TOWN OF MORAGA
REGULAR MEETINC
August 24, 2022
november, 1974 MINUTES
6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
TELECONFERENCED MEETING LOCATION ONLY
*COVID-19 NOTICE*
THIS MEETING WAS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (AS AMENDED BY AB 361), WHICH AUTHORIZED
TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT, DURING CERTAIN PROCLAIMED STATES OF EMERGENCY. THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMED A STATE OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO COVID-19 ON MARCH 4, 2020.
THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING WAS NECESSARY SO THAT THE TOWN COULD
CONDUCT ESSENTIAL BUSINESS AND WAS PERMITTED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE SAFETY OF ATTENDEES.
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this meeting was held via teleconference only, and was not physically open to the public. Town Councilmembers and staff teleconferenced into the meeting by audio and/or video. The meeting was conducted via Zoom Webinar.
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Steve Woehleke.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Mayor Steve Woehleke, Vice Mayor Renata Sos, and Councilmembers Sona Makker, Mike McCluer and Teresa Onoda Councilmembers absent: None
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Parks and Recreation Director Breyana Brandt led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no special announcements.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation Declaring August 31, 2022 as International Overdose Awareness Day
April Rovero, Founder and representative for the non-profit, National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse (NCAPDA) and Contra Costa County MEDS Coalition, reported the overdose rate in the country was increasing each year despite best efforts.
Town Council Regular Meeting August 24, 2022
Ms. Rovero stated that August 31, 2022 was International Overdose Awareness Day but would be recognized this year on August 27, 2022 to remember those lost to an overdose, to support those left behind and to break down the stigma for people asking for substance abuse treatment support. She detailed her own personal experience which had started her education on prescription drug safety and fentanyl use. In Contra Costa County, there had been 262 fatal overdoses and three non-fatal overdoses in the Town of Moraga over the past year based on statistical data. Fentanyl overdoses were the leading cause of death in the nation for those 18 to 45 years of age. She emphasized the importance to educate family members that no drug was safe.
The public was invited to an event on August 27 at Chichibu Park in the City of Antioch where information and education support tables and services would be provided. Everyone was also encouraged to obtain an overdose rescue kit provided by the NCAPDA. The Town Council was thanked for the proclamation and its support for the event.
The Town Council applauded Ms. Rovero for the work she had done in response to a tragic loss and encouraged the Coalition to consider a booth at the upcoming Pear and Wine Festival to be able to provide continued education to the public.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Kendall Langan, Moraga, commented that the effort was a small step for a large problem. He detailed his personal experience having to deal with prescription medications when his wife had been sick and the difficulty in being able to find a location locally to dispose of the unused medications.
Ms. Rovero explained there were multiple contributors to the problem, and she provided an overview of the Coalition's efforts to reduce opiate use and dispose of leftover medications. She detailed the many locations that would accept medications for disposal.
Town Manager Cynthia Battenberg reported the Moraga Police Department accepted over 1,000 pounds of prescription medications each year.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
The Town Council read into the record the proclamation declaring August 31, 2022 as International Overdose Awareness Day
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Barbara Preston, Moraga, speaking on behalf of the Moraga Garden Club, expressed appreciation to Parks and Recreation Director Breyana Brandt for her years of dedicated service to the Town of Moraga and its citizens. She described Ms. Brandt as the epitome of the perfect public servant: kind, hard-working, a consensus builder, listener, and a creative problem solver.
She wished her well on her next endeavor.
Ms. Brandt thanked Ms. Preston for her kind comments.
Ms. Battenberg announced that a farewell party for Ms. Brandt would be held on Friday, August 26, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. at the Hacienda de las Flores. She thanked her for her years of service to the Town of Moraga and for her invaluable contribution as a partner to the Town.
Hannah Mattioda, Board Director, Moraga Chamber of Commerce, reported the Chamber had decided to pull the Community Faire event for this year to be able to concentrate on its internal Town Council Regular Meeting 2 August 24, 2022
organizational needs and move forward with an Art Walk activity in October given the buy-in from businesses and landlords in the Rheem Center.
Mike McCluer, Moraga, speaking as a private citizen and a Moraga Rotary Member, and representing the nine community member steering committee, spoke to the Community Service Day Project and detailed the goal of Community Service Day to engage the larger part of the community to assist those in need, help schools and beautify the Town through community volunteers. Community Service Days had been scheduled for October 1 and 2, 2022. The goal was to attract families and volunteers to consider specific projects on those two days with the project to be sponsored and organized by nine Moraga community groups.
Mr. McCluer identified key projects as food for the homeless and low-income families, isolated seniors and foster children; painting small planting pots with messages of kindness and personal expressions to be distributed and donated to local senior organizations; helping the Moraga School District (MSD) with beautification of its campuses; fire abatement and trail cleaning to safeguard the community; sustainable gardening projects at Campolindo High School and Saint Mary's College (SMC); and more. A website would be available in mid-September for sign-ups and events to volunteer for. He looked forward to the community's participation.
Kendall Langan, Moraga, commented that the Town had many golf carts and low-speed vehicles that were registered vehicles and any who were not were cited on site. He believed the Town lacked enforcement of the State Vehicle Code and suggested that placed the Town in jeopardy for accidents and insurance liability.
6. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Acceptance of Consent Items
Consent Agenda items 6.9 Hacienda ADA Pathway Improvements and 6.12 Police Vehicle Purchase were removed from the Consent Agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported no comments had been received for this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Woehleke/Onoda to adopt Consent Agenda Items 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5,
6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.10 and 6.11. Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
6.1 Receive Accounts Payable Claims for 7/1/22 ($335,246.46); Approved 7/15/22 ($272,143.14); 7/15/22 ($1,268,516.35); 7/29/22 ($391,273.79); 8/12/22 ($440, 148.52)
6.2 Approve Minutes for the Special Joint Council and Planning Approved Commission Meeting on May 4, 2022
6.3 Approve Minutes for the Special and Regular Council Meetings Approved on May 11, 2022
6.4 Approve Minutes for the Special and Regular Council Meetings Approved On May 25, 2022
Town Council Regular Meeting 3 August 24, 2022
6.5 Continuing the Local Emergency Approved
Consider Resolution 69-2022 Renewing and Continuing the Local Emergency Relating to COVID-19 as Proclaimed by the Director of Emergency Services on March 17, 2020 and Ratified by Town Council on March 23, 2020
6.6 Continued Use of Teleconferenced Meetings Approved
Consider Resolution 70-2022 Approving the Continued Use of Teleconferencing for the Meetings of Town Council and all Committees and Commissions Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361
6.7 Conflict of Interest Amendment Approved
Consider Resolution 71-2022 Amending the Town of Moraga's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution 1-2013
6.8 Legal Services Agreement with Sher Edling Approved
Consider Resolution 72-2022 Approving Legal Services
Agreement with Sher Edling LLP to Represent the Town of Moraga on a Contingency Fee Basis in Litigation Relating to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Contamination; and
Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute the Agreement
6.9 Hacienda ADA Pathway Improvements Removed
Consider Resolution 74-2022 Accepting the Improvements for the Hacienda Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Pathway Expansion Project (CIP 19-104) as Completed by Top Line Engineers, Inc. (Hayward, CA) and Authorizing the Town
Engineer to Record the Resolution with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office (CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt)
6.10 2022 Pavement Project Construction Contract Approved Consider Resolution 73-2022 Awarding a Construction
Contract to DeSilva Gates (Dublin, CA) for the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CIP 22-401) in the Amount of $3,813,318 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $4,385,318 (Status: CEQA Exempt)
6.11 Support Letter for CCTA Smart Traffic Signals Project Approved Consider Authorizing the Mayor to Issue a Letter of Support with Any Needed Minor Modifications to the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority Submission of One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG 3) Grant Application for their Contra Costa Countvwide Smart Signals Project (Status: CEQA Exempt)
6.12 Police Vehicle Purchase Removed
Consider Resolution 75-2022 Authorizing the Town Manager to Purchase a Police Vehicle for $44,517.75 Pursuant to the Town of Moraga Purchasing Policy
Town Council Regular Meeting 4 August 24, 2022
B. Consideration of Consent Items Removed for Discussion
1. Hacienda ADA Pathway Improvements
Consider Resolution 74-2022 Accepting the Improvements for the Hacienda Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Pathway Expansion Project (CIP 19-104) as Completed by Top Line Engineers, Inc. (Hayward, CA) and Authorizing the Town Engineer to Record the Resolution with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office (CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt)
Mayor Woehleke advised that he had removed the item from the Consent Agenda to compliment staff on the improvements both from an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standpoint and for the large patio that had changed the entire atmosphere of events. He found the improvements for the area to be far more functional.
2. Police Vehicle Purchase
Consider Resolution 75-2022 Authorizing the Town Manager to Purchase a Police Vehicle for $44,517.75 Pursuant to the Town of Moraga Purchasing Policy
Mayor Woehleke advised that he had removed the item from the Consent Agenda since at some point the Moraga Police Department would have to move to the use of electric vehicles. He asked the Chief of Police to provide the status of when that may happen.
Chief of Police Jon King explained that the use of electric vehicles had been considered. The current hybrid version of the Explorer Utility Vehicle, cost approximately $8,000 more than the subject vehicle. There was also a fully electric F-1 pickup that was ready to roll out in a pursuit configuration but currently the Town did not have the ability to charge those vehicles, particularly during a PG&E Public Safety Power Shut-Off (PSPS).
The City of Fremont's Police Department had been testing a Tesla S series with good results but there was concern for fire hazards for such vehicles. In this case, the subject vehicle could be obtained now, was the best deal and would standardize the fleet of patrol vehicles.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported no comments had been received for either item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Woehleke/Onoda) to adopt Resolution 74-2022 Accepting the Improvements for the Hacienda Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Pathway Expansion Authorizing the Town Manager to Purchase a Police Vehicle for $44,517.75 Pursuant to the Town of Moraga Purchasing Policy. Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
7. ADOPTION OF MEETING AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported no comments had been received for either item.
Town Council Regular Meeting 5 August 24, 2022
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Onoda/Sos) to adopt the Meeting Agenda, as shown. Roll Call Vote:
8. REPORTS
A. Town Manager Update - Ms. Battenberg reported the After School Enrichment Program (ASEP) for the upcoming school year would begin on September 6. Movie Night at the Commons Park would commence on September 9 showing Encanto and the Pear and Wine Festival was scheduled for September 24 with booth applications now being accepted. Town Council election nominations had closed with a candidate binder available in the Town Offices for anyone interested in reviewing the information. Two candidates for the one two-year seat included Kendall Langan and David Shapiro. Two candidates for the two four-year seats included Steve Woehleke and Kerry Hillis. The date of the election would be November 8, 2022.
Ms. Battenberg also reported seven proposals had been received for construction management of the 2022 Pavement Rehabilitation Program with staff interviewing candidates, to be brought to the Town Council at its next meeting. She also reported that there would be additional Town Council meetings scheduled for the remainder of the year related to housing. The Town had also received its second installation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and the Town had now received its full disbursement with some funds left for the Small Business Recovery Grants.
Ms. Battenberg looked forward to seeing everyone on August 26 at 2:00 p.m. at the Hacienda for the farewell party for Parks and Recreation Director Brandt.
B. Mayor's and Councilmembers' Reports
Mayor Woehleke - Reported the Town Council had been provided a notice from the California Alliance of Local Elections related to the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the Housing Element and he had attended part of a Zoom meeting related to the topic. He also reported the Moraga-Orinda Fire District (MOFD) had authorized as part of this year's budget, a half million dollar grant program to assist residents of Moraga and Orinda to address impacts from ember fires, an opportunity for rebates for mechanical vent covers. The MOFD also continued to purchase a supply of bush fire mesh which was a fine mesh that fit into vents providing protection from ember fires and which would be communicated to the public in the About Town newsletter. More information on the program was available on the MOFD website.
Mayor Woehleke also reported Contra Costa County was creating a time capsule in September and would open a time capsule that had been sealed in 1964. Contra Costa County Supervisor Candace Andersen requested cities/towns provide letters and photographs to be included in the new time capsule by September 7, 2022. He added that along with the Town Manager they had presented five additional Small Business Recovery Grant checks to the business owners. Those businesses had been very appreciative of the support.
Vice Mayor Sos - Reported many residents had been experiencing delays in garbage collection services and Republic Services continued to state that COVID- Town Council Regular Meeting 6 August 24, 2022
19 related absences and driver shortages were the reasons for the latest round of delays. She explained that the Town of Moraga did not contract directly with Republic Services for garbage services since the contract for collection services was between Republic Services and RecycleSmart, a consortium of local cities who pooled their collective buying power for recycle and waste collection and composting services. RecycleSmart staff was working with Republic Services to have this matter resolved and the ongoing service issues would play a role in upcoming fee negotiations. Customers may contact Republic Services customer service via its website to report any issues with garbage collection services and she would also forward any emails to the appropriate party.
Councilmember McCluer - Reported at the end of July he had a significant fall and was halfway through his recovery and getting better. He welcomed a new business, Lou's Chicken Shop, which had moved into the former Noodle Theory location on Rheem Boulevard. He also reported the Moraga Chamber of Commerce had recently announced Bay Area Ballplayers as the Business of the Year and Joy in Motion as the Non-Profit of the Year, and while the Community Faire event remained important, the Chamber continued to be challenged by past items that needed to be addressed and he hoped the community would be supportive of the Chamber. He also conveyed his best wishes to Parks and Recreation Director Brandt on her next endeavor and expressed his appreciation for her years of service to the community and having elevated the Parks and Recreation Department programs in the Town.
Councilmember Onoda - Reported she had attended Marin Clean Energy (MCE), RecycleSmart and Art in Public Spaces Committee meetings and brieted the Council on the discussions. She also clarified with Ms. Brandt that a time lapse video of the installation of the fisherman sculpture in West Commons Park was available on the Town's Instagram Stories page and could also be posted on the Town website. She too expressed her appreciation to Ms. Brandt for her years of service to the Town of Moraga.
Councilmember Makker - Applauded staff for keeping the About Town newsletter updated which promoted the great work of the Town and its volunteers. She too thanked Ms. Brandt for her service to the Town of Moraga and stated she would be missed.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ACTION
A. Inclusionary Housing
Discuss Inclusionary Zoning Options and Provide Direction to Staff Mayor Woehleke reported this item was related to the Housing Element and addressing the issue of Inclusionary Housing. Staff would be making a presentation and soliciting feedback from the Town Council on a number of different factors, but no action would be taken at this time.
Planning Director Afshan Hamid explained that Inclusionary Housing was a locally adopted Ordinance in response to allow below market rate units and as a tool to address the RHNA requirements. The Town Council held a workshop in October 2021, at which time inclusionary housing had been discussed as part of affordable housing and staff had provided a framework on inclusionary housing and other elements in May 2022. At that time, the consensus of the Town Town Council Regular Meeting 7 August 24, 2022
Council was for staff to come back and provide more details. The staff report provided more details and included a lot of research and discussion prior to presentation to the Town Council and had been reviewed with other Contra Costa County cities in terms of what other cities/towns were doing and how inclusionary housing had been implemented. Town staff also had discussions with other city/town staff, developers, and consultants.
Ms. Hamid introduced Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consultants and Stephanie Hagar with BAE Urban Economics, Assistant Town Attorney Denise Bazzano and Town Manager Battenberg.
Barry Miller, Barry Miller Consulting and Stephanie Hagar, BAE Urban Economics provided an extensive PowerPoint presentation on Inclusionary Zoning: Policy Choices, for the Moraga Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative, which included an overview of the context and the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and which included a policy recommendation to adopt an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
Adoption of an Inclusionary Ordinance was being undertaken as part of the Comprehensive Advanced Planning Initiative, staff was asking for direction from the Council and assuming direction was provided, staff planned to bring a draft policy to the Planning Commission and Town Council for adoption prior to the end of the calendar year.
Inclusionary zoning was a locally adopted Ordinance, not a State mandate, and required a percentage of the units in future residential developments to be rented or sold at "below market rates" (BMR). The profit/loss to a developer would be mitigated through a density bonus and waiver of certain development standards and was an effective tool for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and achieving some of the lower-income housing assignment. It was reported that 90 percent of Contra Costa County jurisdictions either had inclusionary zoning or were currently evaluating inclusionary zoning.
An inclusionary Ordinance affected project value and if the inclusionary zoning percentage was too high, projects would not be feasible and would not proceed but incentives could offset the effect of inclusionary requirements by impacting development costs, project value, or both.
Upzoning could also offset the effect of inclusionary requirements. Not all developers were seeking additional density, but they could still benefit from waivers from development standards such as height limit, parking and setbacks.
The components of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance were highlighted as well as lessons learned from other jurisdictions.
The policy considerations the Town Council was asked to consider included:
Policy Consideration 1: What percent of units should be affordable? Most Ordinances used 10 to 15 percent and some Ordinances provided more "mix and match" options than others. Some communities specified a fixed percentage for all projects while other communities allowed a lower percentage for a higher depth of affordability. For-sale BMR units were generally targeted to Moderate and Low income. For-rent units were generally targeted for Low-and Very Low income.
Some communities varied percentages based on unit type (Single Family vs Multifamily).
Providing variation across income groups would help meet RHNA targets.
Some communities also allowed for-sale projects to meet the BMR requirement with rental units including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Examples from other jurisdictions were provided.
Policy Consideration 1: Percentage Requirement, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended 10 percent affordability. A for-sale requirement of 10 percent Moderate with a methodology for calculating the equivalent percentage of low-income units. A for-rent requirement of 10 percent Low with a methodology for calculating the equivalent percentage of Town Council Regular Meeting 8 August 24, 2022
Very Low income units and a review of this requirement in two to three years to determine its effectiveness in promoting development of affordable units and housing in general Policy Consideration 2: Exemptions and "Fractional Units." Each community handled this differently. Fractional units were often converted to fees. Fees required management and administration. Fees were based on the gap between an "affordable" unit and a "market-rate" unit (not the cost of building an affordable unit). Fees were used for housing programs, including local assistance for projects that were 100 percent affordable. (They could be used for affordable housing program management such as tracking of BMR units and a fair rental housing program, but the irregular funding stream could pose challenges.) Examples from other jurisdictions were provided.
Policy Consideration 2: Exemptions and "Fractional Units." Most (but not all) jurisdictions had exemptions for small projects. Applying percentage requirements to most projects would not result in a round number. Example: If the inclusionary requirement was 10 percent and the project had 15 units, then the project must provide 1.5 BMR units. Should we round up? Round down? Convert the 0.5 unit into a fee? Jurisdictions treated tractional units ditterently.
Policy Consideration 2: Exemptions/Fractional Units, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended projects of fewer than 5 units to be exempt. Projects with 5 to 9 units would pay a fractional in-lieu fee and projects with more than 10 units would pay an in-lieu fee for fractional units.
Policy Consideration 3: Alternate Means of Compliance. State law (Assembly Bill (AB) 1505) required the Town to provide developers with an alternative to building the BMR units on-site. An in-lieu fee was the most common option, but not mandatory (and may not be ideal for a small town like Moraga). Off-site alternatives could intentionally be made less attractive to incentivize on-site production. Most Ordinances provided a "menu" of options: Build units off-site, donate land and acquire and rehab existing units. Examples from other jurisdictions were provided.
Policy Consideration 3: Alternate Means of Compliance, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that a developer may: acquire existing multifamily units located elsewhere within the Town and rehabilitate those units, but at double the number required on-site; construct new affordable units off-site but at 15 percent of the total project instead of 10 percent; donate land to an affordable housing developer and all off-site units must come online concurrently with the related residential project.
Policy Consideration 4: Design and Timing. Most Ordinances provided basic design guidance so that BMR units blended seamlessly with the project. Guidelines address: Size of BMR unit, number of bedrooms vs. average for entire project, access to common amenities, interior finishes and housing type for BMR unit. BMR units must come on-line concurrently with market-rate units. Examples from the unstones were provided Policy Consideration 4: Design and Timing, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended the units have the same exterior design features, units should be dispersed, lesser interior finishes were okay, there be access to common amenities, comparable number of bedrooms (exception for ADUs), BMR units could be up to 15 percent smaller (square footage), and all off-site units must come online concurrently with the related residential project.
Policy Consideration 5: Length of Affordability. Six of the seven communities used 55-year affordability terms for rental units. Five of the seven communities used 45 to 55 years for ownership units and projects using State Density Bonuses were subject to additional limitations on length of affordability
Town Council Regular Meeting 9 August 24, 2022
Policy Consideration 5: Length and Affordability, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended 55 years for rental units, 45 years for owner-occupied units and no deed restrictions on ADUs.
Policy Consideration 6: Jurisdiction-wide vs. Focused Area. All Contra Costa County cities/towns with inclusionary zoning, except for the City of Lafayette, applied inclusionary zoning to the entire jurisdiction. The City of Lafayette's approach was a legacy of its Redevelopment Agency.
Policy Consideration 6: Town-wide vs. Focused Area, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended an Inclusionary Ordinance should apply Town-wide to comply with the AFFH mandate and counting ADUs as Low/Moderate units facilitated the development of affordable units Town-wide.
Policy Consideration 7: Incentives: Most inclusionary zoning Ordinances allowed for development incentives to offset profit loss for BMR units. Incentives were typically waivers of development standards (setbacks, parking, density etc.) and were granted on a case-by-case basis. Incentives worked in tandem with State Density Bonus Laws. With approval of AB 2345 (2020), the State Density Bonus Law incentives were much more generous and supplanted the need for local incentives. The State Density Bonus Law was voluntary while inclusionary zoning was mandatory.
State Density Bonus Incentives included: State law required that projects with affordable units were eligible for "bonuses" (the right to build additional units). The amount of the bonus depended on the number of affordable units and level of affordability. Developers may request concessions (relaxed standards) to make their projects more viable. As an example: 10 percent Moderate, 10 percent Low or 5 percent Very Low = 1 concession. Twenty percent Moderate or 17 percent Low or 10 percent Very Low = 2 concessions. Concessions may include reduced setback, increased height etc. and additional waivers may be requested if needed to make the project viable.
A Density Bonus Chart was highlighted along with how density bonuses worked with inclusionary zoning. As an example, a rental apartment building subject to the 10 percent Low income inclusionary requirement and where a developer owned a 5-acre site and the zoning allowed for 24-dwelling units per acre (DUA), the developer proposed 120 units with 12 units to be affordable to Low income. State law allowed a 20 percent State Density Bonus if the developer provided the units on-site and the developer may now build 144 units. The developer may request additional height, reduced parking to make the project work and could voluntarily propose to make the 12 units affordable to Very Low income instead of Low income. The developer would then be eligible for a 32.5 percent density bonus (159 units in the project).
Policy Consideration 7: Incentives, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended the Town rely on the State Density Bonus.
Mr. Miller highlighted the next steps which included the development of the Draft Ordinance based on Town Council direction. The Planning Commission was to review and make a recommendation on the Draft Ordinance on November 8, 2022. The Town Council had been scheduled to consider adoption of the Draft Ordinance at meetings scheduled for November 16 and December 7, 2022.
Responding to the Council, the consultant team and staff clarified the following:
• Policy Consideration 6: Town-wide vs. Focused Area, Staff Recommendation:
Inclusionary Ordinance should apply Town-wide to comply with AFFH mandate and counting ADUs as Low/Moderate units would facilitate the development of affordable units Town Council Regular Meeting 10 August 24, 2022
Town-wide. The policy did not have to be Town-wide, but staff had recommended it be Town-wide since the two shopping centers in Moraga had the capacity for multifamily housing. This policy would not impact existing single-family neighborhoods but if someone built a new single-family subdivision this policy could be met by providing ADUs in the subdivision.
From an equity and AFFH perspective, the policy would spread that responsibility regardless of where the units were built. The areas where subdivisions had been proposed were low density. The zoning was low density and would remain low density and not intended for multifamily development which would be in the commercial areas and wide since an argument could be made that applying this type of inclusionary zoning only in specific areas of the Town would concentrate and segregate the minority or other groups that would take advantage of Low and Moderate income housing. The staff recommendation would allow affordable housing to be spread throughout the Town rather than be concentrated in certain areas of Town.
• State Density Bonus law was again clarified. The State Density Bonus had its own parking standards close to what had been discussed, with the exception of the two bedroom requirement at 1.5 as opposed to two (2) parking spaces.
If an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was not applied to the two town centers, the general market may create ADUs and additional low income housing in new developments, but an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was a step the Town may take proactively to ensure there were at least some affordable units produced in those areas. Staff foresaw possibly more than 25 percent of ADUs would be part of new development given the shifts in the housing market and due to the cost of living.
• Concerns with changing existing residential neighborhoods if an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was applied Town-wide would be addressed by zoning and exemptions for those neighborhoods, with high density kept away trom the periphery of the Town, protecting hillsides and ridgelines. There was no scenario where there would be additional density placed in the single-family neighborhoods since zoning would have to be changed to make that happen.
• A level of economics would be required to determine how to translate a 10 percent Low requirement into a Very Low requirement to determine the dollar amount, a task to be included as part of this effort. Staff would return with more details after input had been received on the policy considerations.
• Inclusionary zoning was not new, and staff could draw from other experiences from a number of cities including those more like the Town of Moraga that may share the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation and other constraints. • Staff was not requiring ADUs be occupied or rented and just because there was an ADU in a residence was not the same as adding additional households to a community. It would be interesting if survey data could be gleaned on the percentage of ADUs used for housing versus for home offices or guest quarters; a data point that could be helpful in the wildfire/evacuation route discussions.
• Both Lafayette and Orinda had undertaken evacuation studies as part of their Housing Elements since most of their communities were designated as High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Town Council Regular Meeting 11 August 24, 2022
• Policy Consideration 7: Incentives, Staff Recommendation: Relying on State Density Bonus was again clarified. Staff noted in 2020 that State Density Bonus laws had not been as generous as they were now, and the reason for the staff recommendation since they allowed a 20 percent bonus for 10 percent Low income. Many cities that had they could not compete with the current State Density Bonus Program, and the incentives granted a developer were difficult to beat. As staff looked at this policy further, they would see whether there was a way to craft some of the concessions to be clear objectively, making it easier for the developer to know what was within range, and making it easier for the Planning Commission, Town Council and staff when reviewing projects. • Alternative off-site housing was intended to be somewhere else within the Town and not out of the Town of Moraga.
• Policy Consideration 4: Design and Timing, Staff Recommendation: Units should have the same exterior design features, units should be dispersed, lesser interior finishes were okay, access to common amenities, comparable number of bedrooms (exception for ADUs), BMR units could be up to 15 percent smaller (square footage), and all off-site units must come online concurrently with the related residential project. The 15 percent number was a preliminary placeholder and staff would like to review a few more ordinances before defining that percentage as the exact number.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Nick Campins, Moraga, understood he was one of the first homeowners in Moraga with an ADU that had been built under the State ordinance. He supported the adoption of a Town-wide Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, particularly for ADUs. In his case, the ADU which had been built above his garage allowed his sister in-law, who was Low income, to reside in the residence to help with his autistic son. ADUs also had the potential to seamlessly blend in with the community with his builder having been sought by others to build ADUs. He suggested the way the Town was structured ADUs would likely be used as a connection to existing residences.
Rene Zeimer, Moraga, also supported ADUs in the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance since they made sense for the Town, were low density, unobtrusive and a good approach to increase the housing stock in Town for the local work force, teachers and faculty and seniors who may wish to downsize along with children who may wish to move back to Moraga but could not afford single- family home prices. As a homeowner, she would be interested in having an ADU at her residence and suggested the Town should consider potential adjustments related to setbacks and reducing permit costs, streamlining review to make ADUs more attractive to Moraga homeowners. Also, ADUs from a design perspective could be built in a way to complement a residence, blend in with a neighborhood and possibly off-set rental costs while adding additional options for the Town to meet its housing needs. She hoped the Town Council would include incentivizing ADUs in the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance as a win-win for all.
Megan Arthurs, Moraga, supported inclusionary zoning. She had lived in the Town of Moraga for years, left to pursue college and public service, and chose to raise her family in Moraga, but could not afford the housing costs and could somewhat afford the rental costs. Moraga was an incredibly desirable community and many who grew up in Moraga would like the opportunity to afford housing in this area. She commented on the demographics of the Town and those who had been engaged and had good jobs but were unable to afford the current property costs and who would benefit from an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
Kendall Langan, Moraga, suggested the information presented had not been investigated and there were many things that were subjective. He believed the inclusive variance of zoning would Town Council Regular Meeting 12 August 24, 2022
still discriminate. The State had mandated the Town must follow certain requirements and come up with an expanded affordable Housing Element. He stated profits were being taken away from developers and that, along with other issues, discouraged developers from coming to Moraga.
He commented that in eight years there would be another Bay Area government regulation imposing more building. He agreed the center of Town was a viable area for development in the Town.
Marcia Farrar, Moraga, supported inclusionary housing and ADUs given that seniors could benefit from living in an ADU and having younger relatives close by or seniors could live in the main residence and have a caregiver in the ADU.
Ashley Coates, Moraga, read into the record portions of a letter signed by 15 people who supported strong policies to ensure that a range of housing types at different price points could be built in the Town in the next few years. The last two Housing Element cycles included zero opportunities to build Low and Very Low income households. Even teachers and first responders with better incomes had been priced out of living in Moraga. It was in the Town's best interests to add Moderate priced housing in the Town to compete with other communities for staff and to provide needed housing. She also suggested that developers and all landowners should play a role in providing affordable housing, which could be considered with a 10 to 15 percent inclusionary housing requirement Town-wide, but how they reached that would be up to the decision makers. She urged the Town Council to come up with something that required all landowners to play a role.
Dave Bruzzone, pointed out the staff recommendations in the PowerPoint had not been included in the August 24, 2022 staff report and he asked for clarification from staff.
Mr. Miller confirmed the staff report had not made specific recommendations.
Given that information, Mr. Bruzzone suggested the public was behind the eight ball. Before he was aware of the staff recommendations, he found the staff report had generally laid out a lot of the important terms and issues the Town Council should discuss. Now they were seeing a different dynamic and he was surprised by the new information and suggested this was an inappropriate way to address the issues.
Mr. Bruzzone questioned whether the Town truly wanted to provide more affordable units. As he had previously stated he opposed inclusionary housing since it had been shown that inclusionary zoning could limit housing and force an increase in the price of housing. He found it an educational experience to review the inclusionary housing calculator referenced in the staff report which had shown that in a strong market and even in a soft market, for Low income rentable units it was infeasible for any development less than 26 units. The Bay Area was a strong market but the Town of Moraga was not an epicenter of commerce such as in Silicon Valley.
Mr. Bruzzone reiterated it had been shown that a development less than 26 units would not provide enough profit to start construction. If the Town truly wanted to build more affordable units, the only way to do so would be to reduce costs. He believed that everything in the Town's Ordinances exacerbated costs and the Town had not rectified defects in its current code, modified development standards, removed constraints or streamlined the process. He was tired of the Town instituting additional costs and standards that increased the difficulty of a developer to build a project. He suggested the Town Council should not be discussing inclusionary housing until it rectified the current defects.
Kate Bekins, Moraga, was happy the Town would be addressing these issues and consider an inclusionary housing provision as a method to encourage or incentivize new development projects and include BMR housing as a goal of the RHNA and an essential part to moving forward. She understood as part of inclusionary zoning that nothing would be rezoned but rather, if a developer Town Council Regular Meeting 13 August 24, 2022
wanted to build a number of houses and if there was an inclusionary housing provision in place, it would provide a way to include ADU units in a variety of the housing units and a method by which to satisfy that requirement, which would offer another tool to satisfy the RHNA and get developers on-board to create additional housing. She also understood that part of the task was to solicit input from the community on furthering the concept of this inclusionary housing provision which she supported and liked that it would be Town-wide and not just in the commercial areas.
She believed a Town-wide Ordinance was an important part of any inclusionary zoning Ordinance since it would offer options for developers and provide more diversity for the Town.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
Mayor Woehleke declared a recess at 9:09 p.m. The Town Council meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m. with all Councilmembers, consultants and staff present via Zoom.
Mayor Woehleke explained for the benefit of the public that he had requested staff provide recommendations on the policy considerations since he saw a lot of variables within variables and given that staff required input to draft an actual Ordinance. He stated this was a starting point and he was open to other ideas from Town Councilmembers on how to proceed.
Councilmember McCluer clarified with Mr. Miller that feedback from developers had been provided earlier in the process and the current staff report had not been circulated as an internal draft prior to presentation to the Town Council. He confirmed that staff planned to have that buy- in with developers as they moved forward
Ms. Battenberg explained that part of the feedback from developers was the need for concessions.
At this time, the Town Council received a Summary of the Policy Recommendations as included in the PowerPoint presentation and provided the following feedback to staff and the consultant team:
Policy Consideration 1: Percentage Requirement
Town Council consensus to support the staff recommendation.
Policy Consideration 2: Exemptions and "Fractional Units" Councilmember McCluer preferred to follow the model used by the City of Clayton for exemptions where anything less than 10 units would be exempt. For fractional units, he suggested the Town follow the model used by the City of Lafayette and the Town of Danville and not consider in-lieu fees or use fractional fees.
Vice Mayor Sos suggested whether fractional units or in-lieu fees, she liked the structure proposed by staff, but if the money could be used as seed money for nexus studies or collaborations with non-profit groups that built affordable housing and offered the Town the ability to acquire tools to make such housing happen, it was worth collecting a limited number of in-lieu fees as outlined by staff.
Councilmember Onoda could go either way but did not want staff to have to deal with in-lieu fees. She suggested Moraga was closest to the City of Clayton in many ways and she could support the recommendation offered by Councilmember McCluer.
Councilmember Makker supported the recommendation offered by the Vice Mayor.
Town Council Regular Meeting 14 August 24, 2022
Mayor Woehleke clarified with Mr. Miller they could go with 10 units and eliminate the fractional fee for the 5 to 9 units but retain for projects with more than 10 units.
Ms. Battenberg reiterated the reasons for the staff recommendation for Policy Consideration 2:
Projects of fewer than 5 units would be exempt. Projects with 5 to 9 units would pay a fractional in-lieu fee and projects with more than 10 units would pay an in-lieu fee for fractional units and having funds could help the Town in its responsibilities related to such units.
Councilmember Onoda could support the staff recommendation, but Councilmember McCluer continued to have a different opinion.
Town Council consensus to support the staff recommendation.
Policy Consideration 3: Alternate Means of Compliance
Vice Mayor Sos liked providing alternate means of compliance and asked whether it was possible here there were circumstances that development on the periphery of the Town where they may not want the units on-site and the presumption it was always better to have the units on-site, she needed to be convinced that was correct as a matter of consistent application. Also, as to the multipliers, she was uncertain how that fell under harmonizing, making it attractive to developers, and making sure the units were built to protect the character and feel of the community. She wanted some rationale provided on the multipliers as part of the staff recommendation such as 15 or 20 percent of the overall project size.
Ms. Battenberg commented the City of Pleasant Hill allowed acquisition/rehab at 4X the units and if the Town Council provided general policy direction, staff would compare and make sure that it was fair and equitable and could come back with different numbers.
Mayor Woehleke wanted to know whether the City of Pleasant Hill was using a certain multiplier and whether it had been applied successfully.
Councilmember Onoda liked the policy followed by the City of Lafayette, whereby if the production of such units was infeasible or a greater public benefit would result from the units being off-site, and where the Council could require that off-site units be provided at a greater ratio up to 2:1 relative to on-site requirements, which would make sure the Council decided how this would work for a particular project. The way the staff recommendation had been written made her very uncomfortable.
Councilmember McCluer also liked the policy followed by the City of Lafayette which allowed discretion by the Council. He agreed with that approach and suggested combining that policy with the staff recommendation without the numbers was the right way to go.
Councilmember Makker commented that based on feedback from developers, they should not be adding more discretionary processes, but the premise should be that on-site units were better to begin with. She also agreed a rationale should be provided. She clarified the intent for the staff recommendation that anything off-site the units must be online at the same time and located in the Town of Moraga.
Vice Mayor Sos clarified she was not endorsing the policy followed by the City of Lafayette, which she believed was a bad idea. She disagreed with introducing another complicated and subjective step in the process which would be counterproductive and would deter, not encourage, development, and Councilmember Makker agreed.
Mayor Woehleke liked the policy followed by the City of Lafayette.
Town Council Regular Meeting 15 August 24, 2022
Ms. Battenberg stated from staff's perspective it would be difficult for staff with changing Planning Commissioners and Town Councilmembers and the nature of how long projects took and to not know where the Council stood. Predictability and objective standards were important and would help staff greatly.
Ms. Hamid agreed that developers preferred certainty in the review process.
Councilmember McCluer suggested mixing the discretion in the policy used by the City of Lafayette with the clarity of the staff recommendation. He asked staff whether that was possible.
Mr. Miller commented they could take the feedback provided by the Town Council and return with something that responded to both issues raised.
Mayor Woehleke suggested as another option to take it to the Town Council and the Town Council could then decide.
Vice Mayor Sos understood there was consensus for alternatives.
Town Council consensus was to follow the staff recommendation with requested tweaking of the numbers and try to provide some subjectivity as an option.
Policy Consideration 4: Design and Timing
Councilmember McCluer suggested the summary of policy recommendations, as shown in the PowerPoint presentation, should have included the greater details of the staff recommendation including: units should have the same exterior design features, units should be dispersed, lesser interior finishes were acceptable, access to common amenities, comparable number of bedrooms (exception for ADUs), BMR units could be up to 15 percent smaller (square footage), and all off- site units must come online concurrently with the related residential project. If those details were included, he could support the staff recommendation.
Mayor Woehleke, Vice Mayor Sos, Councilmembers Makker and Onoda agreed the details of the staff recommendation should be included. They also encouraged a defined and reduced unit size and up to certain percent rather than be unpredictable.
Town Council consensus to follow the staff recommendation with the additional clarifications, as described.
Policy Consideration 5: Length of Affordability
Town Council consensus to support the staff recommendation for 55 years for rental units, 45 years for owner-occupied units and no deed restrictions on ADUs.
Policy Consideration 6: Jurisdiction-wide vs. Focused Area Councilmember McCluer clarified with Mr. Miller they would not be allowing deed-restricted ADUs, which would trigger 20 percent State Density Bonus in single-family areas, but there was a question whether a developer could produce some product in a single-family area that would be deed restricted and trigger the State Density Bonus. He did not want the Town involved with deed-restricted units and recommended the model used in the Town of Danville. He opposed an option for deed-restricted units that would trigger the State Density Bonus, particularly given the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation for the Indian Valley.
Councilmember Onoda suggested ADUs by design were not deed-restricted units.
Town Council Regular Meeting 16 August 24, 2022
Vice Mayor Sos and Councilmember Makker supported the staff recommendation.
Town Council consensus was for Town-wide ADUs that were not deed restricted.
Mr. Miller explained that the original staff recommendation was to give developers the option of meeting an inclusionary requirement by providing ADUs but they would also have the option of meeting the requirement by building units on-site in a way that could trigger the State Density Bonus, but he understood that was not desired by the Town Council and more work was needed on this policy.
Ms. Battenberg added that with the State Density Bonus Law, deed-restricted units may be possible, but staff would have to investigate that further.
Mayor Woehleke stated if staff was considering it be brought back to the Town Council prior to finalization of anything since it was a sensitive issue.
Assistant Town Attorney Denise Bazzano clarified that developers may avail themselves of the State Density Bonus law regardless of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Ms. Hamid further clarified that developers may consider two different paths; the State Density Bonus and if so, the units would have to be deed-restricted. Staff was saying if inclusionary housing and the developer wanted to meet the Town's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, the units would not be deed-restricted.
Policy Consideration 7: Incentives
Vice Mayor Sos asked whether it would be appropriate for the Town in terms of local control, predictability, clarity, and desirability or working in Moraga to provide incentives locally rather than rely on the State Density Bonus, to which Mr. Miller stated they would take that recommendation to heart. He had not seen any other Ordinances specify numeric incentives, but staff would investigate whether they could do something like that for more predictability.
Mayor Woehleke supported consideration of alternatives to the State Density Bonus.
Responding to Councilmember Makker, Mr. Miller reiterated that staff had reviewed other jurisdictions. Seven cities that staff had reviewed all stated the community shall make available incentives, such as with a list of development standards that may be relaxed, to make a project work. It was all discretionary with no numbers attached Councilmember Onoda wanted to see that information side-by-side, but it may be too prescriptive since it depended on location. She wanted to see what they were talking about.
Based on the discussion, Policy 7 had yet to be finalized with more work needed on alternatives.
Mayor Woehleke asked the Town Manager at what point the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would be ready for review by developers to solicit their feedback and buy-in.
Ms. Battenberg explained that the next steps included Planning Commission review in November and thereafter the Town Council for a first reading of the Ordinance during a Special Meeting of the Town Council scheduled for November 16, 2022. The final reading had been scheduled for the Town Council meeting of December 7, 2022.
Ms. Battenberg reported that a stakeholder roundtable meeting was planned to be held to allow feedback. Staff had concerns with a forum just for developers given other interested groups that may want to be involved and staff was working to balance input from everyone. Staff planned to Town Council Regular Meeting 17 August 24, 2022
work with the developers, some of whom had projects with initial designs, to ensure that development was not stopped.
Councilmember McCluer agreed that there were many stakeholders, they were a key piece of this effort, and a roundtable was an good idea.
Ms. Battenberg acknowledged two Councilmembers wanted to meet with developers, but staff was of the opinion that having developers sit with all members of the Town Council was inappropriate, although. Councilmembers could meet with developers one-on-one as staff had done along with other groups. She asked if the Town Council wanted all developers to be brought together to meet with the Town Council or convene a roundtable with different people to discuss the complexities related to affordable housing.
Vice Mayor Sos understood staff was receiving a lot of information from various sources. Having the format of a public meeting with the entire Town Council would impose all.types of restrictions on the discussion that would make it stilted and not as productive and there could be questions when meeting with developers they should also be meeting with other entities. She encouraged staff to continue to obtain the developer input.
Mayor Woehleke suggested a stakeholder analysis would be beneficial and identify where the focus should be. He did not believe meetings in November and December including stakeholders only being allowed three minutes to provide their comments would be successful.
Vice Mayor Sos pointed out stakeholders had provided input beyond the three minutes allowed in public meetings.
Councilmember Onoda reported she had contacted developers in Town to discuss their thoughts and had met with residents, open space advocates and businesspersons and believed that was her job, and while a roundtable was a good idea she suggested it was not needed.
Councilmember Makker agreed a roundtable discussion would be challenging. She emphasized the number of meetings already held and the different tools that allowed input from all parties. She suggested a roundtable discussion would not provide any extra edge other than to create restrictions on how everyone may converse.
Councilmember McCluer agreed with many of the comments and recognized a lot of work had been done to engage stakeholders, but he would like to take one more step given the importance to the conversation beyond the staff report and the three minutes allowed during public meetings.
Vice Mayor Sos thanked the public for its input and the Town's team for all the work thus far to make this discussion possible.
Councilmember McCluer agreed and noted based on the public comment there was strong support for inclusionary housing in Moraga and if eliminating the density bonus, they could possibly accept it.
B. League of California Cities Voting Delegate
Provide Direction to Voting Delegate and Alternate Regarding Amendment to Cal Cities Bylaws at the League of California Cities Annual Meeting in Long Beach, CA on September 9, 2022 for the Purpose of Voting
Ms. Battenberg detailed the proposed amendments to the League of California Cities bylaws to be considered during the League of California Cities Annual Meeting in Long Beach on September 9, 2022, and as outlined in the August 24, 2022 staff report.
Town Council Regular Meeting 18 August 24, 2022
Mayor Woehleke confirmed he would be attending the annual conference.
In response to Councilmember McCluer as to whether the Town needed representation at this conference given the cost of air fare, staff confirmed if there was no representation from the Town it would have no impact on the Town of Moraga.
Councilmember Onoda found the annual conference to be valuable.
Vice Mayor Sos suggested the Mayor's attendance was worth it given the interaction and information that could be gleaned from colleagues.
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Kendall Langan, Moraga, believed there were items that had been discussed that the Town Council had made decisions that had not been fully disclosed to the public. He was uncomfortable with the process the Town Council had taken with respect to legislation.
Mayor Woehleke explained the Town Council could only discuss the agendized item pursuant to the Brown Act and suggested those comments could be discussed off-line. He would be more than happy to meet with Mr. Langan.
As to the subject agenda item, Mr. Langan had no comment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
ACTION: It was M/S (Sos/McCluer) to direct by motion the Council's delegate and alternate delegate to vote in support of the amendments to the League of California Cities bylaws to be considered at the League of California Cities Annual Meeting in Long Beach, CA on September 9, 2022. Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS
There were no Discussion Items.
12. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no Council requests for future agenda items.
13. COMMUNICATIONS
The Town Council discussed the purpose of the following correspondence which was summarized by the Mayor:
A. Letter of Support for SB 884 (McGuire) Expedited Underground Program
PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
Mayor Woehleke reported no comments had been received for this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED
14. ADJOURNMENT
Town Council Regular Meeting 19 August 24, 2022
ACTION: It was M/S (McCluer/Sos) to adjourn the meeting at 10:23 p.m. In Honor of Parks and Recreation Director Breyana Brandt and in Recognition of her Service to the Town of Moraga and In Recognition of the Six-Month Anniversary of the War in Ukraine. Roll Call Vote: 5-0.
Respectfully submitted by:
Marty C. Mclnturf, Town Clerk /
Approved by the Town Council:
Heve Wodilele
Steve Woehleke, Mayor
Town Council Regular Meeting 20 August 24, 2022