[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.