[0:00] That's not going to happen.

[0:10] Great.

[0:14] I call this planning commission meeting to order on Tuesday,

[0:19] June 2nd at 6:30 p.m. I'll take roll call. Uh Commissioner

[0:26] Helber? >> Present.

[0:28] » Commissioner Rain? >> Present.

[0:31] » Commissioner Pulaski? >> Present.

[0:34] » Sorry. Commissioner Moore? >> Present.

[0:36] » Uh Commissioner Webber?

[0:39] » Present. >> And I, Chair Maple, are here. Vice Chair

[0:42] Body is not present. And we're also joined by Town Manager staff planning

[0:47] director Sonia Ruzua and assistant planner Cassius Carant Carandang

[0:53] and assistant town attorney Karen Murphy.

[0:57] And Brian Horn, principal planner. Thank you.

[1:00] You were hiding behind your computer over there.

[1:03] Um

[1:06] Uh do any commissioners have a conflict of interest to report?

[1:10] » None. >> None.

[1:12] » None. >> None.

[1:13] » Okay, seeing none, we'll move on. Have any commissioners had contact with the

[1:17] applicant? There is no applicant, so. Uh we will stand for the pledge of

[1:22] allegiance.

[1:27] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[1:33] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:40] justice for all.

[1:47] » Okay, seeing as there is nobody in the audience, I will open and close public

[1:52] comment. And move on to adoption of the consent

[1:56] agenda, uh which is approval of the meeting

[2:00] minutes for May 19th, 2026. Do we have a motion to adopt?

[2:08] » I move to adopt the meeting minutes May 19th.

[2:10] » And do we have a second? >> I'll second.

[2:15] » Wonderful. All in favor? >> I.

[2:18] » I. >> Okay. Adoption of the meeting agenda.

[2:22] Can I get a motion to adopt the meeting agenda?

[2:25] » I so move. >> All right, motion from Commissioner

[2:27] Helper, second from Commissioner Weber. All in favor?

[2:31] » I. >> Motion passes with all eyes, six.

[2:36] And we will move on to public hearing, which is amendments to chapter 8.124

[2:41] accessory dwelling units of title 8 planning and zoning of the Moraga

[2:45] municipal code. Um and I believe we have a presentation

[2:51] from assistant planner Karen Ding. >> Good evening, commissioners. Thank you

[2:57] for having us today and for reviewing this item before you today. We do have a

[3:02] full staff for that's available to answer any of your questions. Cassius is

[3:06] here to make the presentation as you noted. Brian Horn is here as our legacy

[3:10] planner who can give us a little information about the history of ADUs in

[3:13] Moraga. Of course, Karen Murphy to help us out with any legal questions

[3:18] about the proposed amendments and I'm here to support anyone.

[3:23] » [clears throat] >> Thank you.

[3:27] » Thank you, Sonia. Good evening, planning commissioners. My

[3:31] name is Cassius Cardenas, assistant planner for the town's planning

[3:34] department. I am here tonight to present item 6A on the agenda for the proposed

[3:39] amendments to chapter 8.124 of the Rock Municipal Code related to accessory

[3:44] dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

[3:50] So, before discussing the ordinance, I would like to briefly summarize the

[3:53] Planning Commission's role in this process. Um tonight, the commission is

[3:57] being asked to review the proposed ordinance amendment, evaluate um

[4:01] evaluate [clears throat] consistency with state ADU law and local planning

[4:05] objectives, receive public testimony, and receive the required findings

[4:09] supporting the amendment by staff. At the conclusion of this presentation,

[4:13] staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 4-2026,

[4:17] recommending Town Council approval of the ADU ordinance amendment.

[4:24] So, the slide you see here summarizes ADU activity in Moraga from 2017 to

[4:29] 2026. The information is based on the town's internal ADU tracking records and

[4:34] data reported through our General Plan annual reports.

[4:37] Since 2017, the town has received a total of approximately 57 ADU

[4:42] applications, averaging six applications per year. The average ADU size is 687

[4:47] square feet, demonstrating the typical size and scale of ADUs developed in

[4:50] Moraga. As shown in the chart on the right, ADU

[4:54] activity has generally increased over time with 11 applications received so

[4:58] far in 2026, representing the highest level of ADU activity to date.

[5:03] The key takeaway here is that while ADUs are not the primary source of housing

[5:08] production in Moraga, they continue to provide a steady contribution to the

[5:12] town's housing supply and regional housing needs allocation objectives. By

[5:16] updating the ordinance to comply with state law, the town can continue to

[5:19] facilitate ADU development over time.

[5:25] So, before discussing the items shown on the slide, the overarching purpose of

[5:29] this ordinance amendment is to update Moraga's ADU regulations to ensure

[5:33] consistency with state law. Moraga's ADU ordinance was last updated

[5:38] in 2021. So, since then, the state has enacted several changes to ADU law

[5:43] affecting the development standards, application procedures, and other

[5:46] regulations. Earlier this year, the towns received a

[5:50] technical assistance letter from the state of California HCD, Housing and

[5:53] Community Development, identifying those changes and warranting updates to the

[5:57] town's ADU ordinance. Under government code section 66316, any

[6:02] local ADU provision that does not comply with current requirements is considered

[6:07] null and void, meaning that the town must rely on the applicable state

[6:10] standards rather than provisions in the municipal code. As a result, the town

[6:14] has been processing ADU applications pursuant to state law as of early April

[6:19] 2026. Ultimately, this is a primarily a

[6:23] compliance effort in order to bring the town's regulations into alignment with

[6:27] current state standards, restore enforceable local ordinance, and provide

[6:32] a clear structure procedure for both applicants and staff.

[6:39] So, the ordinance contains numerous amendments. However, this slide

[6:43] highlights some of the more significant changes required to maintain consistency

[6:48] with current state law. First, several definitions and terms have been updated

[6:52] to reflect statutory language and provide clarity in administering the

[6:55] ordinance. Second, application procedures have been revised to

[6:59] incorporate state-mandated review timeframes, completeness determinations,

[7:03] and appeal procedures, creating a more streamlined and consistent process for

[7:07] applicants. Third, the ordinance established an

[7:10] amnesty process for ADUs and JDUs constructed before January 1st, 2020,

[7:15] creating a process for eligible units to obtain permits and comply with

[7:18] applicable requirements. Fourth, the ordinance updates the number

[7:22] of ADUs allowed on multi-family properties to reflect current state

[7:26] requirements. Fifth, the development standards have

[7:29] been revised to clarify when setbacks may not be required, update height

[7:34] allowances, refine impact fee provisions, and revise parking

[7:38] requirements where exemptions are mandated.

[7:40] And finally, the deed restriction requirements have been updated by

[7:43] eliminating deed restrictions for ADUs while retaining them for JADUs where

[7:48] required. >> [clears throat]

[7:52] » In addition to state-mandated amendments, staff are proposing several

[7:56] administrative updates intended to improve the organization and usability

[8:00] of the ordinance. First, the administrative adjustment

[8:03] provision is proposed for removal cuz it no longer necessary under the current

[8:08] ministerial ADU framework and provides a more streamlined process. Second,

[8:14] application procedures are have been consolidated into a single section in

[8:18] article 1 to make the ordinance easier to navigate and administer rather than

[8:22] repeating similar procedures throughout the multiple articles. Common

[8:26] requirements are now organized in one location.

[8:30] Third, several sections have been renumbered to reflect the additions,

[8:33] deletions, and the reorganization of provisions included in this update. And

[8:37] then finally, internal code references, definitions, and citations have been

[8:41] updated to improve the consistency and ensure the ordinance accurately reflects

[8:45] the revised chapter.

