That's not going to happen.
Great.
I call this planning commission meeting to order on Tuesday,
June 2nd at 6:30 p.m. I'll take roll call. Uh Commissioner
Helber? >> Present.
» Commissioner Rain? >> Present.
» Commissioner Pulaski? >> Present.
» Sorry. Commissioner Moore? >> Present.
» Uh Commissioner Webber?
» Present. >> And I, Chair Maple, are here. Vice Chair
Body is not present. And we're also joined by Town Manager staff planning
director Sonia Ruzua and assistant planner Cassius Carant Carandang
and assistant town attorney Karen Murphy.
And Brian Horn, principal planner. Thank you.
You were hiding behind your computer over there.
Um
Uh do any commissioners have a conflict of interest to report?
» None. >> None.
» Okay, seeing none, we'll move on. Have any commissioners had contact with the
applicant? There is no applicant, so. Uh we will stand for the pledge of
allegiance.
» I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» Okay, seeing as there is nobody in the audience, I will open and close public
comment. And move on to adoption of the consent
agenda, uh which is approval of the meeting
minutes for May 19th, 2026. Do we have a motion to adopt?
» I move to adopt the meeting minutes May 19th.
» And do we have a second? >> I'll second.
» Wonderful. All in favor? >> I.
» I. >> Okay. Adoption of the meeting agenda.
Can I get a motion to adopt the meeting agenda?
» I so move. >> All right, motion from Commissioner
Helper, second from Commissioner Weber. All in favor?
» I. >> Motion passes with all eyes, six.
And we will move on to public hearing, which is amendments to chapter 8.124
accessory dwelling units of title 8 planning and zoning of the Moraga
municipal code. Um and I believe we have a presentation
from assistant planner Karen Ding. >> Good evening, commissioners. Thank you
for having us today and for reviewing this item before you today. We do have a
full staff for that's available to answer any of your questions. Cassius is
here to make the presentation as you noted. Brian Horn is here as our legacy
planner who can give us a little information about the history of ADUs in
Moraga. Of course, Karen Murphy to help us out with any legal questions
about the proposed amendments and I'm here to support anyone.
» [clears throat] >> Thank you.
» Thank you, Sonia. Good evening, planning commissioners. My
name is Cassius Cardenas, assistant planner for the town's planning
department. I am here tonight to present item 6A on the agenda for the proposed
amendments to chapter 8.124 of the Rock Municipal Code related to accessory
dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.
So, before discussing the ordinance, I would like to briefly summarize the
Planning Commission's role in this process. Um tonight, the commission is
being asked to review the proposed ordinance amendment, evaluate um
evaluate [clears throat] consistency with state ADU law and local planning
objectives, receive public testimony, and receive the required findings
supporting the amendment by staff. At the conclusion of this presentation,
staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 4-2026,
recommending Town Council approval of the ADU ordinance amendment.
So, the slide you see here summarizes ADU activity in Moraga from 2017 to
2026. The information is based on the town's internal ADU tracking records and
data reported through our General Plan annual reports.
Since 2017, the town has received a total of approximately 57 ADU
applications, averaging six applications per year. The average ADU size is 687
square feet, demonstrating the typical size and scale of ADUs developed in
Moraga. As shown in the chart on the right, ADU
activity has generally increased over time with 11 applications received so
far in 2026, representing the highest level of ADU activity to date.
The key takeaway here is that while ADUs are not the primary source of housing
production in Moraga, they continue to provide a steady contribution to the
town's housing supply and regional housing needs allocation objectives. By
updating the ordinance to comply with state law, the town can continue to
facilitate ADU development over time.
So, before discussing the items shown on the slide, the overarching purpose of
this ordinance amendment is to update Moraga's ADU regulations to ensure
consistency with state law. Moraga's ADU ordinance was last updated
in 2021. So, since then, the state has enacted several changes to ADU law
affecting the development standards, application procedures, and other
regulations. Earlier this year, the towns received a
technical assistance letter from the state of California HCD, Housing and
Community Development, identifying those changes and warranting updates to the
town's ADU ordinance. Under government code section 66316, any
local ADU provision that does not comply with current requirements is considered
null and void, meaning that the town must rely on the applicable state
standards rather than provisions in the municipal code. As a result, the town
has been processing ADU applications pursuant to state law as of early April
2026. Ultimately, this is a primarily a
compliance effort in order to bring the town's regulations into alignment with
current state standards, restore enforceable local ordinance, and provide
a clear structure procedure for both applicants and staff.
So, the ordinance contains numerous amendments. However, this slide
highlights some of the more significant changes required to maintain consistency
with current state law. First, several definitions and terms have been updated
to reflect statutory language and provide clarity in administering the
ordinance. Second, application procedures have been revised to
incorporate state-mandated review timeframes, completeness determinations,
and appeal procedures, creating a more streamlined and consistent process for
applicants. Third, the ordinance established an
amnesty process for ADUs and JDUs constructed before January 1st, 2020,
creating a process for eligible units to obtain permits and comply with
applicable requirements. Fourth, the ordinance updates the number
of ADUs allowed on multi-family properties to reflect current state
requirements. Fifth, the development standards have
been revised to clarify when setbacks may not be required, update height
allowances, refine impact fee provisions, and revise parking
requirements where exemptions are mandated.
And finally, the deed restriction requirements have been updated by
eliminating deed restrictions for ADUs while retaining them for JADUs where
required. >> [clears throat]
» In addition to state-mandated amendments, staff are proposing several
administrative updates intended to improve the organization and usability
of the ordinance. First, the administrative adjustment
provision is proposed for removal cuz it no longer necessary under the current
ministerial ADU framework and provides a more streamlined process. Second,
application procedures are have been consolidated into a single section in
article 1 to make the ordinance easier to navigate and administer rather than
repeating similar procedures throughout the multiple articles. Common
requirements are now organized in one location.
Third, several sections have been renumbered to reflect the additions,
deletions, and the reorganization of provisions included in this update. And
then finally, internal code references, definitions, and citations have been
updated to improve the consistency and ensure the ordinance accurately reflects
the revised chapter.
