8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Resolution Approving an Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report and the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan; Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 784 N.S. Amending — Piedmont City Council, October 6, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

28 No No No N/A
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Pages 4.14-
29 through

4.14-30
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to transportation. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, would result in home-based VMT exceeding the threshold of 15 percent below the Bay Area Regional Baseline average home-based VMT per resident, and transportation impacts would be potentially significant. Even with implementation of Action 7.D related to VMT analysis and transportation demand management added to the City’s General Plan Transportation Element, included below (which would result in a net VMT reduction of up to 10 percent for development projects in urban-suburban settings), the location, size, and characteristics of individual development projects facilitated under the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR were still unknown.

Therefore, VMT impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

General Plan Transportation Element Action 7.D: VMT Screening Thresholds and Analysis. The following types of developments “screen out” of the required project specific VMT programs set forth below: small multifamily and residential developments generating fewer than 50 automobile trips per day, development within 0.25 miles of a high-quality transit corridor, 100 percent affordable residential development, and small infill residential development generating fewer than 50 automobile trips per day.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 122
 Individual housing developments that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the City’s adopted Policy for Analyzing VMT Impact under CEQA, and modified as necessary to be consistent with local, regional and/or State thresholds and methodologies.
 Development that results in significant VMT impacts shall include one-time physical and ongoing operational travel demand management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT, including but not limited to the following:
 Limit parking supply.
 Unbundle parking costs (i.e., sell or lease parking separately from the housing unit).  Provide car sharing, bike sharing, and/or scooter sharing programs.  Subsidize transit passes.
 Contribution to a VMT mitigation fee program, bank, or exchange In addition, the Housing Element EIR found that the MCSP would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and potential impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Housing Element EIR also determined that the MCSP would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses and would not result in inadequate emergency access with implementation of policies related to emergency access and emergency roadways added to the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, as set forth below. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

General Plan Environmental Hazards Element Policy 19.20: Emergency Access. Ensure that the Piedmont Fire Department has complete access to all locations in the City, including gated residential communities and critical infrastructure.

General Plan Environmental Hazards Element Policy 19.21: Emergency Roadways. Maintain emergency roadways and improve them as necessary and appropriate to ensure they stay in operation during hazardous events.

Impact Analysis
The transportation impact analysis is based on Transportation Analysis Memorandums updated by Fehr & Peers on August 20, 2025 and included in Appendix B. These memorandums summarize background transportation data and analysis that informed Chapter 4 of the MCSP and provide a sight distance analysis for the proposed new driveway on Moraga Avenue. a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the MCSP consist of a sidewalk on the north side of the corridor west of Red Rock Road, a Class II bike lane on eastbound Moraga Avenue east of Red Rock Road and a Class III bike lane (shared) eastbound, west of Red Rock Road and westbound, and an informal path through Blair Park.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 123
In support of the MCSP development, Fehr & Peers collected the following data in September 2023 when local schools were in normal session:
 Traffic volumes and speeds by time of day on Morage Avenue just east of Red Rock Road  Vehicular and bicycle volume by movement and pedestrian volume by crossing at the Moraga Ave/Red Rock Rd intersection during peak commute periods The data is summarized in Appendix B and was used to inform the proposed configuration of Moraga Avenue in the MCSP, including sight distance requirements for new driveways and modifications, such as a traffic signal, at the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection. The proposed MCSP would include the following improvements to the circulation, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems:

Vehicle Circulation and Access
 Providing a more uniform lane width of 11 to 12 feet in both directions of Moraga Avenue;  Signalizing the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection which would better accommodate turns into and out of Red Rock Road and improve pedestrian connectivity across Moraga Avenue; and
 Potential relocating or undergrounding of utilities lines along Moraga Avenue to encourage roadway improvements.

Pedestrian System
 East of Red Rock Road, an up to 6-foot wide sidewalk with 5-foot wide landscaping on both sides of Moraga Avenue;
 West of Red Rock Road, an up to 6-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of Moraga Avenue which would connect to an existing sidewalk that connects to the sidewalk network in Piedmont and would be separated with a 5-foot wide landscaping including low-fence/guardrail for all or part of the Moraga Avenue public right-of-way west of Red Rock Road;  A signal on Moraga Avenue at Red Rock Road and an intersection that would provide marked crosswalks across the north (Red Rock Road) and east (Moraga Avenue) approaches of the intersection;
 A new hiking trail in the northwest part of the MCSP area that would extend from Kennelly Skatepark uphill to a vista point with an optional extension to Maxwelton Road; and  Potential relocation or undergrounding of utility poles.

Bicycle System
 Eastbound (uphill): Moraga Avenue would provide a buffered Class II bicycle lane, with an option to upgrade to a Class IV protected bicycle lane, on the south side of the roadway along the entire corridor in the MCSP area. Eastbound Moraga Avenue would remain a Class III bike lane west of Pala Avenue, and a Class II bike lane east of Maxwelton Road;  Westbound (downhill): Moraga Avenue would remain a Class III enhanced bicycle route on the north side of the roadway within a consistent lane width throughout the MCSP area and extending in both directions of Moraga Avenue. However, depending on the final development plan and right-of-way availability, westbound Moraga Avenue may be upgraded to a Class II bicycle lane; and
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 124
 Expanding bicycle parking at Coaches Field and other open spaces in the area to further encourage bicycling.

Transit System
 Coordinate with AC Transit to introduce bus service along the Moraga Avenue corridor;  Provide bus stops in both directions of Moraga Avenue near the signal at Red Rock Road to better accommodate bus riders needing to cross the street; and  Provide amenities, such as shelter with bench and trash receptacle, at the bus stops.

As outlined above, the proposed MCSP envisions improvements to the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit system and would ensure that improvements are constructed based on industry design standards and best practices consistent with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards, including the Highway Design Manual, the PCC, Piedmont Safer Streets Plan, Piedmont Public Works Standard Details, the Piedmont CAP 2.0, and building design and inspection requirements. With implementation of the improvements outlined above, the proposed MCSP would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, and impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As a result, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would be consistent with the Caltrans’ California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2050, the Piedmont’s Safer Streets (PSS) Plan, and the City’s CAP 2.0. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Consistent with the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would result in home-based VMT per resident exceeding the threshold of 15 percent below regional average home-based VMT per resident for the City of Piedmont. Future development projects under the proposed MCSP may meet one or more of the screening thresholds if they are 100 percent affordable housing or if they have a minimum density of 20 housing units per acre (infill screening)1
. As outlined under PCC Section 17.22.040(C), minimum
density for multi-family development in Zone B where the MCSP area is located is 20 dwelling housing units per acre, and the maximum density is 60 dwelling housing units per acre. Therefore, since future development under the proposed MCSP would have a minimum density of 20 dwelling housing units per acre, they would be assumed to have less than significant VMT impacts. With compliance with the new General Plan Transportation Element Action 7.D as well as MCSP Section 10.5.6.2A requiring future development to prepare a VMT analysis and a transportation demand management plan, impacts would be less than significant and reduced compared to those identified in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. 1 Refer to Figure 4.14-4 of the Housing Element Implementation EIR, which shows the areas of the City where future housing developments with a minimum density of 20 housing units per acre would have a less than significant impact on VMT. The MCSP Area is located within an area eligible for infill screening.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 125
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? As outlined above under Impact a, above, the proposed MCSP would include improvements to the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit system and would ensure that improvements are constructed based on industry design standards and best practices consistent with Caltrans, Piedmont Safer Streets, the PCC, Public Works Standard Details, and building design and inspection requirements. In addition, future development under the proposed MCSP that includes new roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure improvements would be subject to and designed in accordance with City standards and specifications that address potential design hazards including sight distance, driveway placement, traffic safety, signage and striping. Specifically, future development under the MCSP would be required to comply with General Plan Policy Transportation Element 12.2 which would ensure adequate sight distance at new driveways between vehicles entering and exiting the driveways and pedestrians on the adjacent sidewalk, as well as motor vehicles and bicycles on the adjacent street; as well as Section 5.8 (Vehicular Access and Parking) of the proposed MCSP which includes guidelines for vehicular access, driveways and curb cuts, and parking.

The MCSP would provide more uniform lane widths of 11 to 12 feet instead of the current 10 to 18 feet in both directions of Moraga Avenue. The MCSP also includes signalization of the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection to improve turning movements, pedestrian connectivity, and overall safety. The existing westbound slip right-turn at this intersection would be removed, and the intersection would be squared off to ensure all movements are controlled by the new traffic signal.

Potential driveways along the south side of Moraga Avenue and the proposed traffic signal would be designed to meet minimum stopping sight distances, 300 feet for eastbound (uphill) and 360 feet for westbound (downhill) traffic, consistent with applicable design standards. Pursuant to Section 4.17 of the MCSP, landscaping along Moraga Avenue would be minimized to preserve clear sight lines.

The proposed refuge island on the east side of the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection would provide raised medians on both sides of the crossing and be at least 8 feet wide to provide adequate waiting space for pedestrians and cyclists if they do not complete the crossing during one signal phase.

Signal timing would be calibrated to allow pedestrians to cross within a single cycle. Additionally, the refuge island would narrow adjacent travel lanes to discourage speeding. A design speed of 40 miles per hour is proposed for Moraga Avenue, consistent with Caltrans Highway Design Manual guidance for local facilities connecting to freeways or expressways.