[8:50] So, the proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with both general plan policy

[8:54] LU-3.7 for accessory dwelling units and housing

[8:58] element program 16 for ADU production. Policy LU-3.7 of the general plan

[9:05] encourages streamlined review processes in all residential permitted zones,

[9:10] which are maintained through the proposed amendments. Housing element

[9:13] program 16 seeks to facilitate ADU production in the highest resource

[9:17] neighborhoods. The key takeaway here is that the

[9:19] proposed ordinance amendment advances both the general plan policy and the

[9:23] housing element program by maintaining a compliant local framework that

[9:26] facilitates ADU development consistent with state law.

[9:33] So, for the planning commission to recommend approval, four findings under

[9:36] the Moraga Municipal Code must be made in which staff has determined

[9:41] first, the proposed amendments are consistent with the general plan

[9:44] including the policies supporting ADUs and housing element programs that were

[9:48] previously discussed. Second, the amendments are compatible

[9:52] with the existing zoning districts as ADUs and JDUs remain permit uses in all

[9:57] residential zones and the amendments do not alter their current permit status.

[10:02] Third, the amendments address the community's need for additional housing

[10:06] opportunities while maintaining a compliant and enforceable local ADU

[10:09] ordinance and fourth, the amendments promote public convenience, general

[10:14] welfare, and sound zoning practice by allowing the by aligning the town's

[10:18] regulations with current state law.

[10:24] So, for sequa and public notice, the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt

[10:27] from sequa pursuant to public resources code section 21080.17

[10:33] and sequa guideline section 15282 subsection H which specifically applies

[10:38] to ADU and JDU ordinances. Public notice for tonight's meeting was published in

[10:43] the East Bay Times on May 13th and in accordance with government code

[10:47] section 6584. Also, I want to note out prior to

[10:51] tonight's meeting the town received a public comment letter identifying two

[10:54] inconsistencies in the proposed ordinance amendment related to JDU owner

[10:58] occupancy requirements and front yard setbacks for streamlined ADUs.

[11:03] Staff has revised those sections for development standards under the

[11:06] development standards to clarify that owner occupancy is required for JDUs

[11:11] when sharing sanitation facilities and to remove the front yard setback

[11:14] requirement for streamlined ADUs and both proposed and existing single family

[11:19] and multi-family dwellings. Both of those items consistent with government

[11:22] code section 66323 and for the record, we uploaded the

[11:26] supplemental staff report to the PC agenda for today showing those two

[11:29] changes.

[11:33] So, moving on to the next steps. If the Planning Commission recommends approval

[11:36] tonight, the ordinance will move forward to Town Council for consideration. The

[11:41] anticipated schedule includes a Town Council public hearing for the first

[11:44] reading on June 24th and the second reading and adoption on July 8th,

[11:48] followed by a submission to the final of the final ordinance to HCD. And the

[11:54] ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption.

[12:01] So, in conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution

[12:04] number 4-2026, recommend that the Town Council approve

[12:08] the ordinance amending chapter 8.124 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code for ADUs

[12:13] and JADUs. The Commission may also recommend

[12:15] approval with modifications or continue the public hearing and request

[12:19] additional information. So, that concludes tonight um staff's

[12:24] presentation. Staff are available for any questions and the Town Attorney is

[12:27] also available should the Commission have any legal questions regarding the

[12:31] proposed amendments. Thank you.

[12:35] » Thank you for that uh presentation and for the adjustments

[12:40] made today based on the letters received.

[12:43] Um I will um

[12:46] open it up for questions for the staff from the Commissioners and I ask that

[12:50] you keep your questions related to the topic at hand and hold all comments or

[12:54] discussion until that section.

[12:58] Anybody want to kick it off? >> Commissioner

[13:01] » Sure, Commissioner Weber. >> I thank you for the presentation, um Mr.

[13:05] Ganding. I appreciate that the work that was put into it. I know it's quite

[13:09] laborious to update the code, so thank you for that effort.

[13:12] Um my question's regarding on page 31-32 of the redlined version of the proposed

[13:17] amendments from existing municipal code. This is article 4.

[13:22] You've proposed deletion of section 8.124.170

[13:26] governing the administrative adjustment. Um could you explain um I understand

[13:31] there's a rationale behind deleting it. Could you explain what that is

[13:34] and why?

[13:38] » Whoops, sorry. >> [gasps]

[13:39] » So yeah, the administrative adjustment section has been removed. Um

[13:44] so the whole point is that for consistency with state law, ADUs are

[13:48] intended to be streamlined and having these administrative adjustments um

[13:52] would not comply with this ADU state law. Um also I do either town has not

[13:57] been previously has not been using this administrative administrative adjustment

[14:00] section. We have not seen any recent applications or any applications prior

[14:04] to um that after the ADU was amended to include this. So

[14:09] um overall, this needs to be removed um for consistency with state law.

[14:13] » Okay, that makes sense. Thank you very much.

[14:17] That's all I have, Chair Madam Chair. >> Great, thank you.

[14:21] Commissioner Polsky. >> I have some tangential questions. Um my

[14:25] my my wrist laugh, but can you go back to the uh slide that showed the

[14:28] production of or the approval of ADUs? Um and I was just wondering um

[14:34] when the state law kicked in for by right approval for ADUs and

[14:40] does that correlate to uh keep going back? It was the graph, yeah.

[14:44] Uh do you remember when the the state law

[14:46] that kicked in that said ADUs are approved by right?

[14:51] Wasn't that re- fairly recently? And the reason I'm asking you is like did

[14:54] that was that where we saw the uptick?

[14:58] » So there have been a number of changes to ADU laws over the years, and I think

[15:02] actually prior to 2017, there were some news there were state

[15:07] laws that were implemented to allow certain types of ADUs. Over the years

[15:12] though, they just keep you know, strengthening and limiting

[15:15] local discretion. So I think that's where you see the uptick because because

[15:21] you know, basically for a number of years, every year there were revisions

[15:24] to make them easier um to process. But, they're they were ministerially

[15:30] allowed prior to 2017. >> Thank you.

[15:34] » And And to add, um I don't know if uptick is a good way to describe the

[15:39] Maraga's description. It's more steady, if anything.

[15:43] Um This year we're we're impressed with the

[15:47] the difference in cadence, but for the most part, it's just not has not

[15:52] been >> [snorts]

[15:53] » moving in one particular direction. It's just steady.

[15:57] » I know you have another question, but just to follow up from that, in 2026, I

[16:01] know that the Hatfield Estates have seven ADUs.

[16:06] Are seven of the 11 in 2026 that project?

[16:10] » Yes. >> Yes.

[16:10] » Yes. >> So, really it's just seven new

[16:12] completely new builds of homes, and then four

[16:16] » Yes. >> non-related to that project.

[16:20] Thanks. >> Madam Chair, I have some insight on that

[16:23] from my experience with the state. What Mr. Polsky is Commissioner Polsky's

[16:26] particular referring to is AB 68 by Phil Ting,

[16:31] which became law in January of 2020. And it one of the key provisions was to

[16:35] approve all qualifying ADUs through a ministerial by right process.

[16:40] Um that was the primary all-inclusive um point at which it was allowed.

[16:46] » I mean, if 2019 is our base year, then we're we're crushing it.

[16:50] » Um So, did you Sorry, did you have a follow

[16:53] up on that one? >> The other one.

[16:55] The other legislation that matches the um Assembly Bill is SB 9. And again, it

[17:01] went into effect in 2021. >> Cool. Thank you. Um

[17:06] That was a good question. Um

[17:09] And then the other one was around notices. So, I know that um

[17:12] probably not as important here, but uh we whenever we have something fairly

[17:16] controversial, we always get uh we didn't know about it questions. And so,

[17:20] did we put this out in any of the other um publications, uh like about town or

[17:28] I think the point being we want to make sure that people know about everything

[17:33] we're doing here. So, I know that by

[17:36] and I guess now I'm moving into a comment.

[17:39] Question is did this only go out in the paper or anywhere else?

[17:45] » Just the paper. >> I will reserve my

[17:49] statement for >> I have a question.

[17:52] » [clears throat] >> Okay.

[17:54] Mr. Mayor. >> So, considering it's a state law,

[17:57] does this is this at all enforceable because like

[18:01] you're saying like if if if our current code is not compliant with the state

[18:05] law, then we have to defer to the state law.

[18:08] I'm kind of wondering what the point of this is. I mean,

[18:11] I know that we want to be compliant, but it within a year we're going to be out

[18:14] of compliance because it keeps developing year after year just like

[18:19] This is the first time I've heard that there's

[18:21] there's no front setback on an ADU. >> Not on all ADUs, just on a certain type

[18:25] of ADUs. What we call the 66323 ADUs. So, in our in Moraga, they're the

[18:31] streamlined ADUs. So, not all of them, but that's correct. So, that's a really

[18:34] good philosophical question, legislative question. Uh

[18:38] the rules keep changing over time, over time, over time. And so, we can update

[18:42] it now and we might be out of compliance next year and we might be it's not hard

[18:46] to be out of compliance. So, we will do our best to try to keep up. Um from a

[18:50] practice perspective, we even if our ordinance is not up to date to the last

[18:55] date, we still enforce and operate under state law if

[18:59] we already know what the issue is. So, at on the ground, we still make sure

[19:04] that Moraga is tries to practice um according to state

[19:08] law. So, you're right. It almost doesn't matter because we will still do the

[19:11] right thing, but we want to make sure that we are transparent with the

[19:14] community and make sure that staff is being consistent consistent.

[19:18] » I mean my follow-up was I mean I almost wonder if we have legal exposure by

[19:22] having a code that inevitably will be

[19:27] out of compliance. I mean

[19:30] » Yeah, that's that's a great question because as noted the law on ADUs

[19:34] continues to change. Um in this case HCD did specifically reach out to the town

[19:40] checking on our compliance with the our ADU ordinance as they did with cities

[19:45] throughout the state. So they are monitoring our compliance

[19:49] and um I assume we would get a be getting a letter if we don't bring our

[19:53] ordinance into compliance. Um one other thing I will say in addition to

[19:58] providing transparency for the community in our municipal code we are also able

[20:03] to set forth you processes for how we're processing

[20:07] um the applications when they come in. We

[20:10] don't have much to or if any discretion for certain types of ADUs, but but we

[20:15] can outline um

[20:17] procedures. >> Right. Thank you.

[20:20] » So as a follow-up question to that um

[20:26] Planning Director you had mentioned we would do the right thing if we got a

[20:28] permit. I would argue that doing the right thing per the California law is

[20:32] not necessarily the right thing for Moraga including the no set front

[20:36] setbacks for the streamlined ADUs. So what

[20:41] if any ability do we have to enforce our own Moraga zoning

[20:47] when the state has different zoning and if we don't have any ability to why do

[20:52] we have Moraga zoning anymore? Or better question what can we do to push back on

[20:58] the state to maintain some of our own

[21:04] guidelines and zoning regulations. >> So again, an ex- excellent question.

[21:12] And as you know, the town has lost a lot of discretion with respect to um

[21:19] you know, certain types of approvals, specifically ADUs. Um so if an

[21:24] application came in, we would process it in accordance and process in accordance

[21:29] with state law. And basically the town typically interprets any

[21:33] provision in our municipal code that's contrary or inconsistent with state law,

[21:37] that we will um that state law will prevail in in our processing of that.

[21:42] And with respect to you know, what we can do, that really is a legislative

[21:47] issue. And that's, you know, the legislature, the California legislature,

[21:51] keeps um enacting

[21:54] laws that require um more ministerial processing, um less

[22:00] discretion of um local agencies. So the best way to counter that is through the

[22:07] state legislature. >> Okay. Thank you.

[22:16] » Thank you, Chairwoman Apple. I have a couple of questions. Um

[22:19] I spent a lot of time reading this and um

[22:24] apologize for going a little bit deep, but I'm hoping that you can um

[22:29] uh as planning staff, clarify for me the in my first question, the difference

[22:36] between a a standard application versus a streamlined. What

[22:42] would qualify a streamlined? And I think part of my confusion is that

[22:47] in both the description uh under Article 1 of a streamlined ADU,

[22:54] uh point C references a detached ADU.

[23:00] But then, what we see um

[23:04] Excuse me, that's in article two for streamlined, and that's on page 10. It

[23:09] references one detached ADU. But then, in article three for a

[23:15] standard ADU, it also references a detached ADU. So,

[23:23] when is it a streamlined and when is it standard?

[23:27] » Hello. So,

[23:30] they differentiate by the different development standards that are

[23:35] that are imposed for each of those. So, what I mean by that is for streamlined

[23:38] ADUs, they're only limited to a certain number amount of development standards,

[23:43] which they cannot exceed 800 square feet, for example.

[23:47] For detached ADU, they can't they only have 4 feet side and rear yard setbacks.

[23:52] That's why the front yard setbacks are no longer there because

[23:56] those are under state law, you can't impose any local development standards

[24:01] for streamlined ADUs. As in for standard ADUs, they the front yard setbacks are

[24:06] still allowed. There are also other development standards listed under

[24:10] article three, I believe, for

[24:14] development for standard ADUs. So, think of it as like streamlined ADUs are

[24:20] only certain number of ADUs allowed for streamline. But standard ADUs, there's

[24:26] still some sort of um there's object

[24:30] I'm sorry. Um There are still standards in

[24:36] standard ADUs that are still allowed in their code. Um

[24:43] » I'm going to ask just a clarified follow-up question because it sounded to

[24:47] me that the biggest difference for you in deciding whether or not something is

[24:51] being coming in as a standard ADU application being versus something

[24:57] that is eligible to be a streamlined ADU

[25:01] application subject to ministerial review

[25:04] is going to be whether or not that ADU is 800 square feet or less.

[25:08] » Yes. >> That's the That's the main

[25:09] qualification. >> Mhm.

[25:11] » Okay, so it's the size of >> of ADU.

[25:13] » And anything between 800 and 1200, which is the max for an ADU under state law

[25:20] » Mhm. >> no longer is streamlined for ministerial

[25:23] review. That goes under the standard >> Standard ADUs, yes. So, the maximum

[25:27] number is 800 square feet and the maximum for a standard ADU is 1200

[25:31] square feet. So, if it crosses over, then it becomes a standard ADU.

[25:34] » Great. So, I'm going to ask another follow-up question.

[25:38] Um so, for

[25:43] section 8.124.140

[25:48] design standard for standard attached and detached ADUs on pages 13 and 14

[25:56] those only apply to the standard ADUs that are 800 to 1200

[26:03] square feet and not for the smaller ADUs that are 800 square feet or less.

[26:08] » Yes, correct. >> Thank you.

[26:11] And then in terms of the standard versus streamlined ADUs, streamlined

[26:17] ADUs are reviewed through a ministerial process and we probably wouldn't see

[26:22] but standard applications might come to this planning commission and

[26:28] be our responsibility look at pursuant to the design review procedures

[26:33] and the guidance set forth in 8.124.180

[26:38] which names the planning commission as the review body for design review

[26:43] approvals. Is that correct?

[26:49] » So, I'm sorry. Could you clarify it further

[26:52] about um >> Yeah, sure. It's really complicated. I

[26:55] I'm trying to figure out our future roles and responsibilities as planning

[26:59] commissioners. Because it seems like I get that you're

[27:03] in charge of all the ministerial stuff. >> Mhm.

[27:05] » Okay? But now we have these standard ADU

[27:08] applications for something quite a bit bigger, right? 800 to 1200 square feet

[27:14] and and hypothetically, you know, maybe we get one every 3 years. I understand

[27:18] that there's not a lot coming through. >> Mhm.