So, the proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with both general plan policy
LU-3.7 for accessory dwelling units and housing
element program 16 for ADU production. Policy LU-3.7 of the general plan
encourages streamlined review processes in all residential permitted zones,
which are maintained through the proposed amendments. Housing element
program 16 seeks to facilitate ADU production in the highest resource
neighborhoods. The key takeaway here is that the
proposed ordinance amendment advances both the general plan policy and the
housing element program by maintaining a compliant local framework that
facilitates ADU development consistent with state law.
So, for the planning commission to recommend approval, four findings under
the Moraga Municipal Code must be made in which staff has determined
first, the proposed amendments are consistent with the general plan
including the policies supporting ADUs and housing element programs that were
previously discussed. Second, the amendments are compatible
with the existing zoning districts as ADUs and JDUs remain permit uses in all
residential zones and the amendments do not alter their current permit status.
Third, the amendments address the community's need for additional housing
opportunities while maintaining a compliant and enforceable local ADU
ordinance and fourth, the amendments promote public convenience, general
welfare, and sound zoning practice by allowing the by aligning the town's
regulations with current state law.
So, for sequa and public notice, the proposed ordinance amendment is exempt
from sequa pursuant to public resources code section 21080.17
and sequa guideline section 15282 subsection H which specifically applies
to ADU and JDU ordinances. Public notice for tonight's meeting was published in
the East Bay Times on May 13th and in accordance with government code
section 6584. Also, I want to note out prior to
tonight's meeting the town received a public comment letter identifying two
inconsistencies in the proposed ordinance amendment related to JDU owner
occupancy requirements and front yard setbacks for streamlined ADUs.
Staff has revised those sections for development standards under the
development standards to clarify that owner occupancy is required for JDUs
when sharing sanitation facilities and to remove the front yard setback
requirement for streamlined ADUs and both proposed and existing single family
and multi-family dwellings. Both of those items consistent with government
code section 66323 and for the record, we uploaded the
supplemental staff report to the PC agenda for today showing those two
changes.
So, moving on to the next steps. If the Planning Commission recommends approval
tonight, the ordinance will move forward to Town Council for consideration. The
anticipated schedule includes a Town Council public hearing for the first
reading on June 24th and the second reading and adoption on July 8th,
followed by a submission to the final of the final ordinance to HCD. And the
ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption.
So, in conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution
number 4-2026, recommend that the Town Council approve
the ordinance amending chapter 8.124 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code for ADUs
and JADUs. The Commission may also recommend
approval with modifications or continue the public hearing and request
additional information. So, that concludes tonight um staff's
presentation. Staff are available for any questions and the Town Attorney is
also available should the Commission have any legal questions regarding the
proposed amendments. Thank you.
» Thank you for that uh presentation and for the adjustments
made today based on the letters received.
Um I will um
open it up for questions for the staff from the Commissioners and I ask that
you keep your questions related to the topic at hand and hold all comments or
discussion until that section.
Anybody want to kick it off? >> Commissioner
» Sure, Commissioner Weber. >> I thank you for the presentation, um Mr.
Ganding. I appreciate that the work that was put into it. I know it's quite
laborious to update the code, so thank you for that effort.
Um my question's regarding on page 31-32 of the redlined version of the proposed
amendments from existing municipal code. This is article 4.
You've proposed deletion of section 8.124.170
governing the administrative adjustment. Um could you explain um I understand
there's a rationale behind deleting it. Could you explain what that is
and why?
» Whoops, sorry. >> [gasps]
» So yeah, the administrative adjustment section has been removed. Um
so the whole point is that for consistency with state law, ADUs are
intended to be streamlined and having these administrative adjustments um
would not comply with this ADU state law. Um also I do either town has not
been previously has not been using this administrative administrative adjustment
section. We have not seen any recent applications or any applications prior
to um that after the ADU was amended to include this. So
um overall, this needs to be removed um for consistency with state law.
» Okay, that makes sense. Thank you very much.
That's all I have, Chair Madam Chair. >> Great, thank you.
Commissioner Polsky. >> I have some tangential questions. Um my
my my wrist laugh, but can you go back to the uh slide that showed the
production of or the approval of ADUs? Um and I was just wondering um
when the state law kicked in for by right approval for ADUs and
does that correlate to uh keep going back? It was the graph, yeah.
Uh do you remember when the the state law
that kicked in that said ADUs are approved by right?
Wasn't that re- fairly recently? And the reason I'm asking you is like did
that was that where we saw the uptick?
» So there have been a number of changes to ADU laws over the years, and I think
actually prior to 2017, there were some news there were state
laws that were implemented to allow certain types of ADUs. Over the years
though, they just keep you know, strengthening and limiting
local discretion. So I think that's where you see the uptick because because
you know, basically for a number of years, every year there were revisions
to make them easier um to process. But, they're they were ministerially
allowed prior to 2017. >> Thank you.
» And And to add, um I don't know if uptick is a good way to describe the
Maraga's description. It's more steady, if anything.
Um This year we're we're impressed with the
the difference in cadence, but for the most part, it's just not has not
been >> [snorts]
» moving in one particular direction. It's just steady.
» I know you have another question, but just to follow up from that, in 2026, I
know that the Hatfield Estates have seven ADUs.
Are seven of the 11 in 2026 that project?
» Yes. >> Yes.
» Yes. >> So, really it's just seven new
completely new builds of homes, and then four
» Yes. >> non-related to that project.
Thanks. >> Madam Chair, I have some insight on that
from my experience with the state. What Mr. Polsky is Commissioner Polsky's
particular referring to is AB 68 by Phil Ting,
which became law in January of 2020. And it one of the key provisions was to
approve all qualifying ADUs through a ministerial by right process.
Um that was the primary all-inclusive um point at which it was allowed.
» I mean, if 2019 is our base year, then we're we're crushing it.
» Um So, did you Sorry, did you have a follow
up on that one? >> The other one.
The other legislation that matches the um Assembly Bill is SB 9. And again, it
went into effect in 2021. >> Cool. Thank you. Um
That was a good question. Um
And then the other one was around notices. So, I know that um
probably not as important here, but uh we whenever we have something fairly
controversial, we always get uh we didn't know about it questions. And so,
did we put this out in any of the other um publications, uh like about town or
I think the point being we want to make sure that people know about everything
we're doing here. So, I know that by
and I guess now I'm moving into a comment.
Question is did this only go out in the paper or anywhere else?
» Just the paper. >> I will reserve my
statement for >> I have a question.
» [clears throat] >> Okay.
Mr. Mayor. >> So, considering it's a state law,
does this is this at all enforceable because like
you're saying like if if if our current code is not compliant with the state
law, then we have to defer to the state law.
I'm kind of wondering what the point of this is. I mean,
I know that we want to be compliant, but it within a year we're going to be out
of compliance because it keeps developing year after year just like
This is the first time I've heard that there's
there's no front setback on an ADU. >> Not on all ADUs, just on a certain type
of ADUs. What we call the 66323 ADUs. So, in our in Moraga, they're the
streamlined ADUs. So, not all of them, but that's correct. So, that's a really
good philosophical question, legislative question. Uh
the rules keep changing over time, over time, over time. And so, we can update
it now and we might be out of compliance next year and we might be it's not hard
to be out of compliance. So, we will do our best to try to keep up. Um from a
practice perspective, we even if our ordinance is not up to date to the last
date, we still enforce and operate under state law if
we already know what the issue is. So, at on the ground, we still make sure
that Moraga is tries to practice um according to state
law. So, you're right. It almost doesn't matter because we will still do the
right thing, but we want to make sure that we are transparent with the
community and make sure that staff is being consistent consistent.
» I mean my follow-up was I mean I almost wonder if we have legal exposure by
having a code that inevitably will be
out of compliance. I mean
» Yeah, that's that's a great question because as noted the law on ADUs
continues to change. Um in this case HCD did specifically reach out to the town
checking on our compliance with the our ADU ordinance as they did with cities
throughout the state. So they are monitoring our compliance
and um I assume we would get a be getting a letter if we don't bring our
ordinance into compliance. Um one other thing I will say in addition to
providing transparency for the community in our municipal code we are also able
to set forth you processes for how we're processing
um the applications when they come in. We
don't have much to or if any discretion for certain types of ADUs, but but we
can outline um
procedures. >> Right. Thank you.
» So as a follow-up question to that um
Planning Director you had mentioned we would do the right thing if we got a
permit. I would argue that doing the right thing per the California law is
not necessarily the right thing for Moraga including the no set front
setbacks for the streamlined ADUs. So what
if any ability do we have to enforce our own Moraga zoning
when the state has different zoning and if we don't have any ability to why do
we have Moraga zoning anymore? Or better question what can we do to push back on
the state to maintain some of our own
guidelines and zoning regulations. >> So again, an ex- excellent question.
And as you know, the town has lost a lot of discretion with respect to um
you know, certain types of approvals, specifically ADUs. Um so if an
application came in, we would process it in accordance and process in accordance
with state law. And basically the town typically interprets any
provision in our municipal code that's contrary or inconsistent with state law,
that we will um that state law will prevail in in our processing of that.
And with respect to you know, what we can do, that really is a legislative
issue. And that's, you know, the legislature, the California legislature,
keeps um enacting
laws that require um more ministerial processing, um less
discretion of um local agencies. So the best way to counter that is through the
state legislature. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Thank you, Chairwoman Apple. I have a couple of questions. Um
I spent a lot of time reading this and um
apologize for going a little bit deep, but I'm hoping that you can um
uh as planning staff, clarify for me the in my first question, the difference
between a a standard application versus a streamlined. What
would qualify a streamlined? And I think part of my confusion is that
in both the description uh under Article 1 of a streamlined ADU,
uh point C references a detached ADU.
But then, what we see um
Excuse me, that's in article two for streamlined, and that's on page 10. It
references one detached ADU. But then, in article three for a
standard ADU, it also references a detached ADU. So,
when is it a streamlined and when is it standard?
» Hello. So,
they differentiate by the different development standards that are
that are imposed for each of those. So, what I mean by that is for streamlined
ADUs, they're only limited to a certain number amount of development standards,
which they cannot exceed 800 square feet, for example.
For detached ADU, they can't they only have 4 feet side and rear yard setbacks.
That's why the front yard setbacks are no longer there because
those are under state law, you can't impose any local development standards
for streamlined ADUs. As in for standard ADUs, they the front yard setbacks are
still allowed. There are also other development standards listed under
article three, I believe, for
development for standard ADUs. So, think of it as like streamlined ADUs are
only certain number of ADUs allowed for streamline. But standard ADUs, there's
still some sort of um there's object
I'm sorry. Um There are still standards in
standard ADUs that are still allowed in their code. Um
» I'm going to ask just a clarified follow-up question because it sounded to
me that the biggest difference for you in deciding whether or not something is
being coming in as a standard ADU application being versus something
that is eligible to be a streamlined ADU
application subject to ministerial review
is going to be whether or not that ADU is 800 square feet or less.
» Yes. >> That's the That's the main
qualification. >> Mhm.
» Okay, so it's the size of >> of ADU.
» And anything between 800 and 1200, which is the max for an ADU under state law
» Mhm. >> no longer is streamlined for ministerial
review. That goes under the standard >> Standard ADUs, yes. So, the maximum
number is 800 square feet and the maximum for a standard ADU is 1200
square feet. So, if it crosses over, then it becomes a standard ADU.
» Great. So, I'm going to ask another follow-up question.
Um so, for
section 8.124.140
design standard for standard attached and detached ADUs on pages 13 and 14
those only apply to the standard ADUs that are 800 to 1200
square feet and not for the smaller ADUs that are 800 square feet or less.
» Yes, correct. >> Thank you.
And then in terms of the standard versus streamlined ADUs, streamlined
ADUs are reviewed through a ministerial process and we probably wouldn't see
but standard applications might come to this planning commission and
be our responsibility look at pursuant to the design review procedures
and the guidance set forth in 8.124.180
which names the planning commission as the review body for design review
approvals. Is that correct?
» So, I'm sorry. Could you clarify it further
about um >> Yeah, sure. It's really complicated. I
I'm trying to figure out our future roles and responsibilities as planning
commissioners. Because it seems like I get that you're
in charge of all the ministerial stuff. >> Mhm.