Based on information provided by Fehr & Peers included in Appendix B, the MCSP is expected to generate approximately 910 vehicle trips on a typical workday. While specific driveway locations for future development at Blair Park are not yet determined, each would include a left-turn lane on westbound Moraga Avenue. This would allow turning vehicles to wait for gaps in oncoming traffic without impeding through traffic, minimizing queuing and avoiding spillback to the SR 13 off-ramps located approximately 0.7 miles east of Blair Park. No acceleration lanes would be provided in either direction of Moraga Avenue which would be consistent with the current configuration of Moraga Avenue through Piedmont. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 126
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the City maintains the roadway network which would provide access to new development sites in the MCSP area in accordance with industry design standards, which ensures that the physical network would be free of obstructions to emergency responders. Emergency access to new development sites facilitated by the proposed MCSP would be subject to review by the City of Piedmont and responsible emergency service agencies, thus ensuring that future projects developed under the MCSP would be designed to meet all emergency access and design standards. As outlined in the proposed MCSP, Moraga Avenue is a City evacuation route that can be used to either evacuate to the east to State Route 13 or to the west to Pleasant Valley Avenue and Broadway. The proposed MCSP would include reconfiguration of Moraga Avenue which would continue to provide one travel lane in each direction and would not adversely affect emergency response but, instead, improve evacuation for cyclists and pedestrians in the area. Future development would also be required to comply with General Transportation Element policies related to emergency access and emergency roadways, such as policy 12.3, Emergency Vehicle Access.

California law requires drivers to yield the right-of-way to emergency vehicles and remain stopped until the emergency vehicle passes to ensure the safe and timely passage of emergency vehicles. The proposed reconfiguration of Morage Avenue would accommodate vehicles stopping on both sides on the roadway to allow emergency vehicles to drive through the corridor. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR.

There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to transportation than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 127

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
Pages 4.15-
5 through

4.15-6
No No No Yes
b. A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of
the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Pages 4.15-
5 through

4.15-6
No No No Yes
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to tribal cultural resources. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, AB 52 consultation conducted as part of the Housing Element did not identify known tribal cultural resources in Piedmont, and the Sacred Land Files (SLF) results received from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) were negative for sacred lands. Nonetheless, ground-disturbing activities associated with individual development projects facilitated by the MCSP could expose previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by construction. Implementation of the policy related to tribal cultural resources added to the General Plan Design and Preservation Element, set for the below, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 128
General Plan Design and Preservation Element Policy 30-3: Tribal Cultural Resources. For future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources, in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to Native American cultural objects and human remains discovered during construction, project proponents shall retain tribal cultural monitors to monitor work done in areas of Tribal concern, as determined through tribal consultation. In the event that Native American cultural objects and/or human remains are discovered during construction, all earth-disturbing work in the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR Part 61) has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted.

If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with local Native American Tribes and group(s).

The mitigation plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American Tribe and tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
As part of its tribal cultural resources identification process under SB 18, the City of Piedmont sent letters via certified mail to Native American Tribes in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribes on July 24, 2024. As discussed in the CRTR prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in 2024 (Appendix A), the City received five responses, from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan, the Costanoan Rumsun Carmel Tribe, the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan, and the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay. Tribal consultation closed for the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan, the Costanoan Rumsun Carmel Tribe, and the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan on December 20, 2024, and tribal consultation closed for the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay on April 29, 2025. The City confirmed that the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Costanoan Rumsun Carmel Tribe, and the ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 129
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay would be contacted regarding development of specific projects in the MCSP area. SB 18 correspondence is included in Appendix B of the CRTR.

In addition, future development under the MCSP must comply with Section 10.5.7.2, which mandates the implementation of a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program for all project personnel, the preparation of an Archaeological Resources Assessment, and provides guidance for tribal consultation and the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources. With adherence to Section 10.5.7.2 of the MCSP, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would remain less than significant consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 130
This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 131

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
Pages 4.16-
12 through

4.16-15
No No No N/A
b. Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
Pages 4.16-
15 through

4.16-20
No No No N/A
c. Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?

Page 4 ends

20 No No No N/A
d. Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Pages 4.16-
21 through

4.16-22
No No No N/A
e. Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
Pages 4.16-
21 through

4.16-22
No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 132
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to utilities and service systems. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, it is not anticipated that the relocation or construction of new water facilities, stormwater facilities, electricity infrastructure, and telecommunications utilities would be required since future development would be served by existing utility infrastructure. However, new wastewater infrastructure would likely be required. Due to the existing geological setting of the MCSP area and because proposed utility alignments have not yet been identified, the expansion of wastewater infrastructure could result in significant impacts associated with construction of infrastructure in previously disturbed areas, and impacts related to new or expanded wastewater conveyance facilities were determined in the Housing Element EIR to be significant and unavoidable for the MCSP area and other parts of Piedmont.

As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, Piedmont, including the MCSP area, is served by EBMUD.

EBMUD has sufficient water supplies during normal water year conditions and single-drought-year conditions, as well as during the first two years of multi-drought-year conditions. Although water supply shortages could occur during the third year of a multi-year drought condition, EBMUD customers would be subject to EBMUD’s Demand Management Plan and other water conservation requirements which would address any shortage in supply. Impacts related to water supply were determined to be less than significant.

The Housing Element EIR found that the Housing Element, including the MCSP, would generate 56,688 gallons of wastewater per day, which would be within the remaining capacity of EBMUD’s MWWTP of 105 million gallons per day (mgd). Therefore, this impact was found to be less than significant.

The Housing Element EIR determined that development facilitated by the MCSP would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. In addition, the MCSP, as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Since the proposed MCSP would not substantially increase the total amount of development in the MCSP area compared to the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would generate or demand volumes of water, wastewater, stormwater, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications consistent with the volumes analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, similar to the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, existing utility systems for water, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities in Piedmont would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed MCSP, and impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. In addition, Chapter 9.3 of the MCSP requires future applicants to verify the condition and capacities of the water, wastewater, and stormwater system during the design process ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 133
to determine if replacements would be required. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, because of the existing nature of the MCSP area – steep perimeter slopes, rocky soils, lack of existing residential development, open space in its eastern portion, and other factors – and because proposed utility alignments have not yet been identified, the expansion of wastewater infrastructure could result in significant impacts associated with construction of infrastructure in previously undisturbed areas.

Wood Rodgers prepared a Sewer Analysis subsequent to certification of the Housing Element EIR in July of 2024 (Appendix C) analyzing sewer capacity for the Housing Element and the MCSP studied in the Housing Element EIR. As shown in Figure 5-3 of the Sewer Analysis, five sewer pipes along Moraga Avenue south of Blair Park would be deficient with full buildout of the Housing Element and would exceed pipeline capacity. Consistent with the recommendations of the Sewer Analysis, future development under the proposed MCSP would be subject to the MCSP Chapter 10 which requires a detailed analysis of the downstream sewer collection and incorporation of recommendations, as well as a project-specific sewer capacity evaluation for projects greater than four housing units.

Nonetheless, as discussed in the Housing Element EIR, since utility alignments for individual projects to be developed under the MCSP have not yet been identified, and the relocation, expansion, or construction of new wastewater conveyance facilities would be required, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As detailed in the Housing Element EIR, sufficient water supplies are anticipated to be available during normal water year conditions and single-drought-year conditions, as well as during the first two years of multi-drought-year conditions. Although EBMUD projects water supply shortages during the third year and onwards of multi-year drought conditions, EBMUD’s existing operational protocols such as drought restrictions on customers would be initiated which would ensure adequate water supply during drought years. In addition, future development applicants and proponents would be required to comply with CALGreen Title 24, Part 11, which requires a 20 percent reduction in residential indoor water use that would lower potential water demand, as well as implementation of water-efficient landscapes. Furthermore, the proposed MCSP also includes requirements for conservation of water in Chapter 8, Landscape Design. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR.

There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 134
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Since the proposed MCSP would not substantially increase the total amount of development in the MCSP area compared to the development analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would not generate substantially increased volumes of wastewater or demand for wastewater facilities compared to the development analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, EBMUD’s MWWTP has sufficient existing wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate the wastewater from the anticipated residential development facilitated by the MCSP, as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, and therefore the proposed MCSP as well. Consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR, impacts would remain less than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Since the proposed MCSP would not substantially increase the total amount of development in the MCSP area compared to the development analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would generate volumes of solid waste consistent with the volumes analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the total remaining capacity of all landfills serving Piedmont would have sufficient capacity to serve the increase in solid waste generated by the Housing Element. In addition, future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste such as AB 939 and SB 1838 for waste diversion and recycling and composting of organic wastes.

Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to utilities and service systems than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 135

3.20 Wildfire
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Pages 4.17-
17 through

4.17-21
No No No Yes
b. Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Pages 4.17-
22 through

4.17-26
No No No N/A
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
Pages 4.17-
26 through

4.17-28
No No No N/A
d. Expose people or structures
to significant risks, including
downslopes or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Pages 4.17-
28 through

4.17-29
No No No Yes
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.17, Wildfire, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to wildfire. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). However, future development would result in increased population, and vehicles in the MCSP area could impact emergency evacuation routes. Even with implementation of the policies related to transportation construction plan, education on fire hazard reduction strategies, ensuring adequate emergency evacuation routes, emergency access, emergency roadways, residential neighborhood engagement, evaluating evacuation route capacity, restricting parking, access and fuel ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 136
management coordination, preparedness and the community, emergency preparedness plan, preparedness education and citizen training, and intergovernmental preparedness planning added to the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, which are set forth below, as well as Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure W-1 (Incorporation of Evacuation Analysis Recommendations), set forth below, impacts may still result from the potential for unusual site-specific road conditions, project characteristics, and/or increased population as a result of development under the MCSP, and the general, ongoing fire risk in Piedmont. Therefore, impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

General Plan Environmental Hazards Element
Policy 19.30: Transportation Construction Plan. Projects developers shall be required to prepare and implement a Transportation Construction Plan (TCP), which shall be approved by the City.

The plan shall include the locations of material and equipment storage, trailers, worker parking, a schedule of site operations that may block traffic, and provisions for traffic control. The TCP shall include procedures for stopping construction in the event of an emergency and ensuring that emergency access and evacuation routes are not inhibited. The TCP shall ensure adequate emergency access and consistency with the California Fire Code and other development requirements as part of the development review process.

Policy 19.18: Education on Fire Hazard Reduction Strategies. Educate residents on fire hazard reduction strategies to employ on their properties, focusing on the most vulnerable populations such as renters.

Policy 19.19: Ensure Adequate Emergency Evacuation Routes. Ensure that all new residential development has at least two emergency routes.

Policy 19.20: Emergency Access. Ensure that the Piedmont Fire Department has complete access to all locations in the City, including gated residential communities and critical infrastructure.

Policy 19.21: Emergency Roadways. Maintain emergency roadways and improve them as necessary and appropriate to ensure they stay in operation during hazardous events.

Policy 19.22: Residential Neighborhood Engagement. Prioritize engagement with residential neighborhoods that have evacuation constraints to encourage home retrofits to meet current standards on structure hardening, proactively enforce defensible space standards, and conduct emergency preparedness trainings.

Policy 19.23: Evaluate Evacuation Route Capacity. Evaluate evacuation route capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios as part of the next update to the Piedmont Hazard Mitigation Plan, in accordance Government Code Section 65302.15 (as amended by AB 747). Implement recommended mitigation measures to reduce evacuation constraints.

Policy 19.25: Restrict Parking. Restrict parking periodically (e.g., on red flag days) along critical evacuation routes.

Policy 19.28: Access and Fuel Management Coordination. Coordinate with the City of Oakland Fire Department to improve emergency access and implement fuel load modification in Moraga Canyon.

Policy 21.1: Preparedness and the Community. Recognize the importance of communication and full community engagement to the success of all emergency preparedness strategies.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 137
Policy 21.2: Emergency Preparedness Plan. Use the Standardized Emergency Management System as the basis for emergency planning. The City will maintain an emergency preparedness plan that identifies a chain of command and outlines the actions to be taken in the event of a disaster.

Policy 21.3: Preparedness Education and Citizen Training. Promote and coordinate public education on earthquake hazards and emergency preparedness. The City will continue to implement programs that advise the public of preparedness and post-disaster recovery measures, and will encourage volunteer citizen participation in disaster response.

Policy 21.4: Intergovernmental Preparedness Planning. Cooperate with other cities, regional organizations, and other public agencies to undertake emergency preparedness planning.

Housing Element EIR
Mitigation Measure W-1: Incorporation of Evacuation Analysis Recommendations. The City shall implement all recommendations included in the City of Piedmont 2023-2031 Housing Element Update – Emergency Evacuation Time Assessment (Fehr & Peers 2023) and listed below:
 Develop emergency evacuation traffic signal timing plans for traffic signals on evacuation routes, prioritizing evacuation flows and minimizing opposing traffic flows. Emergency response vehicle access into evacuation areas can be maintained through traffic signal preemption. Coordinate with City of Oakland and Caltrans to develop corridor evacuation timing plans.
 Identify corridors where temporary evacuation capacity, such as reversible traffic lanes, temporary use of parking lanes, shoulders, or two-way-left-turn lanes, could be provided while maintaining emergency responder access in the opposite direction.  Explore limiting on-street parking on designated evacuation routes either permanently or during high fire risk periods to reduce potential conflicts with evacuating vehicles.  As part of evacuation messaging, ensure evacuees are informed of the availability of multiple evacuation routes, to allow effective use of all available capacity.  Work with Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) and private schools to develop evacuation plans for the schools in the City of Piedmont.
 Consider staggering the evacuation orders for citywide or large area evacuations for different zones and account for the impact on potential bottleneck locations when determining the timing for evacuation of different zones.
 When considering roadway or intersection design modifications, especially in areas that have less accessibility and on key evacuation routes, consider evacuation capacity and consider design treatments that could allow reversible lanes or temporary use of parking lanes or shoulders as auxiliary lanes to provide additional capacity during an evacuation event.  Educate residents and employees about the importance of carpooling in evacuations to reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and minimize evacuation times.  Explore the potential use of the footpath and bicycle networks in evacuating pedestrians and cyclists to reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and minimize evacuation times.Examine areas that have a high concentration of residents with social vulnerability indicators such as age, disability, and other mobility factors to determine other potential barriers to evacuation besides distance to and capacity of evacuation routes. Advanced coordination between first responders to ensure an efficient and well-communicated process for evacuation may be needed in response to various hazard scenarios.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 138
The Housing Element EIR determined that the MCSP area is located within a wildland-urban interface (WUI) and development would increase the number of residents exposed to a potential WUI fire. Even with implementation of policies related to locating critical facilities outside of VHFSZ, minimizing risk to new residential development in VHFHSZ, new development siting, density management, landscape features, development water systems, fire protection, fire protection plans for new development, fuel management and public education, fire department review of development applications, vegetation clearance for public and private roads, and undergrounding power lines in the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, as set forth below, new development under the MCSP could still result in risks to people and structures from wildfire-generated pollutants and risks. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable.

General Plan Environmental Hazards Element
Policy 19.1: Locate New and Existing Critical Facilities Outside of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Protect and harden critical facilities from natural hazards and minimize interruption of essential infrastructure, utilities, facilities, and services.

Policy 19.2: Minimize Risk to New Residential Development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Develop stringent initial site design and on-going maintenance standards incorporating adequate mitigation measures into individual developments to achieve an acceptable level of risk, considering the increased risk associated with wildland fire hazards due to climate change.

Policy 19.3: New Development Siting. Require new development located along steep slopes and amidst rugged terrain to be fire resistant and avoid contributing to rapid fire spread and or decreased accessibility for firefighting.

Policy 19.4: Density Management. Develop and implement density management strategies that cluster residential developments and minimize low-density exurban development patterns, or developments with undeveloped wildland between them, to reduce amounts of flammable vegetation and collective exposure to wildfire risk.

Policy 19.5: Landscape Features. Site structures to maximize low-flammability landscape features to buffer against wildfire spread.

Policy 19.6: Development Water Systems. Permit development only within areas that have adequate water resources available, to include water pressure, onsite water storage, or fire flows.

Policy 19.8: Fire Protection. Require that new development have adequate fire protection, including proximity to adequate emergency services, adequate provisions for fire flow and emergency vehicle access and fire hardened communication, including high speed internet service.

Policy 19.9: Fire Protection Plans for New Development. Require fire protection plans for all new development, including new development within VHFHSZs. Fire protection plans shall contain the following components:
 Risk Analysis
 Fire Response Capabilities
 Fire Safety Requirements – Defensible Space, Infrastructure, and Building Ignition Resistance  Mitigation Measures and Design Considerations for NonConforming Fuel Modification  Wildfire Education, Maintenance, and Limitations
 Evacuation Planning.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 139
Policy 19.13: Fuel Management and Public Education. Require all properties in the city to enforce precautionary measures to create defensible space, including removing flammable vegetation and maintaining a fire break around properties. This should include the removal of fire-prone vegetation and the use of less flammable plants for landscaping, especially on hillside sites.

Require ongoing maintenance and upkeep to be codified as part of building covenants or homeowner covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Public education on “defensible space” and good vegetation management practices should be strongly promoted.

Policy 19.15: Fire Department Review of Development Applications. Ensure that the Piedmont Fire Department reviews proposed development applications to verify that response times will be acceptable, emergency access will be adequate, water supply and fire flow will be sufficient, vegetation clearances will be maintained, and appropriate construction materials will be used.

Policy 19.17: Vegetation Clearance for Public and Private Roads. Establish and maintain community fire breaks and fuel modification/reduction zones, including clearance alongside public and private roads.

Policy 19.24: Underground Power Lines. Coordinate with Pacific Gas & Electric to implement an electrical undergrounding plan with a focus on critical evacuation roadways and areas with highest wildfire risk.

As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, future development in the MCSP area would require the installation of new infrastructure such as power lines and other utility infrastructure, and may require new circulation lanes within the MCSP area, fuel breaks, or emergency water sources. Although future projects developed under the MCSP would be required to comply with State and local regulations, since the design and location of infrastructure improvements are not yet known, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Housing Element EIR determined that since the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR is located in a high landslide risk area and in a WUI, development under the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR could expose people and structures to significant risks, including landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. In addition, development in the MCSP area could also expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Even with adherence to CBC and PCC requirements, policies in the City’s General Plan as set forth below, as well as Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure MCSP-GEO-1 set forth below, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

General Plan Environmental Hazards Element
Policy 18.1: Restricting Development on Unstable Sites. Permit development only in those areas where potential danger to health, safety, and welfare of Piedmont residents can be adequately mitigated.

Policy 18.4: Soil and Geologic Reports. Require site specific soil reports and geologic studies in instances where development may be exposed to substantial geologic or seismic hazards, including ground shaking and landslides. Ensure that any identified hazards are appropriately mitigated.

Action 18.A: Soil and Geotechnical Reporting Requirements. Require soil and geotechnical reports for any structure constructed on a slope exceeding 20 percent, any application for a tentative subdivision map, and any new residence on any lot, regardless of slope.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 140
Housing Element EIR
Mitigation Measure MCSP-GEO-1: Geotechnical Assessment for Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area. A geotechnical assessment shall be prepared for development in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area by a qualified engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The geotechnical assessment shall include onsite sampling of existing soil to ascertain current conditions and characterize the potential for risks and implications for future building foundation elements. The analysis of the onsite conditions and risks shall be based on laboratory results generated in accordance with current procedures and applicable state and local construction, engineering, and geotechnical building standards at the time the assessment is prepared. The design of individual projects and/or construction shall incorporate all recommendations of the geotechnical assessment. The assessment and recommendations shall be prepared by a California-licensed professional engineer and shall comply with current state and local building codes. The intention of the geotechnical assessment is to sufficiently inform design related to geologic hazards and to help ensure that the design of building foundations, subgrades, and transportation infrastructure can withstand existing conditions, or that the individual site can be treated in such a manner as to address hazardous geologic conditions.

Impact Analysis
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area, consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area is not located within a VHFHSZ.

Development facilitated by the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with General Plan policies related to transportation construction plan, education on fire hazard reduction strategies, ensuring adequate emergency evacuation routes, emergency access, emergency roadways, residential neighborhood engagement, evaluating evacuation route capacity, restricting parking, access and fuel management coordination, preparedness and the community, emergency preparedness plan, preparedness education and citizen training, and intergovernmental preparedness planning. As discussed in the proposed MCSP, the City of Piedmont Police Department Emergency Operations Procedures identifies Moraga Avenue as an evacuation route, which depending on the areas evacuated and the direction of evacuation, can be used to either evacuate to the east to SR 13 or to the west to Pleasant Valley Avenue and Broadway. The City of Oakland’s 2045 General Plan Safety Element identifies SR 13, Pleasant Valley Avenue, and Broadway as primary local evacuation routes. As outlined under Impact d in Section 3.17, Transportation, of this Addendum, the proposed MCSP would include reconfiguration of Moraga Avenue which would continue to provide one travel lane in each direction and would not adversely affect emergency response but, instead, improve evacuation for cyclists and pedestrians in the area. Nonetheless, as discussed in the Housing Element EIR, based on the Emergency Evacuation Time Assessment prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2023 for the Housing Element EIR, increased development in the MCSP area could still increase evacuation times between 8 and 40 minutes. Even with continued implementation of Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure W-1, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 141
severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area is located within a WUI and would increase the number of residents exposed to a potential wildland-urban interface fire.

Development facilitated by the proposed MCSP would be required to adhere to the CBC, PCC, and General Plan Environmental Hazards policies such as Policy 19.3 which requires new development located along steep slopes and amidst rugged terrain to be fire resistant and avoid contributing to rapid fire spread and / or decreased accessibility for firefighting, as well as policies related to locating critical facilities outside of VHFSZ, minimizing risk to new residential development in VHFHSZ, new development siting, density management, landscape features, development water systems, fire protection, fire protection plans for new development, fuel management and public education, fire department review of development applications, vegetation clearance for public and private roads, and underground power lines. Nonetheless, development in the MCSP area could result in risks to people and structures from wildfire-generated pollutants and risks, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR.

There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR.

As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area is located within a WUI and future development would require the installation of new infrastructure such as power lines and other utility infrastructure. Future development facilitated by the proposed MCSP may require new circulation lanes within the MCSP area, fuel breaks, or emergency water sources. Although Environmental Hazards Element Policy 19.24 of the General Plan requires undergrounding of power lines to reduce wildfire risk, due to the steep terrain in the MCSP area and because the MCSP area is not currently developed with existing residences, development in the MCSP area could require installation of some infrastructure which could exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 142
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area is located within a WUI and an area with high risk of landslides. Future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with the CBC and PCC which would decrease the risk of subsequent landslides or site instability. However, due to the high landslide risk in this area and the risk of wildfire throughout the city, development under the proposed MCSP would still potentially expose people and structures to significant risks, including landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.

Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to wildfire than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 143
4 Cumulative Impacts
As evaluated in the Housing Element EIR, implementation of the Housing Element would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts for most environmental issue areas. However, the Housing Element EIR identified significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. As demonstrated in this EIR Addendum, the MCSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions, noise, utilities and service systems, and wildfire, and therefore would result in cumulatively considerable contributions to impacts related to these issue areas, similar to what was determined in the Housing Element EIR. However, the MCSP would not introduce new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the project.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 144
This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 145
5 Conclusion
As established in the EIR Addendum analysis above regarding the potential environmental effects that may be generated as compared to the MCSP as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, it is concluded that substantial changes are not proposed to the MCSP as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR nor have substantial changes occurred within the MCSP geographic area or regulatory environment that would require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. Impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would not be expected to occur as a result of the proposed MCSP. Overall, the proposed MCSP would not result in new impacts or information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified for the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As such, the proposed MCSP would not result in conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required for the proposed MCSP. Again, it should be noted that the proposed MCSP would be subject to all previously required mitigation measures from the Housing Element, as applicable. The MMRP adopted for the Housing Element Implementation Project would continue to be applicable to the proposed MCSP.

Based on the above analysis, this Addendum to the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 146
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 147
6 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed November 2024) City of Piedmont. 2024. City of Piedmont Housing Element Implementation Project Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2022020362. Certified February 20, 2024. Available:
https://www.piedmontishome.org/ (accessed December 2024) Fehr & Peers. 2025. Transportation Analysis Memorandums. Updated August 20, 2025.

Wood Rogers. 2024. Sewer Analysis for the City of Piedmont Housing Element Update.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 148
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 149
Appendix A
Cultural Resources Technical Report
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 150
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report
prepared for
City of Piedmont
Department of Planning & Building
120 Vista Lane
Piedmont, California 94611
Contact: Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
August 2025
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 151
Confidentiality
The following document has been redacted to remove sensitive information that is confidential and not for public distribution, specifically related to archaeological site locations, which are exempt from the California Public Records Act, as specified in Government Code 6254.10, and from the Freedom of Information Act (Exemption 3), under the legal authority of both the National Historic Preservation Act (PL 102-574, Section 304[a]) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (PL 96-95, Section 9[a]). This report may be distributed publicly.

Please cite this report as follows:

Blind, Heather, JulieAnn Murphy, Nichole Jordan, Shannon Carmack, and Debbie Balam 2025. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, Piedmont, Alameda County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 23-14195. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, California.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 152
Table of Contents
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................3 Project Site and Description................................................................................................3 Personnel ............................................................................................................................4 2 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................................................8 California Environmental Quality Act..................................................................................8 National Register of Historic Places.......................................................................9 California Register of Historical Resources......................................................... 10 California Senate Bill 18 of 2004...................................................................................... 11 California Health and Safety Code ................................................................................... 11 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.......................................................... 11 Local Regulations ............................................................................................................. 11 City of Piedmont General Plan............................................................................ 11 Single‐Family, Multifamily, Commercial, and Mixed‐Use Standards and Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 15 3 Natural and Cultural Setting ........................................................................................................ 17 Natural Setting ................................................................................................................. 17 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................ 17 Indigenous History .............................................................................................. 17 Ethnographic Setting........................................................................................... 19 Post-contact Setting............................................................................................ 20 4 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 25 Background and Archival Research.................................................................................. 25 Archival Research................................................................................................ 25 California Historical Resources Information System Records Search................. 25 Sacred Lands File Search..................................................................................... 26 Field Survey...................................................................................................................... 26 5 Findings........................................................................................................................................ 27 Background Research....................................................................................................... 27 Previous Cultural Resources Studies................................................................... 27 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources............................................................ 28 Sacred Land File Search....................................................................................... 29 Senate Bill 18 Consultation ................................................................................. 29 Aerial Imagery and Historical Topographic Maps Review .................................. 33 Geologic and Soils Map Review .......................................................................... 34 Field Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 34 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 153
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
ii
Built Environment Resources.............................................................................. 34 Archaeological Resources................................................................................... 38 6 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 45 Historical Built Environment Resources........................................................................... 45 Recommended MCSP Policy ............................................................................... 45 Archaeological and Tribal Resources............................................................................... 45 Recommended MCSP Policies............................................................................. 47 7 References................................................................................................................................... 49 Tables
Table 1 Known Cultural Resources.................................................................................. 28 Table 2 Tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission Consultation List............ 30 Table 3 Mountain View Cemetery Property List ............................................................. 35 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location...................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Project Site.............................................................................................................6 Figure 3 Project Site with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers.........................................................7 Figure 4 1906 Image of Blair Quarry from Moraga Avenue ............................................. 24 Figure 5 Mountain View Cemetery Boundary .................................................................. 37 Figure 6 Survey Accessibility and PD-01 Location............................................................. 41 Photographs
Photograph 1 Coaches Field, View to the West ........................................................................ 39 Photograph 2 Kennelly Skatepark, View to the East ................................................................. 39 Photograph 3 Piedmont Corporation Yard, View to the North................................................. 40 Photograph 4 Hillside Slope and Vegetation near Creek, View to the West............................. 40 Photograph 5 Overview of PD-01 near Cluster of Trees at the Base of Hillside........................ 43 Photograph 6 Clear, Oval-Shaped Glass Owens-Illinois Bottle Base ......................................... 43 Photograph 7 Aqua Blue Glass Fragment.................................................................................. 44 Photograph 8 Cobalt Blue Glass Fragment................................................................................ 44 Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C DPR 523 Records for 898 Red Rock Road, the Piedmont Corporation Yard Appendix D DPR 523 Records for P-01-011355, Mountain View Cemetery Appendix E
CONFIDENTIAL Northwest Information Center Records Search Results CONFIDENTIAL SB 18 Correspondence
[redacted]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 154
Executive Summary
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 1
Executive Summary
The City of Piedmont retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a cultural resources study for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) in the city of Piedmont, Alameda County, California. This technical report documents the results of the study and tasks conducted by Rincon, specifically, a cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File search, Senate Bill 18 consultation, Mountain View Cemetery boundary assessment, a field survey, and development of MCSP policies for cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. This study has been completed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Piedmont is the lead agency under CEQA.

The project site encompasses approximately 22.78 acres, located in the northeastern portion of Piedmont in Moraga Canyon along Moraga Avenue, which bisects the site. The project site includes five City-owned parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 050457901900, 050457908000, 048A700200303, 050457902100, and 050457906100) and the Moraga Avenue right-of-way.

Specifically, the project encompasses portions of Section(s) 19-20 of Township 01 South, Range 03 East on the Oakland East, California United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

The proposed project involves adoption of the MCSP consistent with Implementation Program 1.L of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update. The MCSP includes land use, infrastructure, and implementation requirements for the future development in the MCSP Area. The MCSP also includes design standards and guidelines, site-specific objective development standards, and general development criteria. The MCSP has a vision for a new, mixed-income, multifamily community integrated into the open space for Moraga Canyon, where parks and outdoor spaces would be blended with the residential community.

The results of the California Historical Resources Information Center records search identified Mountain View Cemetery, previously recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and an identified historical resource by the City of Oakland as being within the MCSP Area. The property, therefore, qualifies as a historical resource as defined by CEQA. The current assessment, however, confirmed that the Mountain View Cemetery is outside and immediately adjacent to the MCSP Area. Though the project would not result in demolition or destruction to the Mountain View Cemetery, adjacent new construction facilitated by the Specific Plan could result in changes to the historical resources immediately adjacent to the MCSP Area, leading to its material impairment, meaning that new construction could alter, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics that convey the cemetery’s historical significance and that justify the cemetery’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and CRHR. Rincon proposes MCSP policies (in addition to existing City of Piedmont General Plan policies and actions) to minimize the potential for future project impacts to Mountain View Cemetery’s historic setting.

[redacted]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 155
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
2 Senate Bill 18 consultation resulted in consultation with five Tribes: the Amah Mutsen Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan, and the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francsico Bay Area.

As a result of Senate Bill 18 consultation, sensitivity for tribal cultural resources and tribal archaeological resources was identified within the MCSP Area. Rincon assisted the City in developing MCSP policies in partnership with consulting Tribes, which when coupled with existing General Plan policies and actions, would minimize the potential for future project impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Currently the City of Piedmont General Plan provides policies and actions that direct development in the MCSP Area and the following additional policies were recommended: a visual assessment of Mountain View Cemetery, Workers Environmental Awareness Training, and consultation with Native American Tribes.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 156
Introduction
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 3
1 Introduction
The City of Piedmont retained Rincon Consultants Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a cultural resources study for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan project (MCSP/project) in the city of Piedmont, Alameda County, California. This technical report documents the results of the study and tasks conducted by Rincon, specifically, a cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation, Mountain View Cemetery boundary assessment, and field survey. This study has been completed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Piedmont is the lead agency under CEQA.

Project Site and Description
The project site encompasses approximately 22.78 acres located in the northeastern portion of Piedmont in Moraga Canyon along Moraga Avenue, which bisects the site. The project site includes five City-owned parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 050457901900, 050457908000, 048A700200303, 050457902100, and 050457906100) and the Moraga Avenue right-of-way (Figure 1 and Figure 3). Specifically, the project encompasses portions of Section(s) 19-20 of Township 01 South, Range 03 East on the Oakland East, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2).

The proposed project involves adoption of the MCSP consistent with Implementation Program 1.L of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update as analyzed in the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The MCSP includes land use, infrastructure, and implementation requirements for the future development in the MCSP Area. The MCSP also includes design standards and guidelines, site-specific objective development standards, and general development criteria. The MCSP has a vision for a new, mixed-income, multifamily community integrated into the open space for Moraga Canyon, where parks and outdoor spaces would be blended with the residential community.

Overall, the MCSP envisions the following:
▪ A variety of housing choices, including up to 197 multifamily dwelling units (of which at least 60 would be affordable) and up to two single-family dwellings in four- to six-story buildings on partial underground podium parking structures
▪ Approximately 1.5 acres of civic uses intended for City maintenance facilities ▪ Approximately 5 acres of roadway improvements, including realignment, grading and excavation, retaining walls, undergrounding of utilities, sidewalks, streetlights, and lane widening and re-configuration
▪ Approximately 5 acres devoted to recreational uses, such as a soccer field with sports field overlay and skate park.
▪ Amenities, such as one or more dog parks, playgrounds, or community gardens ▪ Other improvements, such as landscaped hillsides and other planted areas, sidewalks, terraces and courtyards, trails, driveways, public transit, and public access improvements ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 157
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
4 Personnel
Rincon Senior Archaeologist Heather Blind, MA, RPA provided management oversight for this cultural resources study and is the primary author of this report. Ms. Blind meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for History and Architectural History (National Park Service 1983). Senior Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP, conducted the local historic group consultation, background architectural research, and is a contributing author of this report. Archaeologist and Project Manager Elaine Foster, MA, RPA, completed the cultural resources records search, and field survey. Archaeologist Debbie Balam, BA, is a contributing author on this report. Geographic Information Systems Analysts Abby Robles and Paul Rigby prepared the figures found in this report. Principal Nichole Jordan, MA, and Principal Shannon Carmack, MSHP, reviewed this report for quality control.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 158
Introduction
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 5
Figure 1 Regional Location
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 159
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
6 Figure 2 Project Site
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 160
Introduction
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 7
Figure 3 Project Site with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 161
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
8 2 Regulatory Setting
This section includes a discussion of the applicable state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources, which must be adhered to before and during implementation of the project.

California Environmental Quality Act
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1 requires lead agencies to determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or cultural significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are California Historical Landmarks 770 and above; both are therefore historical resources under CEQA. Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as identified in PRC Section 21083.2.

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information, 2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources will be less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also provides guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.

According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 162
Regulatory Setting
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 9
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a][b]).

The requirements for mitigation measures under CEQA are outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1). In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and be roughly proportional to the impacts of the project. Generally, a project which is found to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the Standards) is considered to be mitigated below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 [b][1]). For historical resources of an archaeological nature, lead agencies should also seek to avoid damaging effects where feasible. Preservation in place is the preferred manner to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites; however, data recovery through excavation may be the only option in certain instances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3]).

In accordance with CEQA, the City of Piedmont certified an EIR analyzing the environmental effects of implementation of the City of Piedmont’s 2023-2031 Housing Element update, including adoption of a Specific Plan in the Moraga Canyon area.

National Register of Historic Places
Although the project does not have a federal nexus, properties which are listed in or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR. The following is therefore presented to provide applicable regulatory context. The NRHP was authorized by Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Per 36 CFR Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several of these seven qualities, if not all, defined as follows:

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 163
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
10 Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Park Service states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluate significance (National Park Service 1997: 41). Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing.

California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by PRC Sections 5024.1 and Title 14 Section 4852.

The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (PRC Section 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance (California Office of Historic Preservation 2011). Furthermore, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 2011). Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995: 2).

A property is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one of more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 164
Regulatory Setting
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 11
California Senate Bill 18 of 2004
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” SB 18 refers to PRC Section 5097.9 and 5097.995 to define cultural places as:
▪ A Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9)
▪ A Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources pursuant to Section 5024.1, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.995).

California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the Coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the PRC states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant [MLD]) that it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

Local Regulations
City of Piedmont General Plan
The Design and Preservation Element (Chapter 8) of the Piedmont General Plan contains two goals (Goals 30 and 31), each with associated policies and actions, pertaining to historical resources regulations:

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 165
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
12 Goal 30 Archaeological Resources – Protect Piedmont’s archaeological resources
Policy 30.1: Archaeological Resource Protection. Ensure that future construction and/or earth movement does not result in the loss of important archaeological resources.

Action 30.A: Procedures for Managing Archaeological Resources Implement. The following procedure in the event that archaeological deposits or features are discovered and/or disturbed: (1) Work within 50 feet of the discovery should cease until the find is flagged, secured, and assessed by a qualified archaeologist. (2) If the find is determined to be isolated or recent, then construction may resume. If it is potentially significant, appropriate mitigation measures should be developed and the City and property owner should be notified. Movement of significant materials by personnel other than a qualified archaeologist should be prohibited. (3) Following resolution, a report documenting the methods, findings, and recommendations of the archaeologist should be prepared.

Action 30.B: Procedures for Managing Native American Remains Follow. Accepted protocol in the event that human remains from the period of pre-European settlement or later are encountered during construction. This includes halting work in the immediate area until the Alameda County Coroner and California Native American Heritage Commission have been contacted. As appropriate, it may also include contact with the Most Likely Descendant to make recommendations for the respectful treatment of remains and related burial goods, and accompanying documentation
Policy 30.2: Archaeological Resources Assessment and Treatment. Prior to approval of development projects (excluding small structures exempt under CEQA) that have the potential to impact an archaeological resource(s), such as through grading, excavation for foundations or basements, or new swimming pools, an Archaeological Resources Assessment shall be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall be completed in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidance and will follow the Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format guidelines. If the Archaeological Resource Assessment identifies resources that may be affected by the project, Phase II testing and evaluation will be required. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be identified in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites.

Policy 30.3: Tribal Cultural Resources. For future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources, in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to Native American cultural objects and human remains discovered during construction, project proponents shall retain tribal cultural monitors to monitor work done in areas of Tribal concern, as determined through tribal consultation. In the event that Native American cultural objects and/or human remains are discovered during construction, all earth-disturbing work in the ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 166
Regulatory Setting
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 13
vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR Part 61) has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with local Native American Tribes and group(s). The mitigation plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American Tribe and tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 167
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
14 Goal 31 Historic Preservation – Identify, preserve, and maintain Piedmont’s cultural and historic resources and recognize these resources as an essential part of the city’s character and heritage.

Policy 31.1: Comprehensive Approach to Preservation. Take a comprehensive approach to historic preservation in Piedmont, considering cultural history as well as architectural history, neighborhoods as well as individual buildings, the natural landscape as well as the built environment, and archaeological resources as well as living history.

Policy 31.2: Preserving Historic Resources. Ensure that planning and building decisions, including zoning and design review approvals, are sensitive to historic resources and promote the conservation of Piedmont’s historic neighborhoods. The demolition of historically important structures shall be strongly discouraged.

Policy 31.3: Context-Sensitive Design. Ensure that the repair, maintenance, and expansion of Piedmont’s historically important structures uses appropriate materials and architectural details and respects historic context.

Policy 31.4: Restoration. Promote the restoration of original period details to older Piedmont homes and where feasible, the modification of exterior alterations that were unsympathetic to the original design of the home.

Policy 31.5: Older Public Buildings. Sustain exemplary standards of stewardship for historic buildings owned by the city, including Piedmont City Hall and the Community Hall. Ensure that the rehabilitation of older public buildings adheres to generally accepted preservation standards.

Policy 31.6: Historic Landscapes. Preserve important historic landscape features, including parks, landscaped traffic islands, and neighborhood entry pillars dating back to Piedmont’s early subdivisions. Ensure that new public works such as street lights, street furniture, and sidewalks are compatible with the historic context of Piedmont’s neighborhoods.

Policy 31.7: Adaptive Reuse. Where it is no longer feasible to continue using an older building for its originally intended use, encourage adaptive reuse of the structure rather than demolition and replacement
Policy 31.8: Replacement of Historic Structures. In the event that a historically important structure is destroyed by fire or earthquake, or is deemed unsafe and in need of replacement, encourage the new structure to respect the historic architectural context.

Policy 31.9: Recent Past. Anticipate the need to recognize and preserve structures from the “recent past”, that is, the “California modern” era between 1945 and 1960.

Action 31.A: State Historic Building Code. Allow the use of the State Historic Building Code in appropriate circumstances to achieve the preservation of important historic structures, provided that public health and safety are assured.

Action 31.B: Historic Preservation Ordinance. Consider adopting a historic preservation ordinance that establishes a program of designating local landmarks and establishes a process for review of alterations to these landmarks.

Action 31.C: Financial Incentives to Preservation. Consider financial incentives to preservation, including state and federal historic preservation tax credits and tax relief programs, grants and funds for preservation, and Mills Act preservation contracts.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 168
Regulatory Setting
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 15
Policy 31.10: Historical Resources Assessment and Treatment. A historic resources assessment including State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms shall be prepared prior to the approval of development projects involving the demolition or substantial alteration (alteration of 30 percent or more of the building exterior) of buildings 45 years or older. DPR forms shall include a Primary Record (523A), Location Map (523J), and appropriate detailed recording forms (e.g., BSO Record (523B), Archaeological Site Record (523C), or District Record (523D)). The forms shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history (as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61). If the property is already listed in the NRHP or CRHR or if DPR forms or an historical resources evaluation (HRE) has been prepared for the property in the past five years, preparation of new DPR forms shall not be required.

If a building to be demolished or substantially altered is identified as a historical resource, efforts shall be made to the greatest extent possible to ensure that the alteration of the identified historical resources is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Where compliance with the Standards and/or avoidance is not possible, documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-like report shall be prepared. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the PQS.

Single‐Family, Multifamily, Commercial, and Mixed‐Use
Standards and Guidelines
The City of Piedmont does not have a historic preservation ordinance; however, as detailed in the General Plan Design and Preservation Element, regulation pertinent to historic preservation is typically affected through certain provisions of the City’s single‐family, multifamily, commercial and mixed‐use design standards and guidelines, in coordination with the city’s zoning ordinance, as follows:
“Most of the preservation activity in Piedmont occurs through the design review program.

Although Piedmont does not have designated historic districts, the entire city is effectively treated as a neighborhood conservation district through the application of design guidelines that reflect prevailing architectural styles and context. These guidelines are reinforced by zoning standards that maintain residential uses, limit excessive height and bulk, and discourage replacement of older homes with substantially larger homes. The combination of zoning and design review has effectively protected the older building stock and in many cases led to the restoration of original architectural features.
[To the extent permitted by State law, N]o addition, alteration, or new construction may be approved in Piedmont unless it is found to be harmonious with existing and proposed development in the neighborhood. In addition to looking at height and bulk, the Planning Commission examines details such as the line and pitch of the roof, exterior materials, and the treatment of windows and doors. Staff also considers these features in administrative and stafflevel design review applications. Adherence to these standards over the past few decades has helped sustain property values and substantially reduced the threat of demolition” (City of Piedmont 2009.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 169
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
16 Piedmont’s design standards and guidelines consider the aesthetic design, compatibility, and safety for each feature. These attributes are evaluated in relation to the neighborhood, adjacent parcels, and the site itself. According to the Design and Preservation Element, the Piedmont design standards and guidelines “incorporate many of the same principles as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, including guidelines for the treatment of windows, doors, roofs, and porches” (City of Piedmont 2009).

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 170
Natural and Cultural Setting
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 17
3 Natural and Cultural Setting
This section provides background information pertaining to the natural and cultural context of the project site. It places the project site within the broader natural environment that has sustained populations throughout history. This section also provides an overview of regional indigenous history, local ethnography, and post-contact history. This background information describes the distribution and type of cultural resources documented near the project site to inform the cultural resources sensitivity assessment.

Natural Setting
The project site lies in the Oakland Hills in Alameda County at an approximate elevation ranging from 105 meters (345 feet) to 208 meters (685 feet) above mean sea level. None of the surrounding area retains its natural setting, with the project site located in a residential area characterized by a mix of single-family homes, a corporation yard, and a cemetery. The MSCP area itself also does not retain its natural setting with much of the project, north of Moraga Road, having been previously used as a sandstone quarry. Vegetation within the vicinity of the site consists of ornamental trees, including low ground cover, consistent with urban environmental settings and has manicured landscapes.

Cultural Setting
Indigenous History
Before the arrival of European settlers, Alameda County, including the City of Piedmont, was the ancestral homeland of the Chochenyo people, one of the many tribal groupings which constitute the indigenous Ohlone people of Northern California. The Chochenyo inhabited the East Bay for thousands of years; evidence of their long presence includes shell mounds in the vicinity of the Bay shoreline and arrowheads, tools, funeral burials, and ornaments occasionally unearthed in settlement sites. Most villages were located along the shoreline and creeks, the nearest to Piedmont being Huichin from Temescal Creek in North Oakland to present-day Richmond.

The MCSP area lies in the San Francisco Bay Area archaeological region (Milliken et al. 2007, Moratto 1984). Milliken et al. (2007) generally divided the prehistoric chronology of the Bay Area into five periods: the Early Holocene (8000–3500 Before the Common Era [BCE]), Early Period (3500–500 BCE), Lower Middle Period (500 BCE to CE 430 CE), the Upper Middle Period (430–1050 CE), and the Late Period (1050 CE–contact).

It is presumed that early Paleoindian groups lived in the area prior to 8000 BCE; however, no evidence for that period has been discovered in the Bay Area to date (Milliken et al. 2007). Sites dating to this period may be submerged or deeply buried as a result of rising sea levels and widespread sediment deposition that has occurred since the Terminal Pleistocene (Byrd et al. 2017).

For this reason, the Terminal Pleistocene Period (ca. 11,700–8000 BCE) is not discussed here.

The earliest intensive study of archaeology of the San Francisco Bay Area began with N. C. Nelson of the University of California, Berkeley, between 1906 and 1908. He documented over 400 shell ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 171
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
18 mounds throughout the area. Nelson was the first to identify the Bay Area as a discrete archaeological region (Moratto 1984).

Early Holocene (8000–3500 BCE)
Archaeological evidence from the early Holocene is limited as many sites dating to this period are likely buried under Holocene alluvial deposits (Moratto 1984, Ragir 1972). The available data suggest that the Early Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized by a mobile forager pattern and the presence of millingslabs, handstones, and a variety of leaf-shaped projectile points.

Two archaeological sites (CA-CCO-696 and CA-CCO-637) that date to this period have been identified in Contra Costa County at the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The earliest date for the Early Holocene comes from the CA-CCO-696, approximately 7000 BCE (Milliken et al. 2007).

Early Period (3500–600 BCE)
The Early Period saw increased sedentism with the introduction of new ground stone technologies (i.e., mortar and pestle), an increase in regional trade, and the first cut shell beads. The earliest evidence for the use of the mortar and pestle dates to 3800 BCE and comes from CA-CCO-637. By 1500 BCE, mortars and pestles had almost completely replaced millingslabs and handstones. The advent of the mortar and pestle indicates a greater reliance on processing nuts, especially acorns.

Faunal evidence from various sites indicates a diverse faunal exploitation pattern based on mussel and other shellfish, marine mammals, terrestrial mammals, and birds (D’Oro 2009).

The earliest cut bead horizon is also associated with this period. Rectangular Haliotis spp. (abalone) and Olivella (Callianax biplicata, snail) beads have been identified at several Early Period sites, including CA-CCO-637, CA-SCL-832 in Sunnyvale, and CA-ALA-307 in Berkeley (Milliken et al. 2007).

These early examples of cut beads were recovered from mortuary contexts.

Lower Middle Period (500 BCE–430 CE)
The Lower Middle Period saw numerous changes from the previous period. The presence of chipped stone points and bone tools became typical. Rectangular shell beads, common during the Early Period, disappear completely and are replaced by split-beveled and saucer Olivella beads. In addition to the changes in beads, Haliotis spp. ornaments, bone tools and ornaments, and basketry awls also became typical, indicating the development of coiled basketry technology. Mortars and pestles continued to be the dominant grinding tool (Luby and Gruber 1999, Milliken et al. 2007).

Evidence for the Lower Middle Period in the Bay Area comes from sites such as the Emeryville shell mound (CA-ALA-309) and Ellis Landing (CA-CCO-295). CA-ALA-309 is one of the largest shell mounds in the Bay Area and contains multiple cultural sequences. The lower levels of the site, which date to the Middle Period, contain flexed burials with bone implements, chert bifaces, charmstones, and oyster shells (Moratto 1984).

Upper Middle Period (430–1050 CE)
Around 430 CE, Olivella saucer bead trade networks that had been established during earlier periods collapsed and over half of known sites occupied during the Lower Middle Period were abandoned.

Olivella saucer beads were replaced with Olivella saddle beads. New types of material culture appear within these sites, including elaborate, decorative blades, fishtail charmstones, new Haliotis ornament forms, and mica ornaments. Sea otter bones became more abundant, while salmon and other fish became less abundant, suggesting changes in faunal exploitation patterns from earlier ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 172
Natural and Cultural Setting
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 19
periods (Milliken et al. 2007, Simons and Carpenter 2009). Excavations at CA-ALA-309 indicate that a shift from mussels to oysters to clams may have occurred (Gifford 1916), and isotopic analysis confirms that San Francisco Bay individuals shifted from hunting higher-trophic-level foods in the Early Period to gathering foods like plants and shellfish in the Middle and Upper periods (Burns et al. 2012). Subsistence analyses at various sites dating to this period indicate a diverse diet that included numerous species of fish, mammals, birds, shellfish, and plant resources that varied by location in the Bay Area (Hylkema 2002).

Late Period (1050 CE–contact)
The Late Period saw an increase in social complexity, indicated by differences in burials and an increased level of sedentism relative to preceding periods, as evidenced by mortars weighing up to

90.7 kilograms (Lentz 2012: 198). An increase in imported Napa Valley obsidian occurred during this time for the production of smaller points, preforms and simple flake tools. Small, finely worked projectile points of the Stockton Serrated series associated with bow and arrow technology appear around 1250 CE. Olivella shell beads disappeared and were replaced with Olivella lipped and spirelopped beads in the south bay and clamshell disk beads in the north bay, where thicker and larger beads indicated higher affluence. The toggle harpoon, hopper mortar, and magnesite tube beads also appeared during this period (Milliken et al. 2007, Lentz 2012, Von Der Porten et al. 2014). This period saw an increase in the intensity of resource exploitation that correlates with an increase in population (Moratto 1984). Many of the well-known sites of earlier periods, such as the Emeryville shell mound (CA-ALA-309) and the West Berkeley site (CA-ALA-307), were abandoned, as indicated by the lack of Late Period elements. Researchers have suggested that the abandonment of these sites may have resulted from fluctuating climates and drought that occurred throughout the Late Period (Lightfoot and Luby 2002).

Ethnographic Setting
The MCSP Area lies within the traditional tribal territory of the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people.

Ohlone territory extends along the California coast from the point where the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers merge into the San Francisco Bay extending to Point Sur. Their inland boundary was limited to the interior Coast Ranges (Kroeber 1925: 462). The Ohlone language belongs to the Penutian family, with several distinct dialects throughout the region (Kroeber 1925: 462). It is divided into eight regional dialects: Karkin, Chochenyo, Ramaytush, Awaswas, Taymen, Mutsun, Rumsen, and Chalon (Jones 2015)
The pre-contact Ohlone were semi-sedentary, with a settlement system characterized by base camps and seasonal reserve camps composed of tule reed houses with thatched roofs made of matted grass (Schick 1994, Skowronek 1998). Just outside base camps, large sweat houses were built into the ground near stream banks used for spiritual ceremonies and possibly hygiene (Schick 1994, Jones 2015). Villages were divided into small polities, each of which was governed by a chief responsible for settling disputes, acting as a war leader during times of conflict, and supervising economic and ceremonial activities (Skowronek 1998, Kroeber 1925: 468). Social organization appeared flexible to ethnographers and any sort of social hierarchy was not apparent to mission priests (Skowronek 1998).

Archaeological investigations inform our understanding of Ohlone mortuary rituals. Cemeteries were set away from villages and visited during the annual Mourning Anniversary (Leventhal and DiGiuseppe 2009). Ceremonial human grave offerings might include Olivella beads, as well as tools ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 173
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
20 like drills, mortars, pestles, hammerstones, bone awls, and used flakes (Leventhal and DiGiuseppe 2009). Ohlone mythology included animal characterization and animism, which was the basis for several creation narratives. Ritually burying of animals, such as a wolf, squirrel, deer, mountain lion, gray fox, elk, badger, grizzly bear, blue goose, and bat ray, was commonly practiced. Similar to human burials, ceremonial offerings were added to ritual animal graves like shell beads, ornaments, and exotic goods (Kroeber 1925, Field and Leventhal 2003, Jones 2010).

Ohlone subsistence strategies were based on hunting, gathering, and fishing (Kroeber 1925: 467, Skowronek 1998). Larger animals, like bears, might be avoided, but smaller game was hunted and snared on a regular basis (Schick 1944: 17). Like it was for tribal societies throughout California, the acorn was an important staple and was prepared by leaching acorn meal in openwork baskets and in holes dug into the sand (Kroeber 1925: 467). The Ohlone also practiced controlled burning to facilitate plant growth (Kroeber 1925: 467, Skowronek 1998). During specific seasons or in times of drought, the reserve camps would be used for gathering seasonal food and accessing food storage (Schick 1994). Fishing would be done with nets and gorge hooks out of tule reed canoes (Schick 1994: 16–17). Mussels were a particularly important food resource. Sea mammals such as sea lions and seals were hunted and beached whales were exploited (Kroeber 1925: 467).

Seven Franciscan missions were built within Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and all members of the Ohlone group were eventually brought into the mission system (Kroeber 1925: 462, Skowronek 1998). After the establishment of the missions, Ohlone population was reduced from roughly 10,000 people in 1770 to 1,300 by 1814 (Skowronek 1998). In 1973, the population of people with Ohlone descent was estimated at fewer than 300. The descendants of the Ohlone united in 1971 and have since arranged political and cultural organizations to revitalize aspects of their culture (Skowronek 1998). Today, the descendant communities of the Ohlone can be found in multiple tribes throughout Northern and Central California.

Post-contact Setting
Post-contact history for the State of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican-American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.

Spanish Period (1769–1822)
Spanish exploration of California began when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition into the region in 1542. For more than 200 years after his initial expedition, Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements (Kyle 2002).

By the eighteenth century, Spain developed a three-pronged approach to secure its hold on the territory and counter against other foreign explorers. The Spanish established military forts known as presidios, as well as missions and pueblos (towns) throughout Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspár de Portolá marks the beginning of California’s Historic period, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 174
Natural and Cultural Setting
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 21
colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California in 1769. Franciscan Father Junípero Serra also founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá that same year, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823. In 1776, the Spanish had founded Mission San Francisco de Asís, thereby establishing a foothold in what is now the San Francisco Bay Area. The mission and presidio relied on Indian labor (Cole 1999).

Construction of missions and associated presidios was a major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California to strengthen Spanish colonial power and integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Spanish control resulted in the subjugation of indigenous peoples and disruption of their traditional ways of life. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns; just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles).

Spain began making land grants in 1784, typically to retiring soldiers, although the grantees were only permitted to inhabit and work the land. The land titles technically remained property of the Spanish king (Livingston 1914). In 1820 Rancho San Antonio was transferred to Luís María Peralta by Pablo Vicente de Solá, the last Spanish governor of Alta California. This rancho encompassed modern-day Piedmont, in addition to parts of what is now Oakland and Berkeley (Kyle 2002).

Mexican Period (1822–1848)
Several factors kept population growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and resistance among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Gutierrez and Orsi 1998).

Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos. Commonly, former soldiers and well-connected Mexican families were the recipients of these land grants, which now included the title to the land (Graffy 2010).

During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities.

American Period (1848–Present)
The United States went to war with Mexico in 1846. The war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ushering California into its American Period.

California's first Constitutional Convention met for 37 days in Monterey, from September 1 to October 13, 1849. The constitution, written in both English and Spanish, was approved by the delegates on October 10 to 11, 1849 and ratified by the electorate one month later. California ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 175
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
22 officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as United States territories (Waugh 2003). Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle as the currency and staple of the rancho system, continued to dominate the Southern California economy through 1850s. The discovery of gold in the northern part of the state led to the Gold Rush beginning in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from Southern to Northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom.

A severe drought in the 1860s decimated cattle herds and drastically affected rancheros’ source of income. In addition, property boundaries that were loosely established during the Mexican era led to disputes with new incoming settlers, problems with squatters, and lawsuits. Rancheros often were encumbered by debt and the cost of legal fees to defend their property. As a result, much of the rancho lands were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans. Most of these ranchos were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns (Dumke 1944). Native American people continued to be displaced from their homes on land in growing urban centers, rural areas used for cattle farming, and mining areas.

Local History
In 1852, settler Walter Blair acquired a 600-acre tract of former Rancho San Antonio land from the Peralta family, on which he developed a dairy, quarry, and Blair Park, an early amusement park. The amusement park was developed, in part, to encourage people to travel on his cable car system, which expanded into the Key Route System and ended in the park. He also constructed the Piedmont Hotel and Claremont Hotel, also as a tool to attract visitors via his cable car line. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the park was an attraction frequented by residents of nearby Oakland. In 1877 James Gamble, the president of Western Union Telegraph, acquired a 350-acre portion of Blair’s land and constructed his home on Hillside Avenue. Gamble established the Piedmont Land Company to subdivide and sell the remainder of the property for residential development. Growth in the area was slow, however and, through the 1880s, there were only seven houses in what is now the boundaries of Piedmont (City of Piedmont 2022).

Following the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869, waves of migration and immigration caused the population of the Bay Area to boom. Following the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, many displaced people settled in the East Bay, with the city of Oakland expanding rapidly through annexation of the smaller communities which surrounded it. Residents of then-unincorporated Piedmont, concerned about the impact that annexation into a much larger municipality would have on taxes and public services, voted to incorporate as a city in 1907.

In the months leading up to incorporation, following the 1906 earthquake and fire, Piedmont’s population grew tenfold. The community’s explosive expansion led community leaders to file for incorporation, a proposition that was submitted to voters twice before securing a majority in September of that same year. Several institutional properties were constructed in the years immediately following incorporation, including City Hall (1908), at least two schools (1911 and 1912), Piedmont Community Church (1916), and Piedmont High School (1921). Between 1907 and 1940, approximately 2,500 homes were built in Piedmont—nearly 70 percent of the City’s existing housing stock. The form of Piedmont’s growth was influenced by the City Beautiful urban planning movement, which promoted the idea that city planning and design could not be separated from social issues and should encourage civic pride and engagement. The Piedmont community attracted ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 176
Natural and Cultural Setting
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 23
noted architects, writers, poets, and artists. However, this ideology is now recognized as having failed to take into account the needs of poor or working-class people.

Property History
The MCSP Area was known as Blair Park and historically encompassed the Piedmont Corporation Yard. Blair Park was named after Walter Blair, the first European settler to reside in the area that would become Piedmont (Walking Piedmont 2023). When Blair first came to the area in 1853, it was primarily large ranchos. Blair purchased 600 acres of the former Rancho San Antonio from the Peralta family and ran a dairy and farm on the property, that extended from the cemetery wall to beyond present-day Blair Avenue and supplied milk and butter to the surrounding area and San Francisco. In 1884, Blair developed 40 acres of his land for a “picnic park,” which eventually became the 75-acre Blair Park, an amusement park, at the end of the Oakland-Piedmont Railroad horsecar line, the regional transportation line that he helped to develop. The park, with small sail boats, pony rides, and acrobats served as a way to lure riders to the cable cars.

Walter Blair passed away in 1888. Blair Park kept operating with its various attractions until 1905.

Thereafter, a portion of Blair Park was sold to the Mountain View Cemetery. The city of Piedmont was incorporated in 1907 and subsequently began establishing and codifying city institutions and services. During the early 1900s, various cities in the Bay Area constructed corporation yards in order to facilitate growing and developing cities, which began to rely more on motor equipment to carry out City projects, like paving streets. According to historical newspaper accounts, the prospect of using a portion of the remaining Blair Park land for a municipal corporation yard was discussed as early as 1913. At that time, the mayor argued that quarrying rock from the site could be used to pay for it (Oakland Tribune 10/03/1913). Before that time, the property was the site of the red rock quarry operated by local businessman W.H. Maxwell (Oakland Geology 2017). Located at the head of Blair Park, it was a popular material for local driveways (Oakland Tribune 1972). Known locally as Blair Quarry (though established after Blair’s death), it began operating as early as 1901 and was described by the Mining Bureau as being on Moraga Road, just east of Mountain View Cemetery. 1 Reports from 1906 continued, “the rock is chert (phthanite), mostly red, some yellowish, and is extensively used as road-dressing in Piedmont district and the cemetery” (Lewis 1906) (Figure 4). It went on to describe that quarry operations were expanded to the south side of the road, and were tunneling 50 yards west and below the Blair Quarry in the quest of “blue rock,” or metamorphosed sandstone, though it appears that it was not as successful as the red rock quarry. A comparison of available topographic maps shows that between 1897, the earliest available map, and 1932 that material was removed from the hillside, flattening the topography to its current configuration (USGS 2024).
1 Blair Quarry on Moraga Road is not the same quarry historically known as Blair’s Quarry, which was in present-day Dracena Park and was a popular swimming hole in the late 1890s and early 1900s.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 177
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
24 Figure 4 1906 Image of Blair Quarry from Moraga Avenue In late 1913, the remaining portion of the Blair Park property and an adjacent property called Blackberry Brae, totaling 52.39 acres, was optioned for sale to the City of Piedmont to develop a playground and corporation yard (Oakland Tribune 12/10/1913). Residential development in the former park, adjacent to the MCSP Area, began to emerge by 1918 (Oakland Tribune 1918).

Available topographical maps show that there was one building at the end of Red Rock Road by 1915 (USGS 2023). The corporation yard was established by the 1920s, as depicted in a 1929 Sanborn map, and likely incorporated the existing building (Walking Piedmont 2023). Quarry operations appear to have largely ended by this time. Though a 1947 topographic notes the former quarry location, no archival evidence suggests quarry activities were ongoing.

According to historical aerial photographs, the corporation yard was the only development north of Moraga Avenue in this area for many years. Over the following years, the corporation yard continued to develop, reaching its current state by approximately 2000. It was during that period when Coaches Field and Kennelly Skatepark were constructed. The MCSP Area has remained unchanged since that time.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 178
Methods
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 25
4 Methods
This section presents the methods for each task completed during the preparation of this study.

Background and Archival Research
Archival Research
Rincon completed background and archival research in support of this study in November 2024. A variety of primary and secondary source materials were consulted. Sources included, but were not limited to, historical maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area. The following sources were used to develop an understanding of the project site and its context:
▪ Alameda County Assessor’s Office
▪ Historical aerial photographs accessed via NETR Online ▪ Historical aerial photographs accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder
▪ Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps accessed through the Los Angeles County Public Library ▪ Historical USGS topographic maps
▪ Historical newspaper clippings obtained from Newspapers.com, ProQuest Historical Newspapers.com, and the California Digital Newspaper Collection ▪ Geologic Maps via USGS National Geologic Map Database ▪ United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey ▪ City of Oakland Building and Planning Department
▪ Olmstead Archives at National Park Service
▪ Frederick Law Olmstead National Historic Site archives ▪ Library of Congress
▪ Historical Resources Evaluation – Piedmont Corporation Yard (Rodriquez et al 2021) California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
On September 16, 2024, Rincon received California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search results (No. 24-0286) from the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) (Appendix A).

The NWIC is the official state repository for cultural resources records and reports for the county in which the project falls. The purpose of the records search is to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a

0.50-mile radius surrounding it. Rincon also reviewed the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks list, and Built Environment Resources Directory. Additionally, Rincon reviewed the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 179
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
26 Sacred Lands File Search
Rincon contacted the NAHC on June 2, 2024, to request a search of the SLF, as well as a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the MCSP Area (Appendix B). On July 24, 2024, the City sent letters to 19 Native American contacts in the area to request SB 18 consultation and to request information on potential cultural resources in the project vicinity that may be impacted by project development. Follow up calls and emails were sent on July 25, 2024, and on various dates in August, September, and October 2024. Appendix B provides the results of Rincon’s outreach effort.

Field Survey
Rincon Cultural Resources Specialists Elaine Foster and Robert Guardado conducted a pedestrian survey of the MSCP area on November 14, 2024. Rincon conducted a pedestrian survey using transect intervals spaced 15 meters. Exposed ground surfaces were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historical debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances, such as burrows and drainages and areas of high sensitivity, such as along creek alignments and their immediate vicinity, were also thoroughly visually inspected. Inaccessible areas with steep slopes were visually inspected from a safe distance with binoculars. Survey accuracy was maintained using a handheld Global Positioning Satellite unit and a georeferenced map of the MCSP Area.

Under the direction of Rincon Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, Ms. Foster and Mr.

Guardado also conducted a built environment survey to confirm the existing conditions of built environment resources in the MCSP Area. Pursuant to California Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines (OHP 1995: 2), properties over 45 years of age were evaluated for listing in the NRHP and recorded or updated on California Department of Parks (DPR) 523 series forms. Site characteristics and conditions were documented using notes and digital photographs which are maintained at the Rincon Oakland office.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 180
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 27
5 Findings
Background Research
Previous Cultural Resources Studies
The CHRIS records search and background research identified 21 cultural resources studies within

0.5 mile of the project site (Appendix A). Of these studies, four (S-0522661, -022815, -052209, and -052486) include a portion of the MCSP Area. Approximately 70 percent of the MSCP Area has been studied and surveyed within the last 24 years. Known studies that occurred within the MCSP Area are discussed in further detail below.

Historical Resources Evaluation
This study was not listed by the CHRIS and was located in Rincons archival records. This study is a historical resources evaluation for the Piedmont Corporation Yard prepared by Rincon in 2021 in support of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Project EIR (City of Piedmont 2024). The study area includes approximately 70 percent of the current MCSP Area and the fieldwork and background research identified 898 Red Rock Road, the Piedmont Corporation Yard as a historic-age property which was recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility on DPR series forms (Appendix C). The historical resources evaluation (Appendix C of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Project EIR) concluded 898 Red Rock Road is not eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR and as such, does not qualify as a historical resource.

S-052661
Study S-052661 is a cultural resources assessment prepared by Historic Resources Associates in 2006 in support of the proposed installation of antennas and cellular equipment for Sprint in the City of Piedmont, Alameda County (Historic Resources Associates 2006). The study area includes a portion of the corporation yard, approximately 5 percent of the MCSP Area. The study summarizes the methods and results of archival research and a field survey. No cultural resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the current MCSP Area as a result of this study.

S-022815
Study S-022815 is an archaeological resources investigations report prepared by David Chavez and Jan Hupman in 2000 in support of the East Bay Infiltration/Inflow Correction Program in the city of Piedmont, Alameda County (Chavez and Hupman 2000). The study area includes a portion of the Moraga Road, approximately 15 percent of the MCSP Area. The study summarizes the methods and results of archival research and a field survey. No cultural resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the current MCSP Area as a result of this study.

S-052209
Study S-052209 is an architectural evaluation study prepared by Historic Resources Associates in 2017 in support of the proposed collocation of telecommunication equipment for Sprint in the city of Piedmont, Alameda County (Historic Resources Associates 2017). The study area includes a portion of Moraga Road, the Coaches Field, the corporation yard, Kennelly Skatepark and Blair Park ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 181
28 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
Primary
Number Trinomial
Resource
Type Description
Recorder(s)
and Year(s)
Eligibility
Status
Relationship
to Project Site
– Unknown Outside
Not
Assigned
– HistoricPeriod898 Red Rock
Road, Piedmont
Corporation Yard
2021 (Rodriguez et al.) Recommended
ineligible
Within
P-01-0
11355
– HistoricPeriodMountain View
Cemetery District
1998 (Oakland
Cultural Heritage
Survey);
2013 (Supernowiez)
Recommended
Eligible
Within
Source: NWIC 2024
P-01-011355
Resource P-01-011355 is a historic-period cemetery district documented in 1998 as the Mountain View Cemetery District (Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey 1998). This district encompasses approximately 220 acres of land at the eastern terminus of Piedmont Avenue in eastern Oakland Hills. The cemetery district was designed in 1864 by Fredrick Law Olmsted in a naturalistic manner with winