Moraga Center Specific Plan

By Michael Metcalf

The Moraga Center Specific Plan (MCSP) is an important planning exercise to define land use policies for this 187-acre in the center of town. This position paper intends to help voters understand what the MCSP is, and is not.

The Moraga Center Specific Plan (MCSP) is described in a single document (Draft Specific Plan, June 2008), which is available on the Town's website. This plan was prepared in strict accordance with State of California planning laws and guidelines. The first pages explain that the Specific Plan is progression of the planning described in the General Plan 2002; whereas the General Plan applies to the entire Town, the Specific Plan focuses only on the 187-acre specific plan area known as the Moraga Center. What must be understood--and what is misunderstood by many people--is that the Specific Plan only sets forth land use and design guidelines for Moraga Center. It does so by outlining a "project", which is the upper end of what could conceivably be permitted in the area. The plan goes on to describe how the various elements of the plan--land use, community design, housing, circulation, open space/conservation, public safety, community facilities/services, and growth management--conform to the General Plan 2002. One must think of the Specific Plan as a description of what might be, and what kinds of development could be allowed; the plan does not prescribe what will be built.

California law requires that a specific plan be subjected to an environmental review under the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA mandates that a "project description" be stated, which serves as the base case for analysis of the environmental impacts of each element of a specific plan. This base case is called in the MCSP the "Proposed Project", which seems to be a poor choice of words. In fact, the project as described is not proposed by anyone. It is just a place to start the analysis.

CEQA mandates that the base project be tested against alternatives, one of which must be the "Do Nothing" case. The intention is to provide planners with information on the base project and all alternatives in order to make informed decisions about what the final specific plan should be. TO do this, the Town engaged numerous consultants to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was released for circulation in June 2008. This Draft EIR is also available on the Town's website.

CEQA requires that the Draft EIR be "circulated", which means opportunities for comment are provided to any agency or any member of the public who possibly would be impacted by, or have an interest in, the MCSP. All this is spelled out in detail in the CEQA statute. At this time, the formal "comment" period has ended, and each of the submitted comments is being assessed by Town consultants and staff. There have been many hundreds of comments, received either in writing or recorded from oral comment at numerous public hearings. As required by law, a written response is required to each comment. Presently the responses are being prepared by our consultants and staff.

WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES? The MCSP principal goals are:

1. Provide opportunities for improved commercial activity (retail and services), in order to reduce the need for Moragans to travel out of town for even the most basic retail and service needs, and to re-capture a portion of the substantial sales tax dollars that are currently "leaking" to other markets (principally in Lafayette and Walnut Creek).
2. Provide opportunities for a mix of housing (senior, workforce, students) in order to satisfy some of the demand that is known to exist at present; thereby meet the allocation of "affordable housing" that is mandated by the State.
3. Provide opportunities for increased office space to meet the growing demand for in-Town non-industrial businesses.

The Draft EIR contains in Section 2.3 the Project Description (pp 2-2 thru 2-9). In Section 2.4 all four Alternatives are described (pp 2-10 thru 2-13). To summarize, using numbers of dwelling units (DU) as the principal parameter:

Base Project (720 DU) Alternative 1-No Project (0 DU) Alternative 2-General Plan Buildout (323 DU) Alternative 3-400 Unit (400 DU) Alternative 4-560 Unit (560 DU)

The challenge for the planners is to meet the principal objectives without increasing the traffic impacts on Lafayette and Orinda (the "gateways") beyond the traffic levels identified for the General Plan 2002. The strategy is simple: Trade the some of the 323 DU of the current General Plan (Alternative 2), which is based on detached single family dwelling units (such as seen in the Sonsara subdivision), for a mix of housing that offers opportunities for senior, workforce and students. Since these kinds of residents generally generate fewer vehicle trips than single family dwelling residents, it follows that the total number of dwelling units can reach 400 DU (Alternative 3) without exceeding the traffic impacts identified for the General Plan 2002 (Alternative 2).

This suite of alternatives was intentionally designed by our staff to span the range of possibilities in order to provide a complete picture of the environmental impacts. With sound understanding of impacts, intelligent decisions can then be made.

WHAT DO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS TELL US? A Summary of Findings is found in Chapter 3. The impact of the base project and every alternative on each of the environmental considerations is summarized in a tidy table. In Chapter 4, detailed analyses are included (in much more detail than most readers would probably like). All this is done according to the strict requirements of CEQA. At Section 4.F--Transportation, Circulation and Parking--are found the analyses for traffic impacts within Moraga and wider Lamorinda. (Unfortunately, Section 4.F does not contain a concise summary of traffic impacts, and this shortcoming has been identified by a number of people, including myself.)

My personal view is that the Specific Plan is driven by traffic impacts. My understanding of the traffic impact analysis contained in Section 4.F is as follows:

1. At the present time, there are a number of intersections in Orinda and Lafayette that experience unacceptable levels of service (LOS), as measured by how long a driver must wait at an intersection before proceeding). Many factors contribute to low LOS, many having little to do with Moraga. These intersections are a continual source of irritation for most drivers in Lamorinda.
2. The Proposed Project (720 DU), aggravates the situation and no combination of mitigation measures appear capable of significantly improving LOS.
3. Alternative 4 (560 DU) isn't nearly as bad, but it seems that mitigation measures would make intersection performance only marginally better.
4. Alternative 3 (400 DU) is better yet, assuming the mitigation measures that are identified. Other mitigation measures will probably come to light from the public comment process.
5. Alternative 2 (the General Plan 2002 Buiildout case) is what Moraga and our neighbors (Orinda and Lafayette) considered acceptable in 2002. The traffic impacts on Orinda and Lafayette set the so-called "gateway traffic budget".
6. Alternative 1 (No Project) naturally has no traffic impact. But this alternative would be unacceptable since it does nothing to provide opportunities for affordable housing.

At Chapter 5, are found so-called "CEQA Required Assessments", which are intended to provide the summary you are trying to find. At p 5-21 and 5-22, the EIR concludes that:

"the environmentally superior alternative is considered to be Alternative 3 (400 Units), with appropriate mitigation measures as described for the Proposed Project, including (for traffic, circulation and parking) ...

• Install traffic signals [at various locations in Orinda and Lafayette]
• Enhance transit service and/or reduce community center program
• Ensure adequate internal circulation within MCSP
• Reduce vehicular conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians
• Provide an enhanced pedestrian crossing between the community center site "B" and the Moraga Commons, and
• Provide adequate parking."

In addition to the CEQA process described above, Moraga is required under the Growth Management Plan of Measure C (administered by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority), to engage in discussion with Orinda and Lafayette on the Specific Plan. Failure to do so could place in jeopardy the "return to source" funds on which our street maintenance program depends (about $250,000 per year). Moraga initiated this dialog at the staff level in early June. The dialog is just beginning.

It needs to be understood that the Specific Plan is far from complete; no action has been taken by the Town. What we have from the EIR is useful information which, when complemented by public comment, will provide the foundation for sound decisions. The MCSP is far from complete, no decisions have been made.