» Okay? But now we have these standard ADU
applications for something quite a bit bigger, right? 800 to 1200 square feet
and and hypothetically, you know, maybe we get one every 3 years. I understand
that there's not a lot coming through. >> Mhm.
» But my understanding when I read that last section of article 4 is that since
you guys can't do a ministerial review, it comes to the planning commission for
review. Is that true?
» Um So, um I'll just answer. These are all
these ADUs are ministerial review, even the standard ADUs.
So. >> Thank you. I needed that clarification.
» We >> It looks like only the ones that don't
comply would come to us. >> So, only non-compliant things come to us
in the same as non-compliant housing applications come to us.
» That's correct. >> That is my clarification [laughter]
for the night. >> I'm sorry for not being more clear about
that, but the one takeaway that we should have started off, all ADUs are
ministerial. That's what the one thing that state is very clear about. All ADUs
are ministerial. Moraga municipal ordinance allows for
this third option, the CUP ordinance, just to be more flexible and give people
an opportunity in case they don't fit in the box.
So, that you do have that option, but ADUs are ministerial.
Thank you.
» No further questions or comments.
» Commissioner Halbert? No? Okay. I have a few.
So, I know the required findings are listed. Um
I would argue that this is not compatible with existing residential
zoning districts considering the zero setback
front setbacks for these ADUs. Am I incorrect in that?
» That that The zero setback is not for all the
ADUs, just for what we call the 60 66323.
» Yes. >> non- or the streamlined ADUs would not
be compatible with existing residential zoning districts. Correct?
» If that's your statement. >> I I'm asking if that's correct, that
it's not com- those are not compatible with our current zoning.
» I I think
arguably when you layer state law that requires these with our zoning, there's
an you know, argument that they are compatible when you're looking at both
together. Um as far as compatible with whether the state law is compatible with
the zoning because of the for example, the setbacks. I I think
that's a obviously more complicated issue.
» Okay. Um
when it comes to the amnesty, it looks
I'm curious if if I'm correct in in saying that it looks as though even if
previously built non-permitted ADUs are out of
compliance, we will just give them permits unless
they are risked of safety to the residents. Is that accurate?
» That's correct. >> Mhm.
So, it's a free pass for any previously built
1,500 square foot ADU with no setback or 2-foot setback from a
side yard, we will just permit it.
» With with taking into consideration the
health and safety. >> With a 2-foot
» Yeah, the health and safety requirements are the only things. And the public
policy thinking behind that is that if it's a a unit that is um safe for
habitability and that was not originally permitted as it should have been
permitted, it's still a housing unit and it's providing shelter for someone. So,
that's kind of the general public policy understanding of it all. So, we're not
removing a unit that is potentially providing housing for
a a a family or a person um if there's a way
to make it safe. >> Uh is there a
situation in which nobody is hap- living in
the non-permitted ADU in which we don't permit it? If it's not actively
providing a living space for somebody? >> Yeah, that's not part of the finding
whether someone's it's whether it's being inhabited or not. It's it's
whether someone wants to legalize it by bringing it up to um health and safety
code. That mean the primary the primary
purpose.
» Okay.
» Commissioner Moore? >> Uh you could actually argue that most
ADUs are not lived in. I mean, most become either guest houses or Well, I
mean, depends on the the city it's in, but
» No, it's okay. Thank you. >> yeah, the the letter of the code is
really just to add housing units. >> Mhm.
Mhm. >> But it doesn't feel right that if
someone could build something illegally and then
get this magic bullet, but >> Get the magic bullet, yeah.
» It does create a housing unit and that's what we're after.
» Yeah, no return of legislation has inch in that direction. For a while, the
state was hinting or still allowing jurisdictions to enforce based on
illegal units, something that was illegally converted, for example, which
is a typical situation that we see. And over time, the state has moved away from
enforcement and kind of saw this coming where there was going to be a moment
where the direction was going to be to provide amnesty.
» So, I'll ask a clarifying question. Is this generally considered like a process
by which something would be grandfathered in
if it had been in use and since before 2020 and if it is is there
any cost or fee you know for the permitting that at least gets filed is
there some kind of fair play for you know
they did this without permits and now they just get a free pass is but is
there a fair play kind of requirement where they have to pay a fee for their
new new permit? >> As far as I know the fee is still we
would still charge the fee. I mean it's not necessarily a a pass in terms of
every regulation but if we were typically
um see something that maybe was permitted without the adequate setbacks
or adequate whatever standard we're looking for that that would be allowed.
Um that is something we would not be able to to tell them no but we we can
still definitely charge for a fee. Um we do have a healthy element program that
um states that we will work on legalizing six um unpermitted
housing units ADUs. So that is a part of our charge and part of what the state um
has agreed to let us do. >> So if I understand you it opens a
process for six currently non-compliant ADUs to become compliant.
» In Moraga that's what it would translate into but the state law just the amnesty
portion is gives us an avenue to make those legalize
legalize them and also um make them safe.
» I was going to ask is there a process with building inspection to to make sure
that it's up to building code?
» That's what we mean by safe really. The safety is really carried through by our
building code. >> Okay.
Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff?
Okay. Um at this time I'm going to open and close public comment as there
uh are no public here.
Um and we will um
move on to discussion from the commission. Does anybody have
Commissioner >> Okay, I'll get mine right out of the
way. >> Get yours out of the way.
» for the notice stuff, um can we as a practice try and um
push it out? I know in the about town for the um town council
um meetings, I'll do a little bit of a summary
uh about what's happening and so >> [clears throat]
» um if if we could just cuz there are very easy channels for us
to push this information out. I think this is general practice even if it's
not required by law. I think that would be great and I think
the public would appreciate that. >> Mhm.
» Uh Well, then I guess I
» Any other comments? >> I mean, I'm I'm all for this. I think um
I get that like we're out of compliance almost
as soon as we're done, but like we want to give clear
uh as clear direction to um people that are trying to um
build ADUs as we can. Um and so I would imagine the first place they look is
towards the town before they go to the state. So, the more that we can make
this easy on them, the better. Um I'm all for remaining in compliance
with the state. I'm all for um increasing the supply of housing.
Um I do think that uh you know, the
uh it's not just us. It's literally every municipality in the state of
California, but everyone thinks that they're special and that well, we, you
know, we can't have X, Y, and Z and that's frankly why the state of
California is saying tough. Like we all now need to, you know,
whatever it's uh affirmatively or we have to do our our fair share. So, like
I I'm totally in favor of doing that and if someone built something a long time
ago and we're now bringing it into compliance
because it's now safe and potentially someone can
uh live there, then that's great. So, I think um
this was a lot of work. Uh like Commissioner Webber said, and appreciate
all the work you guys are doing for the town and
um keep up the good job. So, that's it.
» Okay. Thank you. And the other commissioners have comment? Commissioner
Rain?
» Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity and want to direct my comments mostly to
my fellow planning commissioners. Um and kind of invite a conversation and
discussion amongst us. Um like
Commissioner Pulaski, I'm I'm anxious about there not being anybody here.
I feel like this is a this is a big thing.
Um and and that that we didn't get any public comments and and so there's that
that I want to state up front. Um
I also fully agree that um you know, we do need to do this. We need
to be in compliance. I really appreciate the clarifications.
I um am very appreciative of the hard work of
staff to do this. Um
I I do have um a couple of comments around some things
that um didn't get changed that I would have
liked to have seen. Um so, part of me is
really not ready for this conversation to be closed. So, I have opinions, but I
also haven't heard from anybody else. [laughter]
So, I want to I want to be able to share some of my opinions, but I also
recognize that I am putting out my opinions as my opinions.
These are not necessarily the opinions of the rest of you. They're not
necessarily the opinions of the city or the residents of Moraga.
But, in my opinion as one
I'll name it flat out as an affordable housing advocate,
but two, also as a homeowner here in Moraga,
um I I really feel like
there remains in this especially in the design regulations for
those 800 to 1,200 square foot
ADU unit that could conceivably create more of that missing middle housing for
families, um
some design ambiguities
that could be cleaned up so that it'll make it easier for a ministerial review,
um and it'll make the ordinance a little bit more usable.
And also some concerns that some of the old design standards, which we were not
charged by law to address or look at, and may not have been
may not have looked at it all, maybe outdated and may
result in more costly barriers to entry. And so,
for people for regular homeowners who are considering
or wanting to put an ADU on their site. So, some specific language that I would
call out in terms of that section on page 16.
And this is not to word smith or to make any recommendations, but really to say I
I would love to see if other commissioners are interested
just a little bit more time. Excuse me, I was looking at the
redline version on pages 13 and 14, which have the design standards for
those standard attached and detached ADUs.
Um I feel like point A um exterior colors and materials shall
match or be consistent in type and quality. There's quite a bit of room for
interpretation there. Um and some of those things may be
A complicated like the paint match. Um and B um
kind of not common sense. Like what if the old house is a wood shingle house?
Like do we really want the ADU to be a wood shingle ADU?
» [laughter] >> Right? Um another example would be
um you know, things like um
if if there's an exterior wall, then we need to plant um
a certain amount of shrubbery along those walls. Again, I want you to
imagine that now we have required a wood shingle ADU and now we have to
we are now required you know, have to put shrubbery that will reach a minimum
height of 4 ft within 3 years, which would be great if we could plant cypress
trees, but might be a little complicated. So
I would love to see that updated. Um in particular, I think that that some
of these things um don't necessarily take into
consideration the kind of our interest as a community
in fire safety. And and I'd love to see this red with an
interest for fire safety given that we have to do it.
And I also feel like some of the things are
in here were written with an intention to
limit or restrict maybe maybe unintentionally, but had the
unintended consequence of limiting or restricting
the construction of ADUs and we we don't actually see the numbers being very big,
but you know, it does limit the capacity to use
you know, maybe less costly or more modern materials like modular
construction if your house wasn't originally done with modular
construction. So, I feel like that poses an unfair
financial burden on homeowners to meet in old building standards that are
outdated and no longer make sense when there's more
affordable and more fire safe options.
So, my comments is really that's that's my opinion and if other
commissioners feel like that, I just wanted to put it out there.
» Thank you, Commissioner Rain. Any other comments?
» Can I ask a question of staff? Um one I'm I'm very supportive of that
and thank you for bringing all of your papers in.
Um and coming through that. Um So,
» [laughter] >> um is there a
uh or did the uh state give us a deadline to get this done and does it
make sense to do this in phases where we make the state
mandated changes, but then the planning commission as part of um
we vote on this to approve or deny can direct to take a look at the ADU
um requirements as Commissioner Rain had just mentioned and then bring this back
later in the year? >> Later in the year.
» So, >> at some time in the future.
» So the letter that we received, which is often referred to as a repeal and
replace letter, did not have a firm deadline, but they have been very
responsive. We responded to them right away. They responded to us. We gave them
our proposed um time frame.
Um I'm sure if there was we needed to bump this out another 2 weeks, I don't
think they would be upset. Um but we right now we're operating under a state
law. We don't have a local um ADU ordinance to work with. So I would
not recommend bump bringing this back up for the end of the
later in the year because it's just a long time to be operating with that, but
we don't have a firm date from HCD. I do do think that we run the risk of
It's hard to tell. HCD is a little bit hard to tell sometimes what they're
going to say. But if we um we might get an enforcement letter if we don't
respond to them. But right now I did give them the date and they seem really
reasonable and understanding of where we were.
» Yeah, sorry. Um so can we do this in two phases though where we address their
concerns and then direct staff to then bring this back at some point for a a
more detailed discussion? >> I think so. If there's something some
design discussion that you want to have and and piggyback after this, I think
that's appropriate. Um right now I would just recommend uh making the changes
that would bring us back into compliance.
And and and even the the ones that staff recommended as well. That would be my
ask. >> And actually I mean I had another
question. So the the design section of requiring paint materials to match up my
understanding of the ADU code is that it is not a hard I mean we can recommend
that we do that. So it's architecturally compliant, but
my understanding is that as long as you meet the the dimensional
requirements of ADU, we're not allowed to comment on the design.