[27:20] » But my understanding when I read that last section of article 4 is that since

[27:27] you guys can't do a ministerial review, it comes to the planning commission for

[27:30] review. Is that true?

[27:33] » Um So, um I'll just answer. These are all

[27:37] these ADUs are ministerial review, even the standard ADUs.

[27:41] So. >> Thank you. I needed that clarification.

[27:46] » We >> It looks like only the ones that don't

[27:48] comply would come to us. >> So, only non-compliant things come to us

[27:52] in the same as non-compliant housing applications come to us.

[27:56] » That's correct. >> That is my clarification [laughter]

[27:58] for the night. >> I'm sorry for not being more clear about

[28:00] that, but the one takeaway that we should have started off, all ADUs are

[28:04] ministerial. That's what the one thing that state is very clear about. All ADUs

[28:07] are ministerial. Moraga municipal ordinance allows for

[28:10] this third option, the CUP ordinance, just to be more flexible and give people

[28:15] an opportunity in case they don't fit in the box.

[28:18] So, that you do have that option, but ADUs are ministerial.

[28:23] Thank you.

[28:26] » No further questions or comments.

[28:29] » Commissioner Halbert? No? Okay. I have a few.

[28:34] So, I know the required findings are listed. Um

[28:39] I would argue that this is not compatible with existing residential

[28:42] zoning districts considering the zero setback

[28:46] front setbacks for these ADUs. Am I incorrect in that?

[28:52] » That that The zero setback is not for all the

[28:55] ADUs, just for what we call the 60 66323.

[29:00] » Yes. >> non- or the streamlined ADUs would not

[29:03] be compatible with existing residential zoning districts. Correct?

[29:10] » If that's your statement. >> I I'm asking if that's correct, that

[29:14] it's not com- those are not compatible with our current zoning.

[29:19] » I I think

[29:22] arguably when you layer state law that requires these with our zoning, there's

[29:28] an you know, argument that they are compatible when you're looking at both

[29:32] together. Um as far as compatible with whether the state law is compatible with

[29:40] the zoning because of the for example, the setbacks. I I think

[29:43] that's a obviously more complicated issue.

[29:46] » Okay. Um

[29:49] when it comes to the amnesty, it looks

[29:55] I'm curious if if I'm correct in in saying that it looks as though even if

[29:59] previously built non-permitted ADUs are out of

[30:03] compliance, we will just give them permits unless

[30:07] they are risked of safety to the residents. Is that accurate?

[30:14] » That's correct. >> Mhm.

[30:16] So, it's a free pass for any previously built

[30:21] 1,500 square foot ADU with no setback or 2-foot setback from a

[30:27] side yard, we will just permit it.

[30:32] » With with taking into consideration the

[30:34] health and safety. >> With a 2-foot

[30:36] » Yeah, the health and safety requirements are the only things. And the public

[30:40] policy thinking behind that is that if it's a a unit that is um safe for

[30:47] habitability and that was not originally permitted as it should have been

[30:50] permitted, it's still a housing unit and it's providing shelter for someone. So,

[30:54] that's kind of the general public policy understanding of it all. So, we're not

[30:59] removing a unit that is potentially providing housing for

[31:03] a a a family or a person um if there's a way

[31:07] to make it safe. >> Uh is there a

[31:12] situation in which nobody is hap- living in

[31:15] the non-permitted ADU in which we don't permit it? If it's not actively

[31:20] providing a living space for somebody? >> Yeah, that's not part of the finding

[31:24] whether someone's it's whether it's being inhabited or not. It's it's

[31:28] whether someone wants to legalize it by bringing it up to um health and safety

[31:33] code. That mean the primary the primary

[31:35] purpose.

[31:38] » Okay.

[31:41] » Commissioner Moore? >> Uh you could actually argue that most

[31:43] ADUs are not lived in. I mean, most become either guest houses or Well, I

[31:50] mean, depends on the the city it's in, but

[31:52] » No, it's okay. Thank you. >> yeah, the the letter of the code is

[31:54] really just to add housing units. >> Mhm.

[31:58] Mhm. >> But it doesn't feel right that if

[32:01] someone could build something illegally and then

[32:04] get this magic bullet, but >> Get the magic bullet, yeah.

[32:06] » It does create a housing unit and that's what we're after.

[32:09] » Yeah, no return of legislation has inch in that direction. For a while, the

[32:14] state was hinting or still allowing jurisdictions to enforce based on

[32:17] illegal units, something that was illegally converted, for example, which

[32:21] is a typical situation that we see. And over time, the state has moved away from

[32:26] enforcement and kind of saw this coming where there was going to be a moment

[32:29] where the direction was going to be to provide amnesty.

[32:34] » So, I'll ask a clarifying question. Is this generally considered like a process

[32:39] by which something would be grandfathered in

[32:44] if it had been in use and since before 2020 and if it is is there

[32:51] any cost or fee you know for the permitting that at least gets filed is

[32:55] there some kind of fair play for you know

[33:00] they did this without permits and now they just get a free pass is but is

[33:04] there a fair play kind of requirement where they have to pay a fee for their

[33:08] new new permit? >> As far as I know the fee is still we

[33:11] would still charge the fee. I mean it's not necessarily a a pass in terms of

[33:16] every regulation but if we were typically

[33:19] um see something that maybe was permitted without the adequate setbacks

[33:23] or adequate whatever standard we're looking for that that would be allowed.

[33:27] Um that is something we would not be able to to tell them no but we we can

[33:32] still definitely charge for a fee. Um we do have a healthy element program that

[33:37] um states that we will work on legalizing six um unpermitted

[33:43] housing units ADUs. So that is a part of our charge and part of what the state um

[33:49] has agreed to let us do. >> So if I understand you it opens a

[33:52] process for six currently non-compliant ADUs to become compliant.

[33:57] » In Moraga that's what it would translate into but the state law just the amnesty

[34:01] portion is gives us an avenue to make those legalize

[34:06] legalize them and also um make them safe.

[34:10] » I was going to ask is there a process with building inspection to to make sure

[34:13] that it's up to building code?

[34:15] » That's what we mean by safe really. The safety is really carried through by our

[34:19] building code. >> Okay.

[34:21] Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff?

[34:27] Okay. Um at this time I'm going to open and close public comment as there

[34:33] uh are no public here.

[34:36] Um and we will um

[34:40] move on to discussion from the commission. Does anybody have

[34:47] Commissioner >> Okay, I'll get mine right out of the

[34:48] way. >> Get yours out of the way.

[34:50] » for the notice stuff, um can we as a practice try and um

[34:55] push it out? I know in the about town for the um town council

[34:59] um meetings, I'll do a little bit of a summary

[35:02] uh about what's happening and so >> [clears throat]

[35:06] » um if if we could just cuz there are very easy channels for us

[35:10] to push this information out. I think this is general practice even if it's

[35:14] not required by law. I think that would be great and I think

[35:16] the public would appreciate that. >> Mhm.

[35:22] » Uh Well, then I guess I

[35:24] » Any other comments? >> I mean, I'm I'm all for this. I think um

[35:29] I get that like we're out of compliance almost

[35:33] as soon as we're done, but like we want to give clear

[35:36] uh as clear direction to um people that are trying to um

[35:42] build ADUs as we can. Um and so I would imagine the first place they look is

[35:47] towards the town before they go to the state. So, the more that we can make

[35:50] this easy on them, the better. Um I'm all for remaining in compliance

[35:55] with the state. I'm all for um increasing the supply of housing.

