TOWN OF MORAGA
SPECIAL MEETING
July 11, 2022
Rovember, 1974 MINUTES
6:30 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 and staff teleconferenced into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting was conducted via Zoom Webinar.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Steve Woehleke.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present:
Council invers Sonalker, Mike Macue and Teresa on and
Councilmembers absent: None
Assistant Town Attorney Denise Bazzang reported the Town Council had met in Closed Session prior to the start of the Special Meeting to discuss potential initiation litigation in one case. After discussion, the Town Council voted 5-0 to initiate the action with additional particulars to be disclosed upon inquiry after the action had been formally commenced.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Woehleke reported no comments had been received for this item.
ADOPTION OF MEETING AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported no comments had been received for this item.
Town Council Special Meeting 1 July 11, 2022
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/McCluer) to adopt the meeting agenda as shown. Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
4. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ACTION
A. Local Roadway Safety Plan
Consider Resolution 63-2022 Adopting the Moraga Local Roadway Safety Plan (CIP No. 21-409); and Authorizing the Town Engineer to Submit Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant Applications for the Two Safety Improvement Grant Projects (CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt)
Public Works Director/Town Engineer Shawn Knapp advised that staff had received 128 comments through the process, significant for a technical engineering project. The Town had a dedicated Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) website and published an article in the Lamorinda Weekly including distribution to all residents and major shopping centers. Articles on the LRSP had also appeared in the About Town Newsletter on four different occasions and four different times in the Moraga Community Network (MCN) email system. Stakeholder engagement meetings had also been scheduled with the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD), Moraga School District (MSD), Moraga Police, Public Works (Maintenance and Engineering) Departments and the school districts to discuss safety issues in the community and evaluate all materials prior to presentation to the Town Council. Staff proposed revisiting the LRSP in three to five years to do another analysis and continue to collect data through the Town website so when the time came for another revision to the LRSP the Town would have a head start on the process.
Mr. Knapp asked the Town Council to consider approving a resolution to adopt the LRSP and the submittal of two Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant applications for safety improvements.
Responding to Council, Mr. Knapp clarified the list of viable safety projects had been identified in the July 11, 2022 staff report. If the Town were to be awarded the HSIP funds, staff would come back to the Town Council to inform of the award and the potential costs and process for implementation prior to moving forward with any project. The projects to be considered for school crossings could be expanded with appropriate signage for non-school crossings and with signage approved through the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and MSD.
As to the non-engineering strategies and recommendations in the staff report about education, enforcement, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and management training, Mr. Knapp explained that when staff had presented the Operating and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budgets, there had been mention of some monies within Measure J funding to package a safety program outside of the HSIP projects to help identify the needs, and staff would come back to the Town Council with a project to implement, which could be applied through grants such as a Safe Routes to School grant.
Staff was currently applying for Safe Routes to School grants for the Camino Pablo project which had some Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Transportation Development Act (TDA) grants and a component to that would be education. The Town would work with the MSD on the education component. Staff had also spoken with the Superintendent of the MSD, who had confirmed that the best time for implementing these programs was the beginning of the school year given that all the students return from summer break with fresh minds.
Town Council Special Meeting 2 July 11, 2022
Mr. Knapp also clarified the references to traffic calming, which could be provided to fit Moraga's needs. Staff, working with the Town Council and the public, would develop a policy to be implemented specific for the Town of Moraga. As an example, he cited the use of speed bumps previously on Camino Pablo, which may not have been the right approach for Moraga. Staff's job was to provide the tools that would work well in Moraga and the Town Council would then decide what tools should be implemented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported no other public comments had been received for this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
The Town Council fully supported the item, emphasized the importance of safety for all residents as the most important goal, was ready to move forward with a path for staff to pursue funding but suggested the past unsuccessful attempt to use speed bumps at Camino Pablo should not prevent that opportunity at certain locations in Moraga.
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/McCluer) to adopt Resolution 63-2022 Adopting the Moraga Local Roadway Safety Plan (CIP No. 21-409); and Authorizing the Town Engineer to Submit Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant Applications for the Two Safety Improvement Grant Projects (CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt). Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
B. Working Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
Review the Working Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element and Approve by Motion the Submittal of the Working Draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Review
Mayor Woehleke described the process to be used for the Town Council discussion and public input on the Working Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element. A second Town Council meeting had been scheduled for July 13, 2022 in the hopes the Town Council would complete its discussions and offer another opportunity for the public to provide comments.
Town Manager Cynthia Battenberg explained the Advanced Planning Initiative had commenced in 2021 with staff providing the Town Council with planning initiatives and advanced planning projects which included the need for the Town to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the development of 1,118 residential units and for the Town Council to adopt an updated Housing Element by January 2023, the State deadline.
Based on Town Council direction, staff had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) and recommended the Town retain a team of five consultant firms led by Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consultants to assist the Town in developing a Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative. The Advanced Planning Initiative included the Housing Element, General Plan Update, and Rezoning, including the Bollinger Canyon Study Area, in preparation for the required Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The process for the development of the Housing Element had begun in the summer of 2021, and included unprecedented outreach to stakeholders, service groups, Moraga School District (MSD), Saint Mary's College (SMC), developers, and included numerous public meetings and multiple surveys.
Along the way, residents and developers had raised concerns and staff had included policies such as the inclusion of a Wildfire Safety and Emergency Preparedness Program, and adjustment of parking requirements in infill areas. The Housing Element had focused on incremental change, strong design standards and a continued commitment to maintaining the Town's visual and Town Council Special Meeting 3 July 11, 2022
aesthetic qualities, representing the community while also balancing the State mandate, State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements and Town values.
Ms. Battenberg stated the Working Draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element presented to the Town Council would likely be revised following HCD review and the Housing Element itself was an iterative process and included an action plan with policies and programs to be considered throughout the eight-year 2023-2031 housing cycle. Any policy decisions would be brought back to the Town Council and Planning Commission for input and direction. She thanked everyone who had been engaged in the process for the past several months along with the Town Council and Planning Commission which had provided invaluable direction along the way, and which had been used to shape the development of the document.
Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consultants, also acknowledged the contributions of Town staff, particularly Planning Director Afshan Hamid and Stephanie Hagar with BAE Urban Economics who co-authored the Housing Element.
Mr. Miller provided a PowerPoint presentation on the HCD Review of the 2023-2031 Moraga Housing Element, the Town's guide to meeting housing needs required as part of the General Plan that must be updated every eight years, which was the only part of the General Plan subject to State certification. The content was defined by State Government Code and all cities and towns were required to demonstrate they had accommodated their fair share of the region's housing needs. RHNA, which identified the total number of units needed for each region of the State, required local governments to update their Housing Elements to demonstrate they could meet their RHNA and then submit the Housing Element to the State for approval.
An overview of the Housing Element adoption process was highlighted since the retention of the consultants and development of the work plan in August 2021. The Town Council was scheduled to hold public hearings on July 11 and 13; the end of the 30-day review for the Working Draft of the Housing Element would be July 30, 2022; and the release of the Draft EIR would occur in late September. The HCD comment letter was expected in late October; revisions to the Housing Element in November; and a Planning Commission hearing to adopt the Housing Element in December along with a Town Council hearing to adopt the Housing Element in January 2023.
The community engagement process included six community workshops including a walking tour, outreach events with civic organizations, community surveys, website and social media posts, pop-up events, SMC student outreach, interagency outreach, developer interviews and outreach to property owners and residents. Key messages from the community included the retention of the small town rural character; preservation of open space and hillsides; addressing wildfire hazards and public safety; improving traffic and evacuation capacity; focusing growth on commercial areas; improving the shopping centers; recognizing unmet needs of the local workforce, seniors, young adults, and college students; and recognizing that developers found Moraga to be challenging.
The six chapters of the Housing Element were summarized and included an Introduction, Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, Needs Assessment, Housing Sites and Resources, Constraints and Housing Action Plan. The Housing Element also included an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis, a State-mandated analysis that analyzed patterns of integration and segregation in the Town and region and strategies to ensure fair housing opportunities for all residents. In addition, Appendix B, Inventory of Housing Sites; Appendix C, Resident Survey; Appendix D; SMC Student Survey; and Appendix E: Balancing Act Survey were also highlighted with all appendices attached to the July 11, 2022 staff report.
Town Council Special Meeting 4 July 11, 2022
The Housing Action Plan was also highlighted and included housing goals carried forward with minor revisions, most policies had been carried forward, policies on wildfire safety and evacuation had been added, about half of the programs were new and the Town would receive credit for programs it was undertaking concurrently with the adoption, such as rezoning.
Mr. Miller also provided an overview of the following:
New Programs Under Goal 1, Opportunities for housing to accommodate anticipated growth, which included the update to the General Plan Phase 2, zoning changes discussed by the Town Council and Planning Commission at prior meetings. Also proposed were increasing density from 20 to 24 units/acre in R-20 and Mixed Use areas; creating Mixed Use zoning in parts of the Rheem Center Area; allowing residential and open space density to be transferred to commercial sites; and amending development standards to accommodate new housing opportunities at the Moraga Center Specific Plan (MCSP) and Rheem Center Areas.
Phase 2 of the zoning changes included a revamping of the 6-DUA zone to reflect existing uses; considering changes to R-12 and R-20 standards; moving the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards from the Design Guidelines to the Moraga Municipal Code (MMC); monitoring development activity in the MCSP and Rheem Center Areas and considering further zoning changes in the future.
The rezoning to meet the RHNA was further highlighted with the Housing Element process requiring zoning changes to meet the RHNA with 20-24 DUA in the Mixed Use areas, allowing housing in the Rheem Area, and zoning map changes. Housing opportunities must also be distributed around the Town to promote fair housing. An overview of the map changes for the MCSP rezoning and Rheem zoning was also provided, with the timing of the zoning changes to be concurrent with the adoption of the Housing Element
Goal 2, New Programs, included providing for a variety of housing types and affordability levels, supporting use of State Density Bonus Law, providing more outreach to affordable housing developers, allowing co-housing and live-work units and improving access to affordable housing subsidies.
Goal 3, New Programs, Conserving existing housing and neighborhood safety/services including adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (10 percent below market rate); facilitating future Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) production; creating public information materials on Senate Bill (SB) 9; participating in a regional shared housing program; developing a "Public Realm Plan" for the Rheem Center; allowing child care by-right on the ground floor of multifamily buildings; providing information/technical assistance to first-time homebuyers and expanding wildfire safety and evacuation planning.
Goal 4, New Programs, Ensure that regulations did not constrain housing for all income levels included simplifying the Planned Development PD) process and amending the parking regulations (reduce requirements for studio and one-bedroom apartments and guest spaces).
Phase 2 considered further reductions to parking where a Transportation Demand Management (IDM) plan was used; meeting with developers, builders, and homeowners to discuss ways to improve processes; applying for infrastructure grants; considering amendments to the Scenic Corridor Regulations and providing technical assistance to implement the MCSP.
Goal 5, New Programs, Provide for residents with special housing types, including amendments to the MMC to meet new State laws, allowing certain housing types, including small residential care facilities and assisting older adults with "age in place" retrofits.
Town Council Special Meeting 5 July 11, 2022
Goal 6, New Programs, Promote equal housing opportunities for all residents including a new program providing a link between other programs in this Element and their contribution towards Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH); considering an agreement with a fair housing provider to provide fair housing services; landlord/tenant mediation and first-time buyer counseling; conducting annual fair housing training for staff and distributing information on fair housing to the public; and
Goal 7, New Programs, Promote residential energy efficiency and conservation including the implementation of key provisions of the Town's Climate Action Plan (CAP) that served to reduce home energy costs including CalGreen and Energy Efficient requirements for new construction; supporting increased funding from Marin Clean Energy (MCE) for energy upgrades; encouraging increased use of renewable energy (solar); promoting water efficient landscaping and considering a point-of-sale energy efficiency upgrade program.
Mr. Miller identified the Housing Action Plan Program Implementation and explained that concurrent with the Housing Element adoption would include Phase One of the Moraga Municipal Code (MMC) Zoning Text Amendments (Program 2), including amendments to the Town's parking regulations (Program 27); Phase One of the Zoning Map Changes (Program 3) and the numerous tasks to be implemented in 2023 through 2027, as detailed in the PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Miller reiterated that the next steps included the end of the public 30-day review for the Working Draft of the Housing Element on July 30, Study Session on Inclusionary Zoning scheduled for August 24; release of the Draft EIR October 1; HCD comment letter around November 1; revisions to the Housing Element and responses to EIR comments in November; Planning Commission hearing to adopt the Housing Element in December along with a Town Council hearing to adopt the Housing Element in January 2023. Concurrent tasks included consistency amendments to the General Plan, Safety and Circulation Elements and Zoning Text Amendments including objective standards.
Mr. Miller advised that comments on the Working Draft of the Housing Element would be accepted through July 30, 2022, and written comments could be submitted to the Planning Director at [email protected] with another public comment period to be provided in late 2022.
Responding to the Council, Ms. Battenberg, Planning Director Afshan Hamid and Mr. Miller explained:
Senate Bill (SB) 9, the California HOME Act, was clarified. The language in the Housing Element was not cast in stone and any particular program was able to be discussed for modification, review or elimination. SB 9 required communities to find ways to create more housing opportunities, particularly in single-family neighborhoods. The Town had the experience of comments from those southern California cities that had already submitted draft Housing Elements to HCD and were able to review those comments and had an idea of what the State would accept in the Housing Element. There were concerns in Moraga since the Town had not produced any affordable housing and the intent was to write things in a way that worked for Moraga and for Moraga to come up with its own programs and timelines. If not included, the Town would run the risk of additional State mandates that could cost the Town some flexibility. Language such as "facilitate" as opposed to "promote" could be considered in the document and could be made easily prior to submittal to HCD. As an example, when the Town received an application, it could "facilitate" as opposed to "promote" its processing. (McCluer)
Town Council Special Meeting 6 July 11, 2022
• The action before the Town Council was to approve by motion the submittal of the Working Draft of the Housing Element to HCD for review. What happened after that and as part of the process, HCD would provide comments to the Town to create a document that would pass muster in January 2023. Between now and January there would be multiple opportunities to fine tune the document based on comments from the public, developers, HCD, the Town Council and Planning Commission, and based on further analysis. It was also important that both in substance and in tone, the Town's submittal to HCD needed to demonstrate that the Town was serious, was being proactive and was doing everything it could within the confines of other laws and local rules. (Sos) • If the Housing Element were to be revised significantly after submittal to HCD the Town could be in a weaker position for doing so. (Woehleke)
• Low barrier navigation centers were part of a State law passed in 2020 or 2021 requiring all cities in the State of California to permit that activity in any Mixed Use zone. Low barrier navigation centers directed those who were unhoused to permanent housing. The consultants were unaware of any low barrier navigation centers in Contra Costa County currently. (Onoda)
• Greater clarity was provided for requirement for a buffer which increased the housing units from 1,118 to 1,800 units. Above Moderate Income Unit capacity already existed in Moraga, but Moraga did not have the Low Income capacity and opportunities had been created for housing up to 24-DUA; however, every site with that zoning designation could not say it would be Lower Income since it was unrealistic and would not meet AFFH. As such, some of the sites would be Lower and some Market Rate or Above Moderate Income Units, senior housing, or condominiums. The requirement for a 25 percent buffer was also clarified with the Town's buffer higher than 25 percent for the Above Moderate Income level, although not in the Lower Income level. The Town was unable to get around that without eliminating some of the sites from the list and would be stuck with an identified site for Lower Income again. (Onoda)
• The format of the Housing Element was structured to put the best foot forward for final document, prioritization, program level of the whole document and if some goals and programs could be re-prioritized. (Makker)
• A Programmatic-Level EIR would be prepared, and staff acknowledged traffic was an issue, particularly on School Street with limited access and with assigned lots for high density housing. Staff acknowledged concerns that Area 14 of the Moraga Center Specific Plan (MCSP) Area had been identified for market rate housing where some residents of the School Street neighborhood may have issues with traffic. The Programmatic-Level EIR may not be able to assess the significance of the additional potential high-density buildings and developments to be located adjacent, making the streets more congested, but the Town was limited in how it could look at congestion as a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issue with the focus on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and placing housing in those areas from a CEQA perspective would be better by placing housing near commercial uses with shorter vehicle trips. The real impact on congestion and traffic was an issue for the community and linking development to the School Street Extension needed more follow-up work and could be addressed in the EIR as part of local circulation improvements before a project could proceed. (Woehleke) Currently the Town had an application in the MCSP Area for Area 14. The entire MCSP Area involved a Programmatic-Level EIR since it could not anticipate any specific development at the time of preparation. Now with the submittal of a development project, Town Council Special Meeting 7 July 11, 2022
staff was working with the developer to secure a specific environmental review that would include traffic. As more details and applications came in, those issues would be addressed at that time and would include mitigation measures. (Woehleke) • The reason staff and the consultants had suggested "consider amendments to the scenic corridor regulations" and not something more specific, such as a 30- or 40-foot setback, was that the document served for the next eight years, there were limited sites, and a 40- foot setback could be a constraint. The consultants recommended references to that constraint with mitigations since it had been identified in the Housing Element and in letters to the Town from members of the public and should be referenced. (McCluer) • The Housing Element requirements were again identified with a focus on Chapter 6, Housing Action Plan, which would be a focus of HCD with some of the programs in direct responses to the law such as AFFH. (Sos)
• As to whether C.3 requirements could be considered mitigation for development in the scenic corridors as a possible way for the General Plan and the constraints to be analyzed and mitigated could be looked at in the EIR in terms of the storm drainage and hydrology.
Attachment C, Planning Commission Recommendations from July 5, 2022, included redline suggestions from the Planning Commission that had been useful input regarding this topic, specifically a recommendation to amend Chapter 6, page B-19, Program 32 Amendments to the Scenic Corridor Regulations had been proposed to be revised to read:
Continue to analyze amendments to the Town's Scenic Corridors regulations (Chapter
8.132 of the Municipal Code) to consider modified setbacks and possible waivers of upper story stepback requirements on housing opportunity sites. (Onoda) • Chapter 6, Housing Plan, Program 22: Allow Services By Right in Residential Uses, was clarified, would address multi-family residential and not single-family residential to allow childcare or recreation rooms on the ground floor in multi-family buildings, with staff recommending the language be revised to read: Program 22: Allow Services By Right in Residential Uses. The Town shall update the Zoning Ordinance to allow services such as childcare and community gathering spaces by right on the ground floor of Medium and High Density residential uses. (Makker)
• Housing Constraints, Design Guidelines, were clarified, many of which were subjective, with the intent for more objective standards, and if any specific guidelines were causing problems, they could be remedied by being made more objective, specifically for the MCSP and Rheem Areas. As an example, the FAR was in the Design Guidelines but was an objective standard and should be moved to the MMC. The Design Guidelines were intended to be addressed across the entire area of the Town and not just the MCSP and Rheem Areas; however, there was not a program to address every constraint since some impacts affected the ability for the Town to meet its RHNA. (Woehleke) • The Advanced Planning Initiative was again detailed with Phase 2, a complete rewrite of the General Plan. The Town was doing the majority of the General Plan Update as part of Phase 2. If Phase 2 was not done there would be inconsistent policies which could be problematic when evaluating applications. The cost of completing the General Plan Update, which was recommended by the State to be done every 20 years, was approximately $300,000 for a 2024 update.
If the Town were to wait another few years, the cost could be upwards of a million dollars and the documents would be out of compliance. Staff recommended the Town Council move forward with Phase 2 and complete the General Plan Update that had been included Town Council Special Meeting 8 July 11, 2022
in the Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget, although that project would not be started until after the Housing Element was complete and could be reevaluated at that time. The Safety Element was cited as an example of an inconsistency with the General Plan. The update was described as internal consistency to ensure the General Plan was consistent with fresh data, lined up, was contemporary and not written 20 years ago, keeping the values with core changes to be made as part of the Housing Element process, and with the intent for the General Plan to be a more relevant and useful document. (McCluer) • Goals and programs were prescriptive on how things would be accomplished; however, the references were to outdated technology, which were the types of things that could be cleaned up in the rest of the General Plan, and was currently being done as part of the Housing Element Update. (Sos)
• Goal 7, Efficiency and Conservation, which had been shown last in the document was an example of opportunities for programs that could be considered annually with Marin Clean Energy (MCE) as an example and with a suggestion that program should be first not last and a recommendation to mandate the use of solar panels with staff noting that pursuant to the current building codes, multi-family housing included solar. (Onoda) • Chapter 6, Housing Plan, Program 5: Moraga Center and Rheem Center Development Monitoring, and in response to a concern whether there was a compelling reason for this program, staff and the consultant explained the Town Council and Planning Commission weighed in on using Floor Area Ration (FAR) to regulate development but determined instead to monitor the Town Center area for a few years and possibly consider FAR in the future. Staff added that an annual report was provided to the State each April with the Town's compliance on the Housing Element. The Housing Element had been written to look at goals incrementally to see how programs progressed to determine whether further actions needed to be taken to encourage the development the State had mandated. (Woehleke)
Mayor Woehleke declared a recess at 8:29 p.m. The Town Council Special Meeting reconvened at 8:36 p.m. with all Councilmembers and staff present via Zoom.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Sang Park, Asset Manager, representing U.S. Realty Partners, and the owner of the Rheem Center, was excited about the zoning changes and reported that U.S. Realty Partners had been in close contact with the Planning Director and the Town Manager. U.S. Realty Partners was committed to investing more capital in the Town of Moraga, but sought flexibility on those restrictions including building height, setbacks, affordable housing, parking requirements and the like to encourage development. Based on the current restrictions in the General Plan, no development was financially viable based on increased construction costs. U.S. Realty Partners was working with consultants and its architectural team to come up with some solid analysis of what was needed in order to encourage development and would share that information hopefully before the July 13, 2022 Town Council meeting.
Dave Bruzzone, noted he had provided letters to the Planning Commission and staff and hoped the Town Council had the opportunity to review that information, much of which pertained to constraints. As a property owner/developer, he had reviewed the rules to see what could be done. He believed the Town was implementing inconsistencies in the General Plan that allowed the Town discretion to approve or deny a project. As part of a letter dated June 21, 2022 to the Town, he had addressed many of the constraints that had confronted the Bruzzone family. After the implementation process of the MCSP, he spoke to the many changes the Town had adopted Town Council Special Meeting July 11, 2022
which appeared to be inconsistent with State law but which the Town had approved anyway.
Some of those constraints had also been identified in the Housing Element and were the same issues he had raised in 2020. He was in the process of submitting applications for MCSP Areas 14 and 15 and had seen the constraints stop the ability to propose a good project and force the developer to go over small issues with staff.
Mr. Bruzzone cited the Hillside and Ridgeline Ordinance and the implementation of the MCSP, and again asked whether the Town had adopted rules that conflicted with State law. He asked for a response from staff or the Town Attorney's Office since he wanted to build projects in the downtown in what should be a straightforward process. He cited specific changes he wanted to see to proposed rezonings, particularly with respect to property the Bruzzone Family owned on Viader Drive. He did not want the currently zoned Commercial to be precluded by this new rezoning. He also had concerns of taking the FAR from the Design Guidelines to the MMC and FAR was not to be uniformly applied to every project. He again asked the Town Council to review the past letters he had submitted.
Nikhil Gera, Lafayette, owner of multiple parcels on School Street, explained that he had family connected to the Town of Moraga and this was important to his family. He was also the developer of multiple properties in other cities including the cities of Lafayette and San Francisco. He had proposed a project on his School Street property in 2018 but it had taken the Town over ten years to have the MCSP align with the zoning. He was not sure it made sense to act now or wait until the application of new zoning, although he was uncertain when that would happen. He shared the goal of keeping the Town beautiful while also providing housing and stated he had spoken with Town staff to provide feedback. He commented on their progress in terms of addressing the constraints that had made development in Moraga challenging, but, if the process and limitations on development remained with limited density and height, he would be forced to take his business and build elsewhere.
Jeff Stone, Moraga, a local developer, and current builder of projects in the communities of Danville, Diablo, and San Jose, explained that he had built a multitude of housing and commercial developments. He found staff, consultants and residents had offered a very thoughtful and well- planned out process to understand the RHNA considerations and addressing the needs of the community while understanding the legislative requirements for the General Plan and Housing Element. As an infill developer and as a member of Save Mount Diablo for eight years, he had worked to protect the hillsides which was one of the main reasons he had moved to the Town.
Mr. Stone stated to efficiently, legally, and properly zone for RHNA meant that infill projects were necessary to protect the hillsides and not lose local control with unnecessary development that put density at the hillsides and eliminated trails. He suggested the Draft Housing Element was a good start providing developers with objective development standards, zoning objectives, clear rules and concessions and waivers based on bonuses allowing one to clearly understand and notate the underwriting of a project, and properly understand finance, entitlement, and construction risks. He found the goals the Town Council was working on to be incredibly important and commended all groups and stakeholders who had weighed in on a difficult process.
Lynda Deschambault, Moraga, agreed with the comments from the previous speaker. As an environmental scientist, she wanted to protect open space and supported infill and what the Town was trying to do, but she was not seeing much in terms of sustainability and equity. She had been active in the City of Lafayette which had a very clear Draft Housing Element and EIR and which mitigated things such as electrification of new homes and purple pipes in new homes. She found it difficult to wait until November for a Programmatic-Level EIR and commented on her understanding that CEQA did not allow projects to be divided up when their direction was clear.
In this case, 1,118 units were required as part of the RHNA and it would be crowded.
Town Council Special Meeting 10 July 11, 2022
Ms. Deschambault could not imagine placing ten more units on her lot on Donald Drive and 20- 24 DUA would result in adding more stories making it difficult to mitigate with no space for bioswales. She found the document was full of the terms "promote" and "encourage" and "support" whereas other Housing Elements in the Bay Area had eliminated that language and were clear in their IP Elements as to how to reach measurable outcomes. She was interested in open space, energy efficiency and reducing VTs.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Councilmember McCluer referenced Program 29: : Fee Waivers and Deferrals and commented that at the Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission, they had received a presentation on tools, financial subsidies and the like on affordable housing and the Town Council had been unanimous in stating it could not afford financial subsidies and had discussed inclusionary zoning. He expressed concern with setting expectations with the State and asked whether inclusionary zoning was required to be in the document.
Ms. Battenberg shared the concerns given the lack of funding for subsidies and with impact fees directly related to development and agreed it would be difficult for the Town to provide financially.
Mr. Miller explained that the version of the Housing Element that would go to HCD would not mention fee waivers and may reference only fee referrals. Fee waivers would no longer be discussed in the draft document.
Vice Mayor Sos clarified with Mr. Miller and staff the differences between local funding and connecting developers, as it related to Program 11: Facilitate Access to Affordable Housing Subsidies.
Councilmember Makker referenced Program 12: Saint Mary's Partnership and clarified with Mr. Miller the provision of technical assistance in the description of the program was a program in the current Housing Element that had been carried forward. The provision of technical assistance was to help SMC with the property it currently owned across from the Rheem Center and for the Town to provide needed information on the developer process, regulations and standards and guide SMC through that process.
Ms. Battenberg added the Town had provided that assistance during her tenure and discussions continued about a public/private partnership between the Town and SMC.
Mayor Woehleke referenced Program 13: Allow Co-housing and Live/work Units and there may be opportunities for such housing in other locations in the Town. Co-housing was seen in some communities as a way to address the high cost of living.
In response to Councilmember McCluer, Mr. Miller reiterated the Town was not required to develop the required RHNA units but show housing opportunity sites.
Ms. Battenberg explained that there were four property owners in the Town who had shared their concerns about some of the constraints and it was the Town's obligation to look at those constraints and evaluate whether they were reasonable or not, along with what may have to change to open the market for development the State and region needed.
Town Council Special Meeting 11 July 11, 2022
Vice Mayor Sos referenced Program 42: Climate Action Plan and asked whether it made sense to update this section and include an overarching goal of sustainable residential development and include whatever would be relevant to the Climate Action Plan.
Mr. Miller confirmed that made sense and would address some of the public comments received.
He stated there had not been a focus on sustainability in the document.
Ms. Battenberg agreed that adjustments could be made to this program.
Councilmember Onoda asked whether there would be room for units for the next Housing Element, and Mr. Miller confirmed that not all of the sites in the MCSP and Rheem Areas had been identified for housing. The entire southern end of the Rheem Center was not being rezoned and had been reserved for additional sites in the future. Also, sites that had not been developed in this cycle could be carried over since they were allowing by-right development through the new zoning tools.
Ms. Battenberg added the State was imposing very stringent requirements and removing local land use controls since cities had not been developing housing for decades, creating a big issue, and it was hoped through all the changes being recommended, there would be more housing developed; however, the population in the State had declined for the first time in years and the future was unknown.
Mayor Woehleke again referenced Program 13: Allow Co-housing and Live/work Units and Program 19: Shared Housing and asked how the two programs contributed towards achieving the RHNA.
Mr. Miller stated that not all programs were intended to meet the RHNA goals. Housing Element law required more than just meeting the RHNA goals such as providing sites for new housing, meeting the special needs population, AFFH and conservation of the housing stock. There was also a segment of the Very Low Income population, Extremely Low which was 30 percent or below of Medium, and it was very hard to build new housing for that category. In most cases they would look at room rentals for those making a minimum wage to rent a room in a home or caretaker's services for housing as examples to meet the Extremely Low category.
Councilmember Makker found the objectives for Program 19: Shared Housing to be very prescriptive and while she liked the goal, she was uncertain how prescriptive that needed to be versus a more general time frame.
Mr. Miller explained that this was one of the cases where the State would be looking for quantified objectives for every single program, and while some appeared random, the objective in Program 19 could be achieved in eight years' time.
Councilmember McCluer noted that funding was through the General Fund. He questioned whether all programs could be accomplished through existing resources.
Ms. Battenberg suggested some would have to be prioritized. As an example, the evacuation study that had been recommended, staff had received a proposal in the amount of $75,000. Staff was currently looking for the monies for that piece since it was a universal concern and could be valuable. Program 10, Proactive Outreach to Affordable Housing Developers and Program 11, Facilitate Access to Affordable Housing Subsidies were also noted as examples, and while they had shown the potential funding sources from the General Fund there would be no cost. Some of the programs which included funding from the General Fund may be misleading since the consultant had been asked to include potential funding sources.
Town Council Special Meeting 12 July 11, 2022
Mr. Miller commented that some cities had shown the staff time rather than the funding and many of those things were a function of the Planning Department, such as outreach to developers and facilitating access to affordable housing subsidies. The potential funding sources should really be shown as "ongoing" although HCD wanted to see dates.
Ms. Battenberg reminded everyone that Moraga had a small Planning Department and had to take into consideration the requirements of the Shot Clock and Planning Commission participation, and staff had struggled to get all projects done. While most cities had a Housing Division, Moraga did not, given the size of the community, and Moraga would continue to struggle and fall short of the required resources to implement the full Housing Element, which was why prioritization was essential.
Councilmember McCluer noted the Town Council should consider removing items from the list to relieve the pressures on staff and by the July 13 meeting staff should consider which items to remove.
Vice Mayor Sos commented the data collected had shown the senior population was important given that the Town had aged, and surveys had shown that those spending too much of a percentage of their income on housing disproportionately fell on seniors. She referenced Policy H5.3, Senior Housing Developments as part of Goal 5, Special Housing Needs, to encourage the development of senior housing and assisted living facilities with no programs to track such development. She asked whether that was something that should be considered in Program 36:
Allowances for Special Housing Types.
Mr. Miller suggested that could be addressed by specifically calling out senior housing in Program 36 to work with affordable housing developers listing senior housing as a type of affordable housing that was in need, and which the Town would like to attract. A specific program could also be considered with a focus on senior housing.
Vice Mayor Sos proposed at a minimum a mention of Low and Very Low Income seniors in the context of a programs) promoting such housing types.
Ms. Battenberg commented that senior affordable housing was embraced by communities more than other types of affordable housing and could potentially be pursued, but noted the current zoning included incentives for senior housing development in areas that allowed a density bonus.
Mayor Woehleke advised that Ms. Deschambault would like to provide additional comments.
Councilmember McCluer suggested if thạt was allowed everyone who spoke should be given the opportunity to again address the Town Council.
Assistant Town Attorney Karen Murphy agreed for consistency that if other people wanted to speak a second time that should be permitted. Ms. Battenberg advised that everyone also had an opportunity to address the Town Council at the July 13 meeting.
Mayor Woehleke reported at this time that Ms. Deschambault no longer requested to speak a second time.
Councilmember Makker asked how more opportunities could be opened up for renters and whether there were actions that municipalities could take on rent control and whether that was something the Town Council should be thinking about as part of the Housing Element.
Town Council Special Meeting 13 July 11, 2022
Mr. Miller suggested that would be up to the Town Council, but it was a separate policy issue.
Staff had not heard from renters as part of this process and had not received an overwhelming push for renter protections as had other communities. He was of the opinion the State would not need to see that in the Housing Element unless an advocacy group wanted something to look at.
Ms. Battenberg added that would involve a significant resource requirement of staff. Ms. Hamid added staff was guiding people to the County's resources that had already been established.
Councilmember McCluer found that staff had done a fabulous job on engagement but asked whether there had been any feedback to increase densities throughout the Town, dealing with constraints by revising scenic corridors and reducing setbacks, promoting SB 9 in multi-family and single-family neighborhoods, financial subsidies using tax dollars and a full rewrite of the General Plan.
Mr. Miller advised that the proposal to increase density in the two commercial areas had been discussed but there was no proposal to increase densities outside of those two areas. While there had not been specific conversations about SB 9, it had come up at meetings as a State law that some people did not like.
The other topics may not have been discussed at the workshops, but Ms. Battenberg clarified that those topics had been discussed by the Planning Commission and the Draft Housing Element was out for the 30-day comment period, had been posted on June 20, 2022, and had been widely distributed with comments to be accepted through July 30, 2022. There were no plans at this time to hold a workshop on the document to be sent to HCD but there would be more meetings in the future as the Town continued with different versions of the document.
Mr. Miller added there would be more community engagement as part of the Rheem Center rezoning and as they developed objective standards and zoning more vetting would be required.
Councilmember Onoda addressed the Planning Commission recommendation to: Evaluate policies in Phase 2 of the Advanced Planning Initiatives for steep slopes and mitigation for areas that are not in Hillside and Ridgeline areas or MOSO as part of Attachment C and wanted to complete that aspect since the focus all this time had been on infill development.
Councilmember McCluer agreed and pointed out there was a reason that steep slopes were a constraint. He suggested that was one of the policies in the General Plan that was incredibly important and should not be included in the Housing Element. While development could be developed on slopes up to 33 percent, his question was should they, and the General Plan suggested they should not. He did not want to open that door that could completely change the Town of Moraga.
Mayor Woehleke referenced Appendix A, Assessment of Fair Housing, which included a lot of data on demographics, some of which he questioned the connection to what they were trying to do, and some of which could be subject to misinterpretation. He asked for clarification on the intent of that information.
Mr. Miller explained that AFFH was one issue where the State had not certified the Housing Elements for cities in Southern California. As a result, the reaction in the Bay Area was to give the State all the data it had requested. The State was applying the same standard to large cities and urban cities to every city in the State regardless of size and composition. Staff and the consultant were erring on the side of caution to avoid getting a comment from HCD that it had not provided all the required content.
Town Council Special Meeting 14 July 11, 2022
As to what staff should work on between now and the July 13 meeting, Vice Mayor Sos suggested in the questions asked there were a fair number of ideas and suggestions for potential changes to the programs and goals in Chapter 6, which the Town Council should focus on for the July 13 meeting. She asked whether it would be helpful to have a redline version.
At this time each Councilmember identified the changes each wanted to see to Chapter 6:
Housing Plan, to be discussed further during the July 13 Town Council meeting, as follows:
Councilmember McCluer:
• Anything related to densities throughout the Town or SB 9, to add at a minimum new language such as "provide information, answer questions regarding the SB 9 law." • Preferred to remove the scenic corridors and setbacks item but if it were to remain, suggested consideration of language such as "review our scenic corridor and setbacks." • Suggested a full rewrite of the General Plan to focus on inconsistencies but not address vison, values or hillsides and ridgelines and financial subsidies. • Program 29: Fee Waivers and Deferrals, to be modified so that it spoke to deferrals and not fee waivers.
• Staff to look at resources and costs as to whether everything could be done with existing resources and existing staff.
• Supported removing all references to Design Guidelines from the Housing Element.
Vice Mayor Sos:
• Retitle Policy H3.7, Wildfire Prevention and Response and Policy H3.8, Evacuation Capacity as Policies H3.1 and H3.2, and add Policy H3.9, as recommended by the Planning Commission redline edits.
• Program 14: Adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, liked the Planning Commission recommended redline edits also recommended the use of the term "consider adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance."
• Program 17: ADU Database, anything referring to "databases" to be eliminated and any prescriptive outdated terms such as "brochures" and "pamphlets" also to be eliminated. • Program 21: Rheem Center Public Realm Plan, accept the redline edits proposed by the Planning Commission.
• Program 22: Allow Services By Right in Residential Uses, clarify this was for Medium and High Density Areas only.
• Program 25: Wildfire Safety and Emergency Preparedness Planning, move up and identify as Program 14.
• Program 29: Fee Waivers and Deferrals, to be modified so that it did not speak about fee waivers or subsidies although deferrals were acceptable.
Town Council Special Meeting 15 July 11, 2022
• Program 31: Infrastructure Grants, accept the redline edits proposed by the Planning Commission.
• With respect to scenic corridors, accept the Planning Commission redline edits but soften the language and continue to analyze amendments to the Town's scenic corridor regulations.
• Program 42: Climate Action Plan, to be retitled to read: Sustainable Residential Development, and description amended to read: To the extent feasible, the Town will continue to promote sustainable residential development and implement measures to improve energy efficiency and reduce utility costs in residential buildings. These include:
• Revise the objective as shown for Program 22 to read: Sustainable Residential Development. Revise the Timeframe to read: Ongoing and revise Responsibility to read:
All.
• Wrap senior housing into some of the existing programs.
Councilmember Onoda:
• Agreed with the Planning Commission recommended redline edits related to scenic corridors and setbacks.
• Program 42 and Goal 7, Efficiency and Conservation, agreed with the recommendations offered by the Vice Mayor and suggested the program and goal be moved closer to the top of the list. The presentation referenced looking at this program biannually but should be reviewed annually.
• Agreed with the Planning Commission redline edits for Program 21. • Agreed with the recommended revision to Program 29.
• Agreed with the Planning Commission redline edits for Program 31: Infrastructure Grants.
Councilmember Makker:
• Agreed with the Planning Commission redline edits for scenic corridors and setbacks. by the Planning Commission.
• Program 22: Allow Services By Right in Residential Uses, clarify this was for Medium and High Density Areas only and agreed with the revisions to Program 29 and Program 42 as offered by the Vice Mayor.
Mayor Woehleke:
• Generally supported the Planning Commission recommendations. • Planned to lobby during the July 13 Town Council meeting to remove all references to the Design Guidelines in the Housing Element.
Town Council Special Meeting 16 July 11, 2022
• Agreed with the comments on scenic corridors.
• References to updating the General Plan should remove the term "comprehensive." • Senior housing was interesting to include and was how Area 17 of the MCSP Area had been identified as senior housing but would not be developed as senior housing since it would be market-based housing. Uncertain how to zone for a particular density and then with a particular demographic have follow through. Was not ready at this time to provide further comments on Chapter 6, Housing Plan and would wait until the July 13 meeting.
Ms. Battenberg thanked the Town Council for providing useful feedback.
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
There were no Discussion Items.
6. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no Council requests for future agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT
ACTION: It was M/S (McCluer/Makker) to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Roll Call Vote:
Respectfully submitted by:
Marty C. Mclnturf, Town Clerk
Approved by the Town Council:
Steve Woehleke, Mayor
Town Council Special Meeting 17 July 11, 2022