» So um do you want clarify with respect to
streamline ADUs, we are not allowed to um comment on the design and there very
limited standards that we can require. And then, we also have what we refer to
as the standard ADUs, where we do have um design standards listed in our
municipal code and they do have to be processed ministerially. So, they're a
objective or as objective as they can be standards so that staff can process
those and kind of a check check the box whether they meet those. But, we do have
the flexibility to revise those standards provided that they remain
objective and minis- and can be ministerially processed.
» Thank you. The standards you I'm sorry. The The standards you were reading off
were for those that require C conditional use
permit cuz they exceed the standard ADU, right?
» So, if I can clarify, my understanding is that these are for the ones that
would not would still have a ministerial review,
but that we as a town, as town staff, can establish our standards for those.
And those are for the larger ones that are 800 to 1,200 square feet. I want to
explicitly call these out as kind of like not the old-fashioned granny units,
right? When you're talking about 800 to 1,200 square feet, you are talking about
a two- and possibly a three-bedroom house. Again, that would meet that
missing middle piece for families. Not necessarily, but it had the potential
for that. And what I would argue is that even if
nobody was on board with changing the standards around fire safety or nobody
was on board with changing the standards around um
let's allow for more affordable building opportunities so we can kind of meet the
spirit and intention of this law, which is to create more housing opportunities
by enabling homeowners to do this out of their own pocket and put their time and
money into creating housing. Even if nobody was on board with that, I
still feel that especially section A
is vague. And I would highly recommend at least a
double check at section A because I feel like
we're mixing colors and material. We're using the words match or compliant.
That leaves a lot of room for people to say, "But what did you mean?"
That's all. >> So, Commissioner Rainey, I I appreciate
your thoughtful approach to it. I would actually argue the opposite that we have
very little control at this point of anything that we can do within our own
town. And if we don't at least, much like we do for the Rheem Shopping Center
and the Moraga Center, have some expectations that things match
the look and feel of the communities that they're being built in, we run the
risk of having 1,200 square foot glass ADUs in everybody's front yard, 4 feet
from their neighbor's house. And I mean, one of the things that I I
have the largest struggle with here is is losing that control.
And that obviously, anything that is being built
has to meet fire code, so they're not going to allow shrubs to be planted
within a certain amount of feet from the from a new building or from the
neighbor's fence. They're not going to allow for
cedar shake siding. It would be the newest fire resistant composite material
that looks like cedar shake to meet, you know, to meet, which I think really does
keep the feel of our Moraga
general plan and our Moraga um design,
you know, expectations, where we have very little control
otherwise. >> I And I agree with you. I think that's
why I'm asking for more time because I feel like
um there's room for for both and when you
have ambiguity and when it kind of allows creep and wiggle room in other
areas. I'd rather see kind of more bullet points and it kind of broken out
a little bit more with more exact specifications.
But I would also So yes, I agree with you on that, but I would also argue that
that your example of the glass building and
around you know, that's all the way up to the front.
I don't I don't disagree that I don't want that either. I want to say I
don't want that either. >> [laughter]
» That said, if they have cedar shakes and you ask someone to do hardy board kind
of shingle sidings that are fire
resistance, that's a far more expensive lift
than a cheaper material. And that's where I'm anxious and I feel like that's
what places an undue burden on homeowners to kind of help us meet this
missing middle and I feel like when I look at those numbers,
it's hard for homeowners to rise to the challenge even if they have good
intentions and want to. >> So I my issue with it I I don't know if
this is precluding or it's it's raising cost for part of anything, that
ambiguity kind of lets you in with less expensive materials and
um for the record, I think the glass box would be cool.
Sorry. [laughter] Um
» I want a metal one. >> Just don't throw stones.
» [laughter] >> Not planning to. Um So yeah, I think
that this actually leaves some wiggle room and I actually kind of like the way
it's written cuz there's an expectation that you're going to be responsible and
think about it. It's not just slap something up and hope it it fits.
There's some thought that goes into it and
um and with the fire code within a year, we're probably going to have a state
mandate that's going to give defensible spaces and
everything you talked about with shrubbery that they're gone. So,
I I'm not worried about that.
» Yes, go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Commissioner
Moore sort of raised the issue of guy that started with regards to
um you know, the challenges of updating this code, you know, on a frequent you
know, as how how often as we do. I can tell you from experience the state
legislature doesn't give absolutely two hoots about whether or not the planning
commission or the cities or counties can keep up with the steady year in year out
um mandates that are coming from Sacramento. We have no power.
And I think that's been evident in the debate there in Sacramento for a long
time. Um
the the challenge that we face for small towns with smaller budgets is it's very
difficult for the staff to update as a matter of workload the constant change
and turnover in the law. And we by having to go back and forth,
it's just makes it harder for them to try to keep up and focus on the other
issues that are addressed to this commission.
I think it was extremely carefully worded parsing everything that was
written entire document to make it as it was
to make it legally defensible and in fact that it was called out specifically
for HCD to see is is important, I think, for the viability of the document and
for demonstrating that we are going to try to adhere to the law but keep what
limited independence that we have. Um
the in terms of the interpretations, the commission you know, Commissioner May
um, Rain raised fair issue about keeping it vague, but I would have to
support Commissioner Moore and Maypel on keeping that discretion because the
state ensures every year, as I referenced, we don't have any
discretion. Keeping what limited discretion we have,
I think is paramount to try to keep that local control while complying with the
law, and I would oppose anything that would change that language, um,
» [snorts] >> as written by staff today.
Um, I'm glad these issues are being raised.
They are important. I'd also have to, I think, uh, Commissioner Polsky's offer
about doing something in phases is well taken,
but I don't think that's, um,
uh, plausible. By doing that and by not passing it this
tonight, we will immediately raise the attention
of the Housing Accountability Unit, and as I've said before, in Sacramento, if
they see that, they're going to start looking much more closely at what it is
we're doing. Cuz that letter is deliberately signed by the Housing
Accountability Unit to show that targeted zip codes that are wealthy like
ours are they would love to make an example
of it. We're not Huntington Beach, we're not La Canada Flintridge.
The staff is aware of some of these references, but, you know, maybe the
commissioners are not, but the challenge is is that our zip codes are constant
targets for the Housing Accountability Unit, and I don't want to see anything
that would cause attention to what, um, to make them
more concerned that we are not being good actors. This is a very carefully
crafted document. I think it balances it clearly,
and we should keep it as is, not do it in phases, and pass it as written, uh,
tonight. The other thing I wanted to mention, and
this was a great issue that you raised, uh, Commissioner Rain, was the lack of
public comment. I think part of that's just summer break, graduations, um, but
I think part of it is also folks see this and they know that there's not as
much we can do. We've heard, we've repeated the issue that we're just
losing sort of that control, and I think that's part of what is creating some of
the absence here. I think that they're hearing the law and making sure that
it's noticed. And uh but I just wonder if this is just
not um given, you know, that we just lack that
kind of control that they just sort of know it's not as big an issue as some of
the other issues we faced here as commissioners with the developments.
So, I am all in favor of keeping the document as is, passing it tonight,
getting it to the council, and getting HCD out of our hair.
Thank you.
» Sorry, just just to clarify. So, um I too am in favor of of passing it as is,
but um maybe a more
vague directive to the um staff that we evaluate ADUs at a later date. Um
so that we can continue this discussion cuz I think it's a great discussion. I
think um I think everyone wants to increase the
housing stock, and I think we want to do it um
reasonably and so that it's clear and easy for folks that want to do it to do
it. So, yeah, I'm I'm completely in favor of
passing this uh and sending it to the town council as is, but I do think we
should continue the discussion.
» Uh so, I I'll go ahead, Commissioner Helper.
» Okay. Thank you.
Um I just want to say um I think ADUs are inherently good, and
I think the town has a history of supporting ADUs and encouraging ADUs,
and yes, the state is mandating and res- uh
kind of removing the local jurisdictions'
ability to restrict ADUs, but I would say that the town has a history of
encouraging ADUs, and I would very proud of the increased
um number of applications that have been submitted throughout the year, and it's
kind of correlates to the effort of the town in doing the housing element
update. You know, that was a big part of the housing element update was looking
at how we can provide more housing opportunities for our citizens, be it
multi-generational families, be it uh boomerang kids, which I have one, and
I'd love to have them in the ADU. Um or be it students or affordable
housing. And let's not forget you know, we have regional allocation
requirements, and each one of these housing units is, as staff defines,
affordable by design and counts towards our affordable housing requirements,
which we truly have to meet. Um
and in terms of you know, the audience participation, I
honestly don't view this as very controversial. I think a lot of people
know about this. In fact, when I talk to my neighbors, it's more frequent the
conversation is how can I do one?
And you know, how do I move forward in Moraga? Not what is Moraga doing? We
want to restrict ADUs. So, I think the town has a long history of supporting
ADUs. I think this brings us into compliance, which frankly
as fellow commissioners have said, we need to do.
Um but you did mention one of my favorite
topics, which is revising subjective criteria with objective criteria, which
frankly makes not only our jobs easier, but also the
residents of Moraga. If anything's objective, they know exactly what they
have to do. That said, I think
you know, tonight we're taking an action, which is an advisory action to
Town Council. I think we can take an action tonight approving this and asking
staff to go back and look for opportunities, and we could give them
direction that when they comes to Town council,
they have recommendations to make revisions to make it much
wherever possible objective rather than subjective. And perhaps we can give them
some direction.
» I love that. >> Okay.
» And I just want to really appreciate you all listening to my opinion and the
dialogue that we are having here. I'd love to continue to hear that, but just
thank you, everybody. >> Thank you, Commissioner Halber. Thank
you, everybody for all your thoughtfulness on this. Um I think I'm
in the minority here. While I am absolutely for affordable housing,
um everybody I know who has an ADU uses it for an office or a pool house or a
place to store their Christmas ornaments. So,
um I also have while I feel like obviously
we have to follow state law, we also have to maintain some of our own
jurisdiction and abilities to have some control in the places where we have
things like planning commission and town council and
citizens who feel strongly about the place in which they live, for which I um
feel very strongly about the feel of Moraga, which I know has been a
controversial topic up here in the past, but um
I think I I understand why the staff is recommending it. I will say I'm not in
favor of moving it forward because I think
things like this start at the grassroots level and if we just say yes to
everything the state suggests, they're just going to continue to
make decisions for the communities in which we live and pay taxes and have to
beg for dollars for everything that we do,
including our schools. So, I appreciate everybody's support of it
and understand why uh we need to,
um but I am not in favor tonight. Um
that being said, unless there any other comments or questions for staff,
» Madam Chair, may I make motion? >> You can, yes.
» I move that this Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending that
the Town Council adopt the ordinance amending Moraga Municipal Code Chapter
8.124 Accessory Dwelling Units to update local ADU and JADU regulations for
consistency with current state ADU law, the Moraga 2040 General Plan, and the
2023 to 2031 Housing Element. >> And do I have a second?
» I have a clarification. There were some revisions that were
the motion include those? >> No.
Does not.
Sorry, no, it does not.
» So, just to confirm, it does not include the revisions to the owner occupancy
JADU or the front yard setbacks? >> Correct. As as drafted and written by
counsel by staff.
» Uh >> No, including the updates that they
submitted later to the staff. >> Yes, I apologize. Yes, thank you. Thank
you, Commissioner Helber. I appreciate that.
» Thank you. >> And town attorney, thank you.
» Do we have a second? >> Yeah, to just to be clear,
as we were received plus the supplement that we received via email, that's
that's the motion. Then I I I will second that motion.
» All in favor? >> I.
» I. >> I.
» I. >> No.
I don't feel like that incorporated the concerns or the discussion.
» Okay. All opposed? No.
I. No. Oh, all opposed. And I'm a I'm a no.
I'm an opposed. Yes. So, we have two opposed and four eyes.
So, the resolution passes. There is a 10-day appeal period on any
decision made by the planning commission and appeals can be made directly to the
planning staff or to the town clerk. >> And for for the record, as this is a
recommendation to the town council, this will automatically be going to the town
council. So, it doesn't need to be appealed.
» Oh, right. Thank you. Uh I need to edit my script better for
these that are moving forward. >> Uh
Chair, do we want to discuss um a recommendation to staff around
uh revisiting this based on some of Commissioner Rainey and Commissioner
Halvers' comments? Is that or maybe it's for
planning director and town attorney. >> we
was just passed with >> Sorry. Yeah, so to clarify though, to
continue the conversation about ADUs, not about this specific item.
But, I think that there is a desire I heard a desire on
the planning commission to have further discussions around ADUs in
general and not this specifically. >> Um
Planning Director Urzua, is that something that we can ask to bring
forward at a future meeting for discussion around ADU
design? What is
» Yeah, around the um the objective and not subjective standards that they may
find after they do a review as >> We can do that um after we take this
item to the town council. >> Great. Thank you.
» And so, sorry, just to clarify. So, we we don't need to
vote or we can just make a request and we can get it back. Okay, great.
» Uh moving on to routine and other matters
or I don't think we have any other routine or other matters on the agenda
for tonight, do we? Is there anything added? Okay.
Any reports from planning commissioners? I will say today is June 2nd. Everybody
has 23 minutes to post your ballots if you have not yet done so and
uh your civil responsibility. It's
democracy we live in. Um
» I I do have I guess it falls under the report. Um
But so this last weekend I was in San Luis Obispo. I have made comments in
front of this planning commission around uh developments that I have thought are
uh great developments and we'd love to see here. We're in Countrymart is one
that I brought up many times. Um San Luis Obispo has the SLO Public Market.
It opened in 2021. It's on a little over 4 acres. It's just under 50,000 square
feet, eight buildings, 20 merchants. Um I would highly recommend going to their
website or if you were in the area visiting it. Um it has a very
um semi-rural feel
that would fit really well in our town. Um It was vibrant on a weekend. We were
there for a baseball tournament. We took the team there and uh it was a great
experience and something that we you know, I would recommend that the staff
look at it and as they're talking to um the major developers in this
um in this town uh that they recommend that
they also look at it. Um You know, and just as for reference, so
it's on four just over 4 acres. Uh the area that we have designated in our
general plan as the town square uh which is behind Safeway um along Moraga Road
next to the park, that's roughly 8 acres. So uh certainly, you know, and
I'm sure there are other areas within the town that we can do this, but um I
was incredibly impressed with this development. Um
So I think we should add that to the list of of things that
um we are recommending to local developers
that they study. Um and then that kind of got me thinking um, and so I did a
quick Zillow search. Uh, over the last 12
months there have been 123 single family homes sold. One of them almost sold for
$4 million. Another six for um, in the low threes.
14 two and a half to just under 3 million. Another 29 in the two to two
and a half million dollar range. That's 41% of the sales over the last year were
over $2 million. 86% of the sales were over 1.5. There
are plenty of people in this town that want to spend money here. We just need
places to do it. Um,
so again, encouraging the local developers to get their acts together
and I have seen that the uh, grocery outlet um,
is coming along. Uh, I did see that they cut down some trees for the pad site
that we approved however long ago it was. So there are things happening.
» Pad site? >> Um,
» That was not for the pad site. >> The trees?
» No. >> That's for a bio retention.
» Yeah. >> Or a storm water.
» Okay. I retract that. >> Related though. Related.
» They'll be replanting I forget what is part
of the plan, but they're replanting a number of them.
» Got it. Retract that. But um, things are happening but I you know, we want to see
more things happening and the other comment I I had is um,
I was walking in the Rheem shopping center and walked past uh, a dog
grooming facility that I had no idea that we have a dog grooming facility in
the town of Moraga. I take my dog to get groomed in Walnut Creek and
um, we'd encourage staff and town council to think of ways that we can
encouraging This is like my slogan but like buy
Moraga. Like how how do we I mean this is stuff we've been talking about
forever but like I don't even know on the planning commission I don't even
know there was a dog grooming site here. Like how how can we
help local merchants get the word out that they that the services and things
that people in this affluent town like to buy and use um are here.
» in Rheem Plaza. >> Okay.
Well, >> Yes, I agree.
» So, >> Lots of
» I think that we need to do a better job. Um and so, we just encourage us to
continue to think about ways where we can
um support local businesses and then also make sure that people know that
local businesses are here. So, >> Perhaps in that new magazine. What is
it? Greek Greek Moraga? >> Greek Moraga.
» Yeah. Yes. >> Mhm.
» It was sort of a a promotional something like that uh good mouth
» Yeah, something highlighting businesses. >> Yeah.
» Yeah, more of that. >> Mhm.
» Uh I also wanted to report I had the great fortune of going to Rheem
Elementary about a week and a half 2 weeks ago and presented to the third
graders and the staff was great at getting me a printed zoning map of
Moraga and had six different rotations of third
graders, which all of our third grade teachers deserve a massive raise because
after 2 hours >> [laughter]
» um I was very confident in my decision not to go into education.
Um but it was great. It was great and the kids were super excited, wanted to
ask lots of questions, um had great ideas as to what stores would be a a
value add in Moraga, some of which were I was right on target with, others not
so much, but um the kids were really excited about it
and really appreciative of new building and uh hoping more is to come. And
[clears throat] it was fun to be uh
with that group.
Any other And it was great to see the Rheem Plaza being it looks like
repainted and cleaned up a little bit have it covered in scaffolding to
hopefully make businesses be able to stand out a little bit more, too, as you
drive by. Any other reports?
» I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge yesterday uh the town of
Moraga raised the pride flag. I just wanted to appreciate the the town and
everyone who came out. I I wasn't able to attend due to a pre-existing
commitment, but just really appreciate that that this town came together around
this and I really want to appreciate the work of town staff and our town
attorneys and in crafting some plain common sense language that um allowed
for the recognition and acknowledgement of our our pride in our month and the
LGBT Q community members and families that
are here in Moraga. Thank you.
» All right. Any staff reports?
Okay, do I have a motion to adjourn? >> I so move.
» Do I have a second? >> Second.
» All in favor? I. >> I.
» Meeting is adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Thank you for bringing the clock back, whoever made that happen.