[36:00] Um I do think that uh you know, the

[36:06] uh it's not just us. It's literally every municipality in the state of

[36:09] California, but everyone thinks that they're special and that well, we, you

[36:13] know, we can't have X, Y, and Z and that's frankly why the state of

[36:16] California is saying tough. Like we all now need to, you know,

[36:21] whatever it's uh affirmatively or we have to do our our fair share. So, like

[36:26] I I'm totally in favor of doing that and if someone built something a long time

[36:31] ago and we're now bringing it into compliance

[36:34] because it's now safe and potentially someone can

[36:36] uh live there, then that's great. So, I think um

[36:41] this was a lot of work. Uh like Commissioner Webber said, and appreciate

[36:44] all the work you guys are doing for the town and

[36:46] um keep up the good job. So, that's it.

[36:50] » Okay. Thank you. And the other commissioners have comment? Commissioner

[36:53] Rain?

[36:59] » Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity and want to direct my comments mostly to

[37:06] my fellow planning commissioners. Um and kind of invite a conversation and

[37:12] discussion amongst us. Um like

[37:16] Commissioner Pulaski, I'm I'm anxious about there not being anybody here.

[37:22] I feel like this is a this is a big thing.

[37:25] Um and and that that we didn't get any public comments and and so there's that

[37:31] that I want to state up front. Um

[37:36] I also fully agree that um you know, we do need to do this. We need

[37:43] to be in compliance. I really appreciate the clarifications.

[37:48] I um am very appreciative of the hard work of

[37:52] staff to do this. Um

[37:56] I I do have um a couple of comments around some things

[38:03] that um didn't get changed that I would have

[38:06] liked to have seen. Um so, part of me is

[38:11] really not ready for this conversation to be closed. So, I have opinions, but I

[38:18] also haven't heard from anybody else. [laughter]

[38:23] So, I want to I want to be able to share some of my opinions, but I also

[38:28] recognize that I am putting out my opinions as my opinions.

[38:32] These are not necessarily the opinions of the rest of you. They're not

[38:36] necessarily the opinions of the city or the residents of Moraga.

[38:41] But, in my opinion as one

[38:45] I'll name it flat out as an affordable housing advocate,

[38:49] but two, also as a homeowner here in Moraga,

[38:55] um I I really feel like

[39:01] there remains in this especially in the design regulations for

[39:07] those 800 to 1,200 square foot

[39:13] ADU unit that could conceivably create more of that missing middle housing for

[39:18] families, um

[39:21] some design ambiguities

[39:26] that could be cleaned up so that it'll make it easier for a ministerial review,

[39:32] um and it'll make the ordinance a little bit more usable.

[39:37] And also some concerns that some of the old design standards, which we were not

[39:44] charged by law to address or look at, and may not have been

[39:48] may not have looked at it all, maybe outdated and may

[39:54] result in more costly barriers to entry. And so,

[40:00] for people for regular homeowners who are considering

[40:04] or wanting to put an ADU on their site. So, some specific language that I would

[40:13] call out in terms of that section on page 16.

[40:19] And this is not to word smith or to make any recommendations, but really to say I

[40:25] I would love to see if other commissioners are interested

[40:29] just a little bit more time. Excuse me, I was looking at the

[40:35] redline version on pages 13 and 14, which have the design standards for

[40:40] those standard attached and detached ADUs.

[40:44] Um I feel like point A um exterior colors and materials shall

[40:52] match or be consistent in type and quality. There's quite a bit of room for

[41:00] interpretation there. Um and some of those things may be

[41:07] A complicated like the paint match. Um and B um

[41:12] kind of not common sense. Like what if the old house is a wood shingle house?

[41:16] Like do we really want the ADU to be a wood shingle ADU?

[41:21] » [laughter] >> Right? Um another example would be

[41:26] um you know, things like um

[41:30] if if there's an exterior wall, then we need to plant um

[41:35] a certain amount of shrubbery along those walls. Again, I want you to

[41:40] imagine that now we have required a wood shingle ADU and now we have to

[41:44] we are now required you know, have to put shrubbery that will reach a minimum

[41:48] height of 4 ft within 3 years, which would be great if we could plant cypress

[41:52] trees, but might be a little complicated. So

[41:56] I would love to see that updated. Um in particular, I think that that some

[42:01] of these things um don't necessarily take into

[42:06] consideration the kind of our interest as a community

[42:10] in fire safety. And and I'd love to see this red with an

[42:15] interest for fire safety given that we have to do it.

[42:19] And I also feel like some of the things are

[42:23] in here were written with an intention to

[42:27] limit or restrict maybe maybe unintentionally, but had the

[42:32] unintended consequence of limiting or restricting

[42:36] the construction of ADUs and we we don't actually see the numbers being very big,

[42:41] but you know, it does limit the capacity to use

[42:46] you know, maybe less costly or more modern materials like modular

[42:50] construction if your house wasn't originally done with modular

[42:52] construction. So, I feel like that poses an unfair

[42:57] financial burden on homeowners to meet in old building standards that are

[43:01] outdated and no longer make sense when there's more

[43:04] affordable and more fire safe options.

[43:10] So, my comments is really that's that's my opinion and if other

[43:15] commissioners feel like that, I just wanted to put it out there.

[43:21] » Thank you, Commissioner Rain. Any other comments?

[43:24] » Can I ask a question of staff? Um one I'm I'm very supportive of that

[43:29] and thank you for bringing all of your papers in.

[43:32] Um and coming through that. Um So,

[43:35] » [laughter] >> um is there a

[43:38] uh or did the uh state give us a deadline to get this done and does it

[43:42] make sense to do this in phases where we make the state

[43:46] mandated changes, but then the planning commission as part of um

[43:51] we vote on this to approve or deny can direct to take a look at the ADU

[43:57] um requirements as Commissioner Rain had just mentioned and then bring this back

[44:02] later in the year? >> Later in the year.

[44:05] » So, >> at some time in the future.

[44:07] » So the letter that we received, which is often referred to as a repeal and

[44:12] replace letter, did not have a firm deadline, but they have been very

[44:16] responsive. We responded to them right away. They responded to us. We gave them

[44:21] our proposed um time frame.

[44:24] Um I'm sure if there was we needed to bump this out another 2 weeks, I don't

[44:30] think they would be upset. Um but we right now we're operating under a state

[44:34] law. We don't have a local um ADU ordinance to work with. So I would

[44:39] not recommend bump bringing this back up for the end of the

[44:43] later in the year because it's just a long time to be operating with that, but

[44:47] we don't have a firm date from HCD. I do do think that we run the risk of

[44:51] It's hard to tell. HCD is a little bit hard to tell sometimes what they're

[44:54] going to say. But if we um we might get an enforcement letter if we don't

[44:59] respond to them. But right now I did give them the date and they seem really

[45:03] reasonable and understanding of where we were.

[45:05] » Yeah, sorry. Um so can we do this in two phases though where we address their

[45:10] concerns and then direct staff to then bring this back at some point for a a

[45:15] more detailed discussion? >> I think so. If there's something some

[45:18] design discussion that you want to have and and piggyback after this, I think

[45:22] that's appropriate. Um right now I would just recommend uh making the changes

[45:26] that would bring us back into compliance.

[45:28] And and and even the the ones that staff recommended as well. That would be my

[45:32] ask. >> And actually I mean I had another

[45:35] question. So the the design section of requiring paint materials to match up my

[45:41] understanding of the ADU code is that it is not a hard I mean we can recommend

[45:46] that we do that. So it's architecturally compliant, but

[45:49] my understanding is that as long as you meet the the dimensional

[45:54] requirements of ADU, we're not allowed to comment on the design.

[45:59] » So um do you want clarify with respect to

[46:03] streamline ADUs, we are not allowed to um comment on the design and there very

[46:08] limited standards that we can require. And then, we also have what we refer to

[46:13] as the standard ADUs, where we do have um design standards listed in our

[46:17] municipal code and they do have to be processed ministerially. So, they're a

[46:22] objective or as objective as they can be standards so that staff can process

[46:26] those and kind of a check check the box whether they meet those. But, we do have

[46:30] the flexibility to revise those standards provided that they remain

[46:35] objective and minis- and can be ministerially processed.

[46:38] » Thank you. The standards you I'm sorry. The The standards you were reading off

[46:42] were for those that require C conditional use

[46:46] permit cuz they exceed the standard ADU, right?

[46:50] » So, if I can clarify, my understanding is that these are for the ones that

[46:55] would not would still have a ministerial review,

[46:59] but that we as a town, as town staff, can establish our standards for those.

[47:05] And those are for the larger ones that are 800 to 1,200 square feet. I want to

[47:09] explicitly call these out as kind of like not the old-fashioned granny units,

[47:14] right? When you're talking about 800 to 1,200 square feet, you are talking about

[47:19] a two- and possibly a three-bedroom house. Again, that would meet that

[47:23] missing middle piece for families. Not necessarily, but it had the potential

[47:29] for that. And what I would argue is that even if

[47:35] nobody was on board with changing the standards around fire safety or nobody

[47:38] was on board with changing the standards around um

[47:43] let's allow for more affordable building opportunities so we can kind of meet the

[47:47] spirit and intention of this law, which is to create more housing opportunities

[47:53] by enabling homeowners to do this out of their own pocket and put their time and

[47:58] money into creating housing. Even if nobody was on board with that, I

[48:03] still feel that especially section A

[48:08] is vague. And I would highly recommend at least a

[48:13] double check at section A because I feel like

[48:17] we're mixing colors and material. We're using the words match or compliant.

[48:23] That leaves a lot of room for people to say, "But what did you mean?"

[48:29] That's all. >> So, Commissioner Rainey, I I appreciate

[48:33] your thoughtful approach to it. I would actually argue the opposite that we have

[48:39] very little control at this point of anything that we can do within our own

[48:42] town. And if we don't at least, much like we do for the Rheem Shopping Center

[48:47] and the Moraga Center, have some expectations that things match

[48:54] the look and feel of the communities that they're being built in, we run the

[48:57] risk of having 1,200 square foot glass ADUs in everybody's front yard, 4 feet

[49:03] from their neighbor's house. And I mean, one of the things that I I

[49:08] have the largest struggle with here is is losing that control.

[49:13] And that obviously, anything that is being built

[49:16] has to meet fire code, so they're not going to allow shrubs to be planted

[49:20] within a certain amount of feet from the from a new building or from the

[49:23] neighbor's fence. They're not going to allow for

[49:27] cedar shake siding. It would be the newest fire resistant composite material

[49:32] that looks like cedar shake to meet, you know, to meet, which I think really does

[49:37] keep the feel of our Moraga

[49:43] general plan and our Moraga um design,

[49:48] you know, expectations, where we have very little control

[49:51] otherwise. >> I And I agree with you. I think that's

[49:54] why I'm asking for more time because I feel like

[49:58] um there's room for for both and when you

[50:03] have ambiguity and when it kind of allows creep and wiggle room in other

[50:09] areas. I'd rather see kind of more bullet points and it kind of broken out

[50:15] a little bit more with more exact specifications.

[50:19] But I would also So yes, I agree with you on that, but I would also argue that

[50:24] that your example of the glass building and

[50:30] around you know, that's all the way up to the front.

[50:34] I don't I don't disagree that I don't want that either. I want to say I

[50:38] don't want that either. >> [laughter]

[50:41] » That said, if they have cedar shakes and you ask someone to do hardy board kind

[50:47] of shingle sidings that are fire

[50:50] resistance, that's a far more expensive lift

[50:54] than a cheaper material. And that's where I'm anxious and I feel like that's

[50:59] what places an undue burden on homeowners to kind of help us meet this

[51:04] missing middle and I feel like when I look at those numbers,

[51:08] it's hard for homeowners to rise to the challenge even if they have good

[51:12] intentions and want to. >> So I my issue with it I I don't know if

[51:17] this is precluding or it's it's raising cost for part of anything, that

[51:21] ambiguity kind of lets you in with less expensive materials and

[51:26] um for the record, I think the glass box would be cool.

[51:29] Sorry. [laughter] Um

[51:31] » I want a metal one. >> Just don't throw stones.

[51:36] » [laughter] >> Not planning to. Um So yeah, I think

[51:39] that this actually leaves some wiggle room and I actually kind of like the way

[51:43] it's written cuz there's an expectation that you're going to be responsible and

[51:46] think about it. It's not just slap something up and hope it it fits.

[51:51] There's some thought that goes into it and

[51:54] um and with the fire code within a year, we're probably going to have a state

[51:58] mandate that's going to give defensible spaces and

[52:01] everything you talked about with shrubbery that they're gone. So,

[52:05] I I'm not worried about that.

[52:10] » Yes, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Commissioner

[52:14] Moore sort of raised the issue of guy that started with regards to

[52:18] um you know, the challenges of updating this code, you know, on a frequent you

[52:23] know, as how how often as we do. I can tell you from experience the state

[52:27] legislature doesn't give absolutely two hoots about whether or not the planning

[52:31] commission or the cities or counties can keep up with the steady year in year out

[52:37] um mandates that are coming from Sacramento. We have no power.

[52:41] And I think that's been evident in the debate there in Sacramento for a long

[52:45] time. Um

[52:47] the the challenge that we face for small towns with smaller budgets is it's very

[52:52] difficult for the staff to update as a matter of workload the constant change

[52:58] and turnover in the law. And we by having to go back and forth,

[53:03] it's just makes it harder for them to try to keep up and focus on the other

[53:07] issues that are addressed to this commission.

[53:09] I think it was extremely carefully worded parsing everything that was

[53:13] written entire document to make it as it was

[53:17] to make it legally defensible and in fact that it was called out specifically

[53:21] for HCD to see is is important, I think, for the viability of the document and

[53:28] for demonstrating that we are going to try to adhere to the law but keep what

[53:32] limited independence that we have. Um

[53:36] the in terms of the interpretations, the commission you know, Commissioner May

[53:40] um, Rain raised fair issue about keeping it vague, but I would have to

[53:45] support Commissioner Moore and Maypel on keeping that discretion because the

[53:50] state ensures every year, as I referenced, we don't have any

[53:53] discretion. Keeping what limited discretion we have,

[53:57] I think is paramount to try to keep that local control while complying with the

[54:01] law, and I would oppose anything that would change that language, um,

[54:05] » [snorts] >> as written by staff today.

[54:08] Um, I'm glad these issues are being raised.

[54:11] They are important. I'd also have to, I think, uh, Commissioner Polsky's offer

[54:17] about doing something in phases is well taken,

[54:20] but I don't think that's, um,

[54:22] uh, plausible. By doing that and by not passing it this

[54:27] tonight, we will immediately raise the attention

[54:29] of the Housing Accountability Unit, and as I've said before, in Sacramento, if

[54:33] they see that, they're going to start looking much more closely at what it is

[54:36] we're doing. Cuz that letter is deliberately signed by the Housing

[54:40] Accountability Unit to show that targeted zip codes that are wealthy like

[54:44] ours are they would love to make an example

[54:47] of it. We're not Huntington Beach, we're not La Canada Flintridge.

[54:50] The staff is aware of some of these references, but, you know, maybe the

[54:53] commissioners are not, but the challenge is is that our zip codes are constant

[54:57] targets for the Housing Accountability Unit, and I don't want to see anything

[55:01] that would cause attention to what, um, to make them

[55:04] more concerned that we are not being good actors. This is a very carefully

[55:08] crafted document. I think it balances it clearly,

[55:11] and we should keep it as is, not do it in phases, and pass it as written, uh,

[55:16] tonight. The other thing I wanted to mention, and

[55:19] this was a great issue that you raised, uh, Commissioner Rain, was the lack of

[55:22] public comment. I think part of that's just summer break, graduations, um, but

[55:27] I think part of it is also folks see this and they know that there's not as

[55:32] much we can do. We've heard, we've repeated the issue that we're just

[55:34] losing sort of that control, and I think that's part of what is creating some of

[55:39] the absence here. I think that they're hearing the law and making sure that

[55:42] it's noticed. And uh but I just wonder if this is just

[55:45] not um given, you know, that we just lack that

[55:49] kind of control that they just sort of know it's not as big an issue as some of

[55:52] the other issues we faced here as commissioners with the developments.

