Commissioner present: Commissioners Marcus Bode, Karl Davis, Nick Polsky, Graham Thiel, Vice Chair Brenda Luster and Chair Kerry
Hillis
Planning Commissioners absent: Ben Helber
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Planning Commission Chairperson Kerry Hillis led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ACTION
A. Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 1 May 4, 2022 2023-2031 Moraga Housing Element: Discuss and Provide Input on Inclusionary Housing, Transfer of Development Rights, Parking, Floor Area Ratio/Density Bonuses and Height Standards
Mayor Sos explained that this was not an action item but an informational item/workshop on the Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative and discussion of Inclusionary Housing, Transfer of Development Rights, Parking, Floor Area Ratio/Density Bonuses and Height Standards Planning Director Afshan Hamid reiterated this meeting was a continuation of a Study Session on the Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative with a focus on tools to facilitate housing development and with a discussion of Inclusionary Housing, Transfer of Development Rights, Parking, Floor Area Ratio/Density Bonuses and Height Standards. She detailed the topics that had been discussed at length as part of prior Joint Town Council/Planning Commission meetings.
She explained the tools were a way to increase new affordable housing choices in high resource areas and help advance the values and guiding principles in the General Plan, which included open spaces, natural settings, semi-rural settings and other guiding principles creating a community focal point in the Moraga and Rheem Center Areas with a variety of quality housing options in the community so that children, seniors, and the local workforce could continue to call Moraga home.
The staff report included information to set policy to meet the Town's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals set by the State, and included a depth, breadth and complexity of information with subject matter expertise from the consultants with discussions with local jurisdictions, survey responses from the community, and discussions with developers as to what was working. Staff had also tapped into additional resources through the Contra Costa County Collaborative which staff had been working with on a regular basis.
Ms. Hamid introduced Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting; Aaron Welch, Aaron Welch Planning; Stephanie Hagar, BAE Urban Economics; Assistant Town Attorney Karen Murphy and Town Manager Cynthia Battenberg.
Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting, provided an extensive PowerPoint presentation on the Tools to Facilitate Housing Development, 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 the Program-Level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) covering the identified actions with most tasks underway on some level.
and to date had a total of 143 respondents. The Balancing Act Tool would close on May 6 and had to date 838 page views and 102 maps submitted, with participation rate well above average.
A Constraints Analysis, Governmental and non-Governmental Constraints were also highlighted.
Aaron Welch, Aaron Welch Planning, continued the presentation with a focus on parking which had been identified by developers as one of the two main obstacles to housing development in Moraga due to the costs in comparison to comparable jurisdictions, Moraga's parking standards required two covered parking spaces per dwelling regardless of unit type or number of bedrooms, and 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking, but the Planning Commission may allow a reduction subject to findings. State law pre-empted these standards for certain project types including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), 100 percent affordable projects and units near transit. A table identifying the parking requirements in comparable jurisdictions was provided.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 2 May 4, 2022 The State Density Bonus was detailed with a table of Density Bonus Project parking based on unit size and the special allowances that could be considered for income categories and projects near transit highlighted. Common parking reduction strategies included Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies which included the inclusion of senior housing, affordable housing, student housing, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, transit accessibility, unbundled parking, shared parking, car share/bike share and employer based strategies (shuttles, carpool and flexible work arrangements). A parking example of a 40-unit multifamily project was provided for informational purposes.
Staff recommended the Town consider updating its parking standards for studio, one and two bedroom apartments, reduce the guest parking requirement and consider standard allowances for parking reductions for TDM measures.
Responding to questions from the Town Council and Planning Commission on parking, Mr. Miller and Mr. Welch clarified:
• There was nothing in Moraga that qualified as a major transit stop, which is determined based on proximity to major transit included BART and buses with a headway of 15- minutes or more.. (Vice Mayor Woehleke)
• Under certain circumstances student housing may be counted towards the RHNA; however, if a dormitory or apartment suite was only for student housing, it could not be counted towards the RHNA. (Planning Commissioner Polsky) • Some cities, mostly urban cities, had instituted a parking maximum or no parking requirement. (Planning Commissioner Polsky)
• Staff had reviewed the car ownership rates in Moraga which were higher than they were 50 years ago. Staff determined the Town's parking requirements were out of date since the Town required the same number of parking spaces for a studio as for a three-bedroom home, whereas most communities had changed their parking standards to have variable rates of parking depending on the number of bedrooms in the unit. The parking requirements for most communities for studio and one-bedroom units were lower than Moraga's parking requirements. Staff recommended the parking standards be modified to be more responsive to the bedroom count. Staff again clarified that Moraga's standards for studios and one-bedroom units were substantially higher than most comparable communities. (Planning Commissioner Davis)
• Tenants and occupants for affordable units were typically screened carefully to ensure there would be no overcrowding. (Planning Commissioner Davis) • Staff could not find a reason why the guest parking requirements were higher in Moraga but those requirements had been on the books for a long time. Most of the Moraga Municipal Code (MMC) had been adopted when the Town of Moraga had been part of Contra Costa County. Parking needed to be evaluated as part of long-term policies and to ensure the parking requirements in the Moraga and Rheem Centers were aligned. (Planning Commissioner Thiel)
• At this time the parking recommendations had been focused on studios and one-bedroom units and then the question was whether it should include other multifamily development.
There were no parking meters in Moraga. (Planning Commissioner Thiel) Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 3 May 4, 2022 • The information in Table 1: Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements - Comparison Table, as shown on Page 6 of the May 4, 2022 staff report was clarified. (Planning Commissioner Bode)
• The feedback from developer interviews (City Ventures and local developers) concluded that parking could impact feasibility, was expensive, and took up real estate competing with the number of units that could be built. Guest parking requirements for Moraga were also higher than comparable communities. (Planning Commissioner Bode) • Staff had conducted independent research, communicated with the staff of local jurisdictions and conducted a survey and found that Table 1, as described, was the current parking standard, although the Town of Danville and City of Lafayette were considering additional flexibility in their parking requirements and were considering a reduction in parking. (Planning Commissioner Bode)
• Staff had communicated most closely with the communities of Danville, Lafayette and Orinda. Orinda's draft Housing Element was already out, and Danville and Lafayette had yet to release their draft Housing Element but they were considering additional standards, including parking standards. (Planning Commission Chair Hillis) Projects that used the State Density Bonus for parking were automatically eligible for different standards, did not have to use the local standards and may use the State Density Bonus standards even for market rate units. (Planning Commission Chair Hillis) • In terms of guest parking, staff had focused on multifamily housing. Staff agreed that it would be beneficial to ask non-residential, employer-based institutions, SMC in particular, about their experiences with guest parking. (Councilmember Onoda) • The resident survey had offered ideas on making housing more affordable. Parking had been identified as a concern along with building on the parking lots at the Rheem Center.
Staff had not specifically asked about parking in individual neighborhoods. (Councilmember McCluer)
• A parking study would be required for individual projects and for any project that would displace a parking lot used for an adjacent business. Structured parking could replace surface parking but led to the issue of height and the equations would have to be considered. (Councilmember McCluer)
• Staff had communicated with the landowners of the Rheem Center and the landowner for the Moraga Center who had been invited to this meeting. The landowner for the Rheem Center had shared with staff early concepts for a residential development project. Shared parking was currently allowed in the Moraga Center and could be considered for the Rheem Center as well. (Planning Commissioner Polsky)
• Shared parking assumptions when there are different types of uses with different peak periods results in a certain percentage reduction of total parking spaces needed. As a small scale example, an evening theater could share parking spaces with a daytime retail shopping area. Shared parking was commonly done in most shopping centers even if there were lease agreements in place. A more complicated example of shared parking was between residential and non-residential uses where there were more issues related to access and privacy, which would be more difficult to regulate. (Councilmember Makker)
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 4 May 4, 2022 The next topic in the PowerPoint presentation was Density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) where density and FAR were defined. A comparison and pros and cons of density versus FAR were also provided along with examples. Staff recommended the Town continue to use density in the MCSP and in the future for the Rheem Area and evaluate the potential to switch to FAR during the planning period 2023-2031 depending on outcomes.
The next topic was Building Height and Limits, identified as a regulatory constraint to development in many communities. The 35-foot height limit was characterized as challenging in mixed use projects and projects with structured parking. The maximum building height limits in the various Zoning Districts in Moraga were identified and examples from Lafayette provided to illustrate projects heights of 35, 45 and 55 feet.
Staff recommended consideration of a 45-foot height in the Community Commercial (CC) and Suburban Office (SO) (Rheem) zones for mixed use and multifamily projects to align with the MCSP, with the 35-foot height limit to remain applicable to Commercial uses.
Responding to questions from the Town Council and Planning Commission on density and FAR, and building heights and limits, Mr. Miller and Ms. Hamid clarified:
• A blend of density and FAR was common but the question was how to count housing units with the FAR or exclude it from that calculation. (Planning Commissioner Davis) • If a developer proposed a density bonus and a 45-foot height limit in the CC and SO Zones, there was no height maximum specified and the developer was entitled to whatever height was needed to build the project with the additional units included. It was possible that the 45-foot height limit could be increased. (Councilmember McCluer) • If straight density was used in a Mixed Residential/Commercial development, the Commercial would be addressed as it was currently addressed, with an example provided. (Vice Mayor Woehleke)
• On Moraga Road and Rheem Boulevard, building height could be restricted and was a discretionary decision that the Town could make. The Town could consider objective standards for the zoning district and limit where 45 feet would be permitted through the adoption of a map, or set height limits in the zoning Ordinance, as an example. There could be varying height limits in each zone. (Vice Mayor Woehleke) • The Town may adopt step back standards, defined as when one reached a certain height for the building, the front of the building must be pulled in. In effect, the building would be terraced so that it cast less shadow and appeared to be lower from the street. Staff had welcomed any feedback. (Councilmember McCluer)
• The elevation/height of the ridgeline behind the Rheem Center was suggested to be around 200 feet in height. Redevelopment of the Rheem Center had previously been discussed by the Town Council and Planning Commission as part of zoning options. (Planning Commissioner Polsky)
• Whether the Town could start with FAR and go back to density if FAR was not working, could be considered, but the question was where to set the FAR and what could be expected to be seen if set at a certain metric, which it was noted would be trickier for the State if using FAR since the Town would have to make the case that whatever was chosen for the FAR would provide the number of units and densities the State wanted to see in the Housing Element. One of the cons of the FAR approach was it made it difficult to Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 5 May 4, 2022 calculate density bonuses. As an example, a 40,000 square foot building with a 50 percent density bonus would be another 20,000 square feet allowed on the building. (Mayor Sos) Stephanie Hagar, BAE Urban Economics, continued the PowerPoint presentation on the topic of inclusionary housing which required a percentage of units in future residential developments to be affordable, a common requirement in California. Over 170 jurisdictions statewide had some kind of Inclusionary Ordinance which was a tool to achieve some of the Low and Very Low income unit development as required by RHNA. Inclusionary zoning key policy considerations including percent of units to be dedicated as affordable, depth of affordability, applicability to different types of development, in-lieu fees and other alternative means of compliance with the Inclusionary Ordinance including project site thresholds, design of inclusionary units vs. market rate units, management and monitoring program and incentives for providing inclusionary units were highlighted.
Staff recommended consideration of a 10 to 15 percent inclusionary zoning requirement while providing flexibility in percentage distribution between income categories (different requirements for rental vs. owner) and encourage below market rate (BR) units, to be provided on-site.
Mr. Miller further provided an overview of State Density Bonuses, with State law requiring projects with affordable units to be eligible for bonuses (right to build additional units). The bonuses would be available for senior housing and units for certain populations, the amount of the bonus would depend on the number of affordable units and level of affordability, bonuses may be requested by developers, developers may also request concessions (relaxed standards) to make their projects more viable and some cities had adopted local bonuses. The State Density Bonus Chart was provided from the Government Code.
How density bonuses worked with Inclusionary Zoning was highlighted and included if a developer owned a 5-acre site and proposed 100 units, as an example, 15 units must be affordable (10 Low and 5 Very Low). State law allowed a 40 percent density bonus if the developer provided the units on-site. Thus, the developer may build 140 units, the bonus of 40 units may all be market rate, and developers may request additional height, reduced parking and the like to make the project work with limits on the number of concessions and waivers based on the affordability of the project.
Mr. Miller explained that staff was not making a specific recommendation related to density bonuses and inclusionary zoning but noted the potential for State density bonuses was an important consideration and the Town should be mindful of the potential impacts when considering inclusionary percentages.
Responding to questions from the Town Council and Planning Commission on inclusionary housing and density bonuses, Mr. Miller, Mr. Welch, Ms. Hamid, Ms. Hagar, Ms. Battenberg and Ms. Murphy, clarified:
• In terms of adoption of upzoning alongside a required inclusionary housing Ordinances, developers would be entitled to whatever the new density or FAR limit was and would be required to provide the affordable inclusionary units required under the Inclusionary Ordinance. This was opposed to a State Density Bonus one could opt into and desire to provide affordable units in order to get the concessions and bonus, under an inclusionary Ordinance, it would be a mandatory requirement to provide the affordable units. (Planning Commissioner Davis)
• Jurisdictions had chosen to adopt their own incentives to incentivize affordable housing and reduce potential impacts. If just using the State Density Bonus, developers would not be required to build the affordable units in the project. Based on conversations staff had Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 6 May 4, 2022 with developers, the developers appeared less inclined to affordable propose affordable units unless it was a Zoning Code requirement due to the difficulty for developers to recoup the costs of building the additional units. (Planning Commissioner Davis) • Around 170 jurisdictions in the State had adopted Inclusionary Ordinances. An inclusionary Ordinance when developed would apply to the entire community. The Town Council could consider imposing an inclusionary requirement for the Moraga and Rheem Centers only. Lafayette currently had an inclusionary requirement for its downtown area only but was considering an expansion citywide as part of its Housing Element. (Councilmember McCluer)
• State Density Bonus allow a developer to gain additional units and additional height or reduced parking or other waivers, which could be effective in offsetting the costs. Orinda was considering continuing to rely upon the State Density Bonus in its Housing Element, but it was unclear what the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) would require. In addition, ADUs counted towards Low and Very Low incomes which was another tool to consider Town-wide. (Councilmember McCluer) • Staff recommended increasing the allowed density from 20 to 24/dua which would change the MCSP zoning by creating more development opportunities on those properties. When a complete application was submitted or fell under certain legal standards such as a preliminary application that had come in under Senate Bill (SB) 330, the Town could not apply any new laws. If Moraga adopted an inclusionary Ordinance, it would not apply to projects with existing applications but only to projects with a new application. With respect to the MCSP Area, the Town could adopt an inclusionary Ordinance that applied to certain areas of the Town with a reasonable basis for doing that and imposing that in one area as opposed to other areas of the Town. (Councilmember McCluer) • The Density Bonus allowed a developer to opt into the program and it was their choice whether to provide affordable housing or not. If the Town were to consider an inclusionary Ordinance requirement it would be mandated at the local level to achieve certain goals that had been established. A policy decision would determine where to set the fees, such as the in-lieu fees, and in many communities the units were required to be built on-site making it difficult to use the in-lieu fee option. Based on conversations with developers, developers did not want to invoke the density bonus since it had a deeper depth of requirements and rather preferred to consider an inclusionary Ordinance which was more flexible and allowed the Town to achieve its goals while allowing a developer to get a waiver on parking standards, as an example. (Planning Commission Vice Chair Luster) • If an inclusionary Ordinance was set at 15 percent and it was found to be creating disincentives to development and was rolled back that would be considered downzoning, although it had not been considered to be downzoning for the City of San Rafael, which had been identified as an example of a community that had rolled back its inclusionary housing from 20 to 10 percent. (Mayor Sos)
• In terms of in-lieu fees, developers would have to opine why they would be willing to pay a fee as opposed to providing the units. From the perspective of municipalities, they would rather see the unit be produced. In-lieu fees made more sense in larger communities where they could accrue faster and be used to leverage or underwrite 100 percent affordable developments. Pursuant to State law, at least one alternative means for compliance must be provided, it could be an in-lieu fee, or a developer could be allowed to do a land dedication as an example. (Mayor Sos).
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 7 May 4, 2022 Mr. Miller further highlighted Transfer of Development Rights which allowed for a number of allowable units on a site that may be transferred to another site, was used to protect open space, historic resources, natural features, which required a "sending" site and a "receiving" site, with the MMC allowing a density transfer from open space and residential (1-6 units/acre) land but only to residentially-zoned property. Transfers were typically initiated by a property owner.
Staff recommended an expansion of the list of "sending" areas (zones from which development may be transferred) to include the Rural Residential zone plus other parcels in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity areas, and expand the list of "receiving" areas (zones to which development rights may be transferred) to include Commercial zones, including those in which housing was not a permitted use and which would create a limited opportunity for housing in the MCSP-CC, Moraga Ranch Overlay and Limited Commercial (LC) Zoning Districts in the Rheem Center Area.
In terms of the next steps, staff asked the Town Council and Planning Commission to provide feedback on the key policy questions. Staff would draft the Housing Element actions and programs to respond to the feedback and would also draft Ordinance language and standards to reflect the direction provided. The Draft Housing Element would be submitted to HCD and staff would continue to work on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Mr. Miller summarized the topics for discussion as follows:
Parking
• Consider reduced parking requirements for apartments (especially studios and one- bedrooms and guest parking).
• Allow for parking reductions where TDM programs were implemented.
Density v. FAR
Continue using density - monitor development to evaluate potential for shift to FAR in future.
Height
45-feet for residential and mixed uses in the Suburban Commercial and new Mixed Commercial-Residential (Rheem Center).
Inclusionary Zoning
• Adopt a 10-15 percent requirement inclusionary zoning Ordinance (details and mix TBD).
Density Transfer
• Add Rural Residential (RR) and Very High Fire Hazard Zones as "sending" areas. • Allow all Commercial zones to be "receiving" areas.
Mayor Sos declared a recess at 8:03 p.m. The Joint Town Council/Planning Commission meeting reconvened at 8:09 p.m. with all Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners present as noted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 8 May 4, 2022 Ashley Coates, Moraga, generally agreed with many of the staff recommendations. In terms of the inclusionary zoning, she suggested it was important to have a mandatory program that should include single-family and multi-family housing, but she did not want the limits to be too high and suggested 10 percent affordability.
Dave Bruzzone, believed the Bruzzone Bollinger Valley property had been treated differently from other properties in the Town. He preferred to take a minimized development potential lowered down to 35 units, as compared to Sanders Ranch, and paying peanuts to property sold was insulting. Inclusionary zoning was a big issue and if forced there could be bad consequences.
He suggested the City of San Rafael had gotten it wrong and had to adjust its plan. He commented that during the November 2021 Joint Town Council/Planning Commission meeting, the consultants stated if the Town contemplated the enactment of inclusionary housing, a proper study should be done to ensure they got it right. He found that the affordable housing consultants who had spoken at that time verified that concept, and it seemed to him they were discussing inclusionary zoning like it had already been approved. He found it difficult to believe a developer would prefer inclusionary housing over the State Density Bonus. He did not see the benefits in inclusionary housing, and the staff report made it clear there could be negative impacts if the requirements were too high and there could be missed opportunities. He again asked that additional studies be considered and suggested it was a mistake to advance inclusionary housing unless the Town was really going to enact an inclusionary housing program that provided a lot of extra benefits that would be encouraging developers.
Mr. Bruzzone commented that if the City of Orinda and other communities had not included inclusionary housing, he saw no benefit to include it in Moraga and was not convinced to change his opinion. He also spoke to his past experience with the Town attempting to implement the MCSP, and the fact the Town had enacted additional constraints he had been opposed to.
Mr. Bruzzone added that part of the Advanced Planning Initiative, a Constraints Analysis, was very important and that the Town had enacted severe strict development standards acting as a method to preclude development. In addition, as part of Moraga's 2020 implementation of the MCSP, many rules had been enacted which were contrary to SB 330.
Jeffrey Stone, Moraga, a local developer, commented that developers assessed risk, rewards, restraints and recourse when analyzing development. He suggested that parking should be reduced for condominiums and apartments since the Town should plan for the future and not for today. One-bedroom units should require one vehicle parking space, two bedrooms at the most two vehicle parking spaces, three bedrooms at the most two parking spaces. By reducing the parking, the site and height would be freed up for density which had value for developers. Parking in Moraga was very expensive to build with no value by building it, which meant that developers were being forced to build a net-yield that affected the underwriting and reduced where density could be located, thus reducing the developer's overall revenue and reward.
As to affordability, Mr. Stone commented on the State's housing shortage, echoed the comments made by Mr. Bruzzone, and emphasized the need to understand the underwriting from the level of affordability, which was a mathematical exercise. He had heard no comments about Area Median Income (AMI), Very Low income, Low income or Moderate income, or how it actually affected developers and their underwriting. He questioned the use of anecdotes from other cities and locations and not reasonably understanding the AMI for which developers must take that risk to build in conformance with RHNA requirements.
Mr. Stone suggested the way to build out the State was by building market rate development. He noted that the State was short 4 million units because of the continued political exercises, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other measures which prevented developers' willingness to take the risk for the reward, so nothing moved forward. The changing interest rate market, the 10-year Treasury inverting and the need for additional equity in the debt market further Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 9 May 4, 2022 constrained development and in the future the Town might have to decide whether or not to allow buildings 65 to 70 feet in height. He asked that everyone truly understand what inclusionary housing, parking, height, and size limitations would do when it came to density prior to enacting something that may have to be changed in the future.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Planning Commission Vice Chair Luster referenced the staff recommendation for parking and commented that scarcity resulted in conflict. She agreed with the staff recommendation for parking but suggested it should be for condominiums and apartments. She was also interested in the possibility of reviewing TDM programs on a case-by-case basis which may help to quicken development. She agreed with the staff recommendation on density vs. FAR and agreed with the need to stay with density at this point. In terms of building height, those issues had been discussed as part of the MCSP, but she saw no reason not to discuss increasing the height to 45- feet at the Rheem Center. She also liked the idea of having the building set back from the road.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Luster commented that she was not a fan of mandates, but for the sake of problem solving would be willing to take another look at 10 percent as the lowest option for the inclusionary requirement. She understood that encouraging density bonuses was State law and the Town would have to go forward with that. She would be interested in seeing what density transfers would look like and sought more specific on that topic.
Planning Commissioner Polsky wanted to see the two shopping centers in Moraga thrive and consider housing which would make both centers destination locations. He supported lowering the parking standards and working with SMC on shuttle services, ride sharing and car rental options and increasing bike-ability and pedestrian thoroughfares to increase the livability of the community. In terms of density and building height, he favored incentivizing development. He suggested FAR would allow developers to decide what to do, would promote development and that building height in the Rheem Center should be evaluated for an increase. He believed that would not impact the semi-rural feel of the community. Incentivizing density and adding units would enable developers to build showcase housing with retail below that would create a Town Square. Incentivizing would also allow developers to maximize their profits and enable developers to create areas that would benefit the rest of the Town. He liked the concept of inclusionary zoning, suggested it would be a benefit community-wide, but did not want to see it get in the way of encouraging development and should be pursued in a thoughtful way.
Planning Commissioner Polsky commented in terms of the State Density Bonus that he had spoken to a developer friend, and he understood that the density bonus had come in to jurisdictions that had created onerous Inclusionary zoning. He suggested it was not a good idea to rely on density bonuses for developers who were looking at profit margins and building the housing and it would not necessarily increase their bottom line. He stated there should be incentivization but provide additional incentives to those who would build. He liked the density transfer in concept, would like more information, but if it encouraged more development in Moraga he was all for it.
Planning Commissioner Davis commented that with the uptick in ADUs, in-law units and split lots, parking would become less generous. He encouraged the Town not to change its parking requirements. He suggested the reasonable and moderate standards in place over the past 50 years were not out of line with the Town's neighbors, the region, or the nation. Reduction of the parking would be a concern, particularly when considering reducing the parking next to the shops that would be underneath new housing. He stated other than the parking requirements he did not feel strongly about any of the other topics raised and saw good work. He applauded them all and had no problem with anything else that had been presented.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. May 4, 2022 Planning Commissioner Thiel supported the staff recommendation for parking reductions and would like to see proposed TDM measures with appropriate reductions based on housing type and location. In terms of the density vs. FAR, he explained that he worked for a Commercial Real Estate Developer and was aware of the benefits of using FAR and the trend of developing smaller more affordable units, which may be more attractive to encourage what could be developed in the downtown areas of Moraga. Similarly with the building height limits, he suggested the Town should be open to setbacks to open the height limits that also supported ground floor Commercial height, as seen in modern tenants in Commercial ground floor spaces with greater allowable floor height to support the ground floor to ceiling.
Planning Commissioner Thiel commented in terms of the inclusionary housing and density bonuses, both provided a path to a more diverse Moraga, in line with lower incomes and more affordable opportunities in the community. As to the density transfer, he would rather see the Town strive towards housing on-site rather than moving the units off to other sites given the limited development locations in the Town.
Planning Commissioner Bode appreciated the feedback from the developer interviews and the public comment from developers in Town who would actually be responsible for building housing to refurbishing the shopping centers. He would like them to have more opportunity to provide background on what they were looking at. He questioned the Town Council and Planning Commission spending so much time discussing these topics but only allocating the developers limited time to provide feedback through public comment, which he thought was doing the Town a disservice.
Planning Commissioner Bode commented in terms of the parking requirements that he liked the information that had been laid out in Table 1 in the staff report and would be comfortable moving ahead with what Lafayette and Danville had done. As to inclusionary housing, he noted the Town was not the City of San Rafael and could not afford to make a mistake and go backwards. He would rather consider inclusionary housing at 3 to 5 percent and then later consider bumping it up to 8 to 10 percent. He was comfortable with the building height and density as recommended as opposed to an FAR approach. He needed more information about density transfers to make a comment at this time.
Planning Commission Chair Hillis thanked staff for all of the information that had been provided and for the Planning Director who had provided answers to many of his questions. He commented on the placemaking that had occurred in the City of Lafayette along the main corridor and noted that when one arrived in Orinda near the theater, people knew they were in Orinda. When one arrived in Moraga, there were two strip malls which were old and in significant need of upgrades.
There were only three places in Moraga that made a statement for the community including SMC, Moraga Center and the Rheem Center. The Rheem Center had the Rheem Theatre which added character, but the community needed more placemaking to identify the community.
Planning Commissioner Chair Hillis also appreciated the feedback from local developers and landowners who had played a key role as partners with the Town to determine how to implement the vision to improve the two shopping centers and to increase diversity and make Moraga a more inclusive community. He supported an incremental approach and he supported the staff recommendation to reduce the parking requirements, but he would like to know more of the types of mitigations that would be available to address some of the concerns raised with a reduction in the parking.
Planning Commission Chair Hillis liked the idea of staying with what they had in terms of density but if it became appropriate in any specific development proposal to move to FAR, that should be considered. He acknowledged with density they could actually identify the number of units which would be more challenging with the use of FAR. As to the building height limits, he suggested that the Rheem Center made more sense than the MCSP Area to go as high as 45-feet, and while Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 11 May 4, 2022 he was concerned it could go even higher given the State Density Bonus, it would be somewhat unfair to the property owner of the Rheem Center to not be provided some of the opportunities provided to the landowner of the Moraga Center.
Planning Commission Chair Hillis also supported an incremental approach to inclusionary housing. He supported the implementation of inclusionary housing at the two shopping centers at 10 percent and while the percentage could be increased if successful and they could increase the applicability to other places in the Town, the intent was to incentivize development, particularly affordable development in those two locations. If that option were to be pursued, he wanted to know the type of incentives involved that would somewhat compensate for any proposal.
Planning Commissioner Chair Hillis also supported the concept of density bonuses and the staff recommendation for density transfers but noted concerns with development in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. He suggested those concepts may help the Town and provide another tool to help developers realize the potential for their land while also finding the development potential in places that the community found to be palatable.
Vice Mayor Woehleke commended the staff report and the input from developers. He found this was a wonderful opportunity for Moraga which had long suffered from excessive commercial and supplemental property that had created a certain detriment to the visual of the Town and this opportunity could address that. He advocated looking at the parking requirements from a macro and micro level, with macro on a shopping center mix commercial/residential basis recognizing that they would have some assigned parking, some common shared parking, guest parking may be part of that as well as some opportunistic on-street parking. He was interested in giving developers the opportunity to reduce the number of parking spaces taking into account the TDM opportunities. He sought more information before that was executed.
Vice Mayor Woehleke commented in terms of density vs. FAR that he viewed it as a non-decision since it already applied in the MCSP Mixed Use Commercial/Residential Areas. Regarding the building height, he agreed that 45-feet at the Rheem Center appeared to be practical and consistent with the MCSP and would advocate for stepped or set back placement and restricting the height to 35-feet near Moraga Road and Rheem Boulevard at the Rheem Center Area and perhaps to Moraga Road and Rheem Boulevard stepping the building before they reached 35- feet. He pointed out that 5A Rent-A-Space on Moraga Road sat back quite a bit from the road and the units closest to the road were not near a 35-foot height.
Vice Mayor Woehleke concluded that achieving the Town's RHNA goal and the 501 units in the Low, Very Low and Moderate categories may only be possible though inclusionary housing and if that could be achieved with 10 percent that would be more practical than 15 or 20 percent as other communities had done. He too would like to see what could be mitigated through incentives.
He believed no input was required in terms of density bonuses and in terms of density transfers; he considered it an option to give to owners/developers of land to make it attractive to those owners/developers to the extent possible. He otherwise recognized more of the details would be worked out in future meetings.
Councilmember Onoda thanked staff and the consultants for the presentation. She supported the input from developers and appreciated the comments from the public and local developers and landowners. She stated the staff recommendation for the parking requirements was fine but should be applied to condominiums and apartments. She did have concern with guest parking given how it had been used and abused at Moraga Country Club (MCC) and wanted staff to reach out to MCC to learn what they had experienced and what worked for that community.
Councilmember Onoda commented regarding density vs. FAR that while she agreed with staff, she would not rule out FAR for the Rheem Center. She agreed that 45-feet building height would be acceptable but be set back for a semi-rural feel as the Vice Mayor had recommended. She Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 12 May 4, 2022 would also recommend consideration of stepbacks and consistency with the setbacks for the scenic corridors.
Councilmember Onoda agreed the area closest to the street could be two story, then stepped back to possibly three stories and for the MCSP Area as well to provide a more semi-rural feel.
As to inclusionary housing, she suggested that 10 percent as a starting point may be the only way for the Town to reach its RHNA goal and if that was not the right number that number would have to be determined. She recognized that the Town would have to work with the State Density Bonus. With respect to density transfers, given the WUl and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, it would give the landowners an opportunity they would not have otherwise, and once CAL FIRE had updated its maps it would be to the benefit of the landowners to have a density transfer.
Councilmember Onoda added the Moraga School District (MSD) had submitted a letter to the Town applauding what the Town was doing and the MSD buy-in was very important. She added that Saint Mary's College (SMC) had a bus that traveled from BART to SMC and that was something everyone should be aware of. She hoped the Town would work collaboratively with SMC given the lack of a mass transit network in Moraga.
Councilmember McCluer also thanked staff, the consultants, the public and developers for the information and feedback. He pointed out over the past eight years, the Town had not gotten close to providing Low and Very Low income housing units. He agreed that stakeholders should nave a seat at the table, more time to talk, and more time to be actively involved in meetings.
Councilmember McCluer also commented that Moraga was not like the other jurisdictions that staff had evaluated. He wanted to see more information on parking from a macro view, residential, retail, commercial, office and the 17,000 people that would drive there. He was open to the staff recommendation to reduce parking standards but would like the macro information as well. In terms of density vs. FAR, he strongly supported density since FAR created incredible uncertainty and there could be over 100 units on one acre with FAR, which was inconsistent with the Town's semi-rural nature. If the MCSP Area was allowed a 45-foot building height, he agreed for consistency purposes that the Rheem Center should be allowed a 45-foot building height as well, although a density bonus may trigger a 55-foot high building and the setback and stepped back idea was important as well as the recommendations offered by the Vice Mayor to ensure a 55- foot tall building was not too close to the street.
Councilmember McCluer spoke to inclusionary housing, which was challenging. He stated there were two choices, a voluntary density bonus which the City of Orinda would be following and then the option of forcing one to build affordable units, a philosophy he did not support. While he recognized the Town may not meet its RHNA through a density bonus, he commented the Town could not force a builder to build housing and lose money. He sought more analysis and information on inclusionary housing with greater involvement from the property owners since he would like to see a solution that worked for everyone. He liked the strategy of affordable housing in the two shopping centers, and if they were to consider inclusionary housing it should only be allowed in the two shopping centers. He also opposed the consideration of using in-lieu fees given the potential impacts. He supported the concept of density transfers at the owners' option.
Councilmember Makker also commended staff for the presentation of information which was conducive to streamlined decision making. She was aligned with the staff recommendation for parking requirements, had heard about parking in her own home community and the need for more walking opportunities and retail options. She suggested the reduction in parking made sense and recognized that developers' comments were strong on that topic. She also supported the staff recommendations and comments about building height at 45-feet but wanted to be mindful about setbacks given the importance of preserving character.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 13 May 4, 2022 Councilmember Makker had nothing different to add to the discussion about density transfers other than to provide general support. In terms of density vs. FAR, she suggested it may be conservative to just continue down the path of density, but with the uncertainty FAR created, she did not want to experiment too much given the need to meet the RHNA. She understood why staff had netted out the way it had but she was still hopeful and curious about what benefits FAR could bring. She found that inclusionary housing thoughtfully designed could be a useful tool to create the Town's vision but there needed to be flexibility for developers, and it would be valuable to hear from developers prior to the Town's adoption of a policy.
Councilmember Makker stated her inclination was for a Town-wide inclusionary housing policy, but without weighing the pros and cons and limiting to specific areas, there was concern that the State may determine the Town was trying to concentrate inclusionary housing only in certain areas, which was the opposite of what RHNA and the State had made clear. Looking at potential options, comparing and contrasting the benefits of limiting inclusionary housing to certain areas as opposed to Town-wide would be helpful to then make a decision on what an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance may look like. She suggested that 10 percent was the way to avoid having to scale it back later and they should look at lessons learned from other jurisdictions.
Mayor Sos thanked staff and the consultants for the presentation and the many hours staff had spent with developers and property owners, some of whom hired architects to consider the impacts all of these ideas would have on them. She emphasized this engagement would be an ongoing dialogue throughout the process. She also thanked the members of the public who had participated with great vigor and commitment using the Balancing Act Tool, along with the participation in the many surveys. She stated the goal was to provide housing for a greater range of people in Moraga and for her the guiding principles were clarity, consistency, and predictability which behooved developers and the Town.
Mayor Sos concurred with the staff recommendation on the parking standards and the Town's adoption of the MCSP standards for consistency, clarity and predictability but would like to see flexibility around the edges that was responsive to proposals that included alternatives to car trips, whether biking, shared parking, shuttles and the like and there should be some trading on the parking if a development was bringing forward a proposal to get people out of their vehicles and into something else. In terms of density vs. FAR, she was conservative and was more inclined to stick with density, with an incremental approach that was predictable and understandable and given the overlay of density bonuses. Having certainty and predictability on the number of units being considered would also be helpful at least at the outset. If the Town found it was too limiting and not allowing for creativity the Town could then consider overlaying down the road.
Mayor Sos agreed that building height should be consistent with the MCSP standard for Mixed Use Development. For inclusionary housing, she struggled with this concept but had been persuaded that the Town consider an Ordinance with inclusionary zoning, but that it start at the low end at 10 percent and then determine whether more would be needed. At present she also favored starting with the commercial centers that were underutilized where they were trying to drive development. She was open to a Town-wide policy but would have to be persuaded that it was necessary to effectuate the goal.
Mayor Sos also commented she was not a fan of the use of in-lieu fees. The Town did not have the resources or the scale where that may make sense, and she preferred to create an alternative Plan B for developers to have it be something else. She was in favor of providing density transfers and liked the idea of giving alternatives to property owners to move density out of the far reaches of the Town, out of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and out of the rural areas consistent with the General Plan and vision of moving development into the commercial areas.
Ms. Hamid summarized the comments and stated for the parking requirements there was consistency and a direction towards the staff recommendation, but some Councilmembers and Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 14 May 4, 2022 Planning Commissioners wanted to see how TDM strategies looked and how it would work. For building height, most supported a 45-foot building height but wanted to see setbacks and step backs. For inclusionary housing, most were of the opinion that 10 percent would work. She was uncertain whether most were of the opinion that inclusionary housing should be Town-wide or just apply to the Moraga and Rheem Centers, which still needed further refinement and discussion.
Mayor Sos understood on the question of whether inclusionary housing should be Town-wide, that there was a split opinion between the Town Council and Planning Commission but there was openness to hearing the case for one or the other.
Mr. Miller explained that the case for inclusionary housing being Town-wide would be with all of the multifamily housing opportunities in the two shopping center areas, outside of those areas they would get either Moderate income ownership opportunities or ADUs that would be deed restricted as affordable. The zoning would not support multifamily housing in the outlying areas.
Mr. Miller also spoke to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) in that the Town would have to make the case to the State that it was not concentrating the affordable housing opportunities only to the two shopping center locations and limiting inclusionary housing only to those two areas.
The case could be made that they were not going to concentrate poverty but that would have to be explained in the Housing Element..
In response to the Vice Mayor, Mr. Miller explained that the MCSP had FAR for all of the commercial square footage and on top of that there was a density standard for the residential development.
Councilmember McCluer reiterated his comments and expressed concern the State may determine the Town was concentrating inclusionary housing in the two shopping centers but the Town strategy was to have affordable units in those two locations and inclusionary housing met that strategy. He pointed out the Town had little left to develop outside of the two shopping centers. He also spoke to ADUs which were deed restricted and they may have a situation where the lease agreements may have to be verified to determine whether or not those ADU units were being leased for lower income levels to count towards the RHNA, adding a complexity. He noted that builders were open to building ADUs.
Mayor Sos understood the arguments about the equity concerns and did not want to invite scrutiny. She noted that other constraints may prevent things springing up in the residential areas that one did not want there and then she could be open to consider inclusionary housing Town- wide.
Councilmember McCluer commented if that was the consensus he would support it.
Ms. Hamid added that Moraga had been designated by HCD as a High Resource Area and they needed to be careful and thoughtful about the approaches.
Councilmember Onoda noted past Town Councils had always tried to get the density in the two shopping centers. Based on her opinion of the General Plan and direction from past and current Councils, she would like to see the density directed in the two shopping centers.
Planning Commission Chair Hillis wanted to avoid an appearance the Town was trying to centralize where people would be required to live but suggested that could be provided with explanation. He was open to Town-wide inclusionary housing but wanted more information on the consequences, constraints for adding additional units to the edges of the Town, and whether or not units would be added in places where there was limited access in and out whereas the two main shopping centers were on the main travel routes in and out of the Town and the safest places for the additional densities.
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 15 May 4, 2022 Councilmember McCluer understood that the discussion included a request for more information on parking and inclusionary housing, to which Ms. Hamid reiterated there was also a request for more information on TDM strategies.
Ms. Battenberg explained that staff would synthesize all information and direction provided and would return to the Town Council to receive policy direction.
Mayor Sos thanked everyone for their comments and participation.
4. ADJOURNMENT
ACTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Woehleke/Councilmember McCluer to adjourn the Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting at 9:22 p.m. Roll Call Vote: 11-0-1.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Helber.
Respectfully submitted by:
Marty C. Mcinturf, Town Clerk
Approved by the Town Council:
Hare Woellete
Steve Woehleke, Mayor
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Mtg. 16 May 4, 2022