[55:56] So, I am all in favor of keeping the document as is, passing it tonight,

[56:00] getting it to the council, and getting HCD out of our hair.

[56:05] Thank you.

[56:08] » Sorry, just just to clarify. So, um I too am in favor of of passing it as is,

[56:13] but um maybe a more

[56:17] vague directive to the um staff that we evaluate ADUs at a later date. Um

[56:26] so that we can continue this discussion cuz I think it's a great discussion. I

[56:29] think um I think everyone wants to increase the

[56:32] housing stock, and I think we want to do it um

[56:37] reasonably and so that it's clear and easy for folks that want to do it to do

[56:42] it. So, yeah, I'm I'm completely in favor of

[56:45] passing this uh and sending it to the town council as is, but I do think we

[56:49] should continue the discussion.

[56:53] » Uh so, I I'll go ahead, Commissioner Helper.

[56:55] » Okay. Thank you.

[56:57] Um I just want to say um I think ADUs are inherently good, and

[57:03] I think the town has a history of supporting ADUs and encouraging ADUs,

[57:08] and yes, the state is mandating and res- uh

[57:13] kind of removing the local jurisdictions'

[57:17] ability to restrict ADUs, but I would say that the town has a history of

[57:23] encouraging ADUs, and I would very proud of the increased

[57:29] um number of applications that have been submitted throughout the year, and it's

[57:33] kind of correlates to the effort of the town in doing the housing element

[57:37] update. You know, that was a big part of the housing element update was looking

[57:41] at how we can provide more housing opportunities for our citizens, be it

[57:46] multi-generational families, be it uh boomerang kids, which I have one, and

[57:51] I'd love to have them in the ADU. Um or be it students or affordable

[57:56] housing. And let's not forget you know, we have regional allocation

[58:00] requirements, and each one of these housing units is, as staff defines,

[58:06] affordable by design and counts towards our affordable housing requirements,

[58:10] which we truly have to meet. Um

[58:13] and in terms of you know, the audience participation, I

[58:18] honestly don't view this as very controversial. I think a lot of people

[58:22] know about this. In fact, when I talk to my neighbors, it's more frequent the

[58:27] conversation is how can I do one?

[58:30] And you know, how do I move forward in Moraga? Not what is Moraga doing? We

[58:35] want to restrict ADUs. So, I think the town has a long history of supporting

[58:40] ADUs. I think this brings us into compliance, which frankly

[58:44] as fellow commissioners have said, we need to do.

[58:47] Um but you did mention one of my favorite

[58:51] topics, which is revising subjective criteria with objective criteria, which

[58:57] frankly makes not only our jobs easier, but also the

[59:03] residents of Moraga. If anything's objective, they know exactly what they

[59:06] have to do. That said, I think

[59:09] you know, tonight we're taking an action, which is an advisory action to

[59:13] Town Council. I think we can take an action tonight approving this and asking

[59:19] staff to go back and look for opportunities, and we could give them

[59:23] direction that when they comes to Town council,

[59:26] they have recommendations to make revisions to make it much

[59:31] wherever possible objective rather than subjective. And perhaps we can give them

[59:35] some direction.

[59:38] » I love that. >> Okay.

[59:40] » And I just want to really appreciate you all listening to my opinion and the

[59:45] dialogue that we are having here. I'd love to continue to hear that, but just

[59:49] thank you, everybody. >> Thank you, Commissioner Halber. Thank

[59:53] you, everybody for all your thoughtfulness on this. Um I think I'm

[59:57] in the minority here. While I am absolutely for affordable housing,

[1:00:02] um everybody I know who has an ADU uses it for an office or a pool house or a

[1:00:06] place to store their Christmas ornaments. So,

[1:00:08] um I also have while I feel like obviously

[1:00:12] we have to follow state law, we also have to maintain some of our own

[1:00:17] jurisdiction and abilities to have some control in the places where we have

[1:00:21] things like planning commission and town council and

[1:00:24] citizens who feel strongly about the place in which they live, for which I um

[1:00:29] feel very strongly about the feel of Moraga, which I know has been a

[1:00:33] controversial topic up here in the past, but um

[1:00:38] I think I I understand why the staff is recommending it. I will say I'm not in

[1:00:44] favor of moving it forward because I think

[1:00:47] things like this start at the grassroots level and if we just say yes to

[1:00:51] everything the state suggests, they're just going to continue to

[1:00:56] make decisions for the communities in which we live and pay taxes and have to

[1:00:59] beg for dollars for everything that we do,

[1:01:02] including our schools. So, I appreciate everybody's support of it

[1:01:07] and understand why uh we need to,

[1:01:10] um but I am not in favor tonight. Um

[1:01:16] that being said, unless there any other comments or questions for staff,

[1:01:20] » Madam Chair, may I make motion? >> You can, yes.

[1:01:24] » I move that this Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that

[1:01:27] the Town Council adopt the ordinance amending Moraga Municipal Code Chapter

[1:01:31] 8.124 Accessory Dwelling Units to update local ADU and JADU regulations for

[1:01:36] consistency with current state ADU law, the Moraga 2040 General Plan, and the

[1:01:39] 2023 to 2031 Housing Element. >> And do I have a second?

[1:01:46] » I have a clarification. There were some revisions that were

[1:01:50] the motion include those? >> No.

[1:01:57] Does not.

[1:01:59] Sorry, no, it does not.

[1:02:03] » So, just to confirm, it does not include the revisions to the owner occupancy

[1:02:07] JADU or the front yard setbacks? >> Correct. As as drafted and written by

[1:02:12] counsel by staff.

[1:02:15] » Uh >> No, including the updates that they

[1:02:17] submitted later to the staff. >> Yes, I apologize. Yes, thank you. Thank

[1:02:21] you, Commissioner Helber. I appreciate that.

[1:02:23] » Thank you. >> And town attorney, thank you.

[1:02:28] » Do we have a second? >> Yeah, to just to be clear,

[1:02:32] as we were received plus the supplement that we received via email, that's

[1:02:36] that's the motion. Then I I I will second that motion.

[1:02:41] » All in favor? >> I.

[1:02:44] » I. >> I.

[1:02:45] » I. >> No.

[1:02:48] I don't feel like that incorporated the concerns or the discussion.

[1:02:58] » Okay. All opposed? No.

[1:03:02] I. No. Oh, all opposed. And I'm a I'm a no.

[1:03:05] I'm an opposed. Yes. So, we have two opposed and four eyes.

[1:03:12] So, the resolution passes. There is a 10-day appeal period on any

[1:03:17] decision made by the planning commission and appeals can be made directly to the

[1:03:20] planning staff or to the town clerk. >> And for for the record, as this is a

[1:03:26] recommendation to the town council, this will automatically be going to the town

[1:03:29] council. So, it doesn't need to be appealed.

[1:03:31] » Oh, right. Thank you. Uh I need to edit my script better for

[1:03:37] these that are moving forward. >> Uh

[1:03:41] Chair, do we want to discuss um a recommendation to staff around

[1:03:46] uh revisiting this based on some of Commissioner Rainey and Commissioner

[1:03:49] Halvers' comments? Is that or maybe it's for

[1:03:54] planning director and town attorney. >> we

[1:03:56] was just passed with >> Sorry. Yeah, so to clarify though, to

[1:04:00] continue the conversation about ADUs, not about this specific item.

[1:04:05] But, I think that there is a desire I heard a desire on

[1:04:09] the planning commission to have further discussions around ADUs in

[1:04:15] general and not this specifically. >> Um

[1:04:20] Planning Director Urzua, is that something that we can ask to bring

[1:04:24] forward at a future meeting for discussion around ADU

[1:04:29] design? What is

[1:04:32] » Yeah, around the um the objective and not subjective standards that they may

[1:04:38] find after they do a review as >> We can do that um after we take this

[1:04:42] item to the town council. >> Great. Thank you.

[1:04:46] » And so, sorry, just to clarify. So, we we don't need to

[1:04:50] vote or we can just make a request and we can get it back. Okay, great.

[1:04:53] » Uh moving on to routine and other matters

[1:04:57] or I don't think we have any other routine or other matters on the agenda

[1:05:00] for tonight, do we? Is there anything added? Okay.

[1:05:04] Any reports from planning commissioners? I will say today is June 2nd. Everybody

[1:05:10] has 23 minutes to post your ballots if you have not yet done so and

[1:05:16] uh your civil responsibility. It's

[1:05:19] democracy we live in. Um

[1:05:22] » I I do have I guess it falls under the report. Um

[1:05:26] But so this last weekend I was in San Luis Obispo. I have made comments in

[1:05:30] front of this planning commission around uh developments that I have thought are

[1:05:36] uh great developments and we'd love to see here. We're in Countrymart is one

[1:05:39] that I brought up many times. Um San Luis Obispo has the SLO Public Market.

[1:05:45] It opened in 2021. It's on a little over 4 acres. It's just under 50,000 square

[1:05:51] feet, eight buildings, 20 merchants. Um I would highly recommend going to their

[1:05:55] website or if you were in the area visiting it. Um it has a very

[1:06:01] um semi-rural feel

[1:06:05] that would fit really well in our town. Um It was vibrant on a weekend. We were

[1:06:11] there for a baseball tournament. We took the team there and uh it was a great

[1:06:14] experience and something that we you know, I would recommend that the staff

[1:06:18] look at it and as they're talking to um the major developers in this

[1:06:23] um in this town uh that they recommend that

[1:06:28] they also look at it. Um You know, and just as for reference, so

[1:06:33] it's on four just over 4 acres. Uh the area that we have designated in our

[1:06:37] general plan as the town square uh which is behind Safeway um along Moraga Road

[1:06:44] next to the park, that's roughly 8 acres. So uh certainly, you know, and

[1:06:49] I'm sure there are other areas within the town that we can do this, but um I

[1:06:52] was incredibly impressed with this development. Um

[1:06:56] So I think we should add that to the list of of things that

[1:06:59] um we are recommending to local developers

[1:07:03] that they study. Um and then that kind of got me thinking um, and so I did a

[1:07:09] quick Zillow search. Uh, over the last 12

[1:07:12] months there have been 123 single family homes sold. One of them almost sold for

[1:07:16] $4 million. Another six for um, in the low threes.

[1:07:22] 14 two and a half to just under 3 million. Another 29 in the two to two

[1:07:28] and a half million dollar range. That's 41% of the sales over the last year were

[1:07:32] over $2 million. 86% of the sales were over 1.5. There

[1:07:37] are plenty of people in this town that want to spend money here. We just need

[1:07:41] places to do it. Um,

[1:07:43] so again, encouraging the local developers to get their acts together

[1:07:47] and I have seen that the uh, grocery outlet um,

[1:07:51] is coming along. Uh, I did see that they cut down some trees for the pad site

[1:07:54] that we approved however long ago it was. So there are things happening.

[1:07:58] » Pad site? >> Um,

[1:08:00] » That was not for the pad site. >> The trees?

[1:08:03] » No. >> That's for a bio retention.

[1:08:05] » Yeah. >> Or a storm water.

[1:08:06] » Okay. I retract that. >> Related though. Related.

[1:08:08] » They'll be replanting I forget what is part

[1:08:14] of the plan, but they're replanting a number of them.

[1:08:16] » Got it. Retract that. But um, things are happening but I you know, we want to see

[1:08:21] more things happening and the other comment I I had is um,

[1:08:24] I was walking in the Rheem shopping center and walked past uh, a dog

[1:08:28] grooming facility that I had no idea that we have a dog grooming facility in

[1:08:32] the town of Moraga. I take my dog to get groomed in Walnut Creek and

[1:08:36] um, we'd encourage staff and town council to think of ways that we can

[1:08:41] encouraging This is like my slogan but like buy

[1:08:44] Moraga. Like how how do we I mean this is stuff we've been talking about

[1:08:47] forever but like I don't even know on the planning commission I don't even

[1:08:50] know there was a dog grooming site here. Like how how can we

[1:08:54] help local merchants get the word out that they that the services and things

[1:08:59] that people in this affluent town like to buy and use um are here.

[1:09:05] » in Rheem Plaza. >> Okay.

[1:09:08] Well, >> Yes, I agree.

[1:09:10] » So, >> Lots of

[1:09:11] » I think that we need to do a better job. Um and so, we just encourage us to

[1:09:15] continue to think about ways where we can

[1:09:18] um support local businesses and then also make sure that people know that

[1:09:22] local businesses are here. So, >> Perhaps in that new magazine. What is

[1:09:25] it? Greek Greek Moraga? >> Greek Moraga.

[1:09:26] » Yeah. Yes. >> Mhm.

[1:09:27] » It was sort of a a promotional something like that uh good mouth

[1:09:32] » Yeah, something highlighting businesses. >> Yeah.

[1:09:35] » Yeah, more of that. >> Mhm.

[1:09:37] » Uh I also wanted to report I had the great fortune of going to Rheem

[1:09:41] Elementary about a week and a half 2 weeks ago and presented to the third

[1:09:45] graders and the staff was great at getting me a printed zoning map of

[1:09:48] Moraga and had six different rotations of third

[1:09:52] graders, which all of our third grade teachers deserve a massive raise because

[1:09:56] after 2 hours >> [laughter]

[1:09:58] » um I was very confident in my decision not to go into education.

[1:10:03] Um but it was great. It was great and the kids were super excited, wanted to

[1:10:07] ask lots of questions, um had great ideas as to what stores would be a a

[1:10:12] value add in Moraga, some of which were I was right on target with, others not

[1:10:18] so much, but um the kids were really excited about it

[1:10:22] and really appreciative of new building and uh hoping more is to come. And

[1:10:28] [clears throat] it was fun to be uh

[1:10:30] with that group.

[1:10:33] Any other And it was great to see the Rheem Plaza being it looks like

[1:10:37] repainted and cleaned up a little bit have it covered in scaffolding to

[1:10:42] hopefully make businesses be able to stand out a little bit more, too, as you

[1:10:45] drive by. Any other reports?

[1:10:49] » I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge yesterday uh the town of

[1:10:54] Moraga raised the pride flag. I just wanted to appreciate the the town and

[1:10:58] everyone who came out. I I wasn't able to attend due to a pre-existing

[1:11:02] commitment, but just really appreciate that that this town came together around

[1:11:07] this and I really want to appreciate the work of town staff and our town

[1:11:12] attorneys and in crafting some plain common sense language that um allowed

[1:11:18] for the recognition and acknowledgement of our our pride in our month and the

[1:11:23] LGBT Q community members and families that

[1:11:26] are here in Moraga. Thank you.

[1:11:31] » All right. Any staff reports?

[1:11:36] Okay, do I have a motion to adjourn? >> I so move.

[1:11:40] » Do I have a second? >> Second.

[1:11:43] » All in favor? I. >> I.

[1:11:45] » Meeting is adjourned at 7:43 p.m.

[1:11:51] Thank you for bringing the clock back, whoever made that happen.

Planning Commission Meeting - June 2, 2026

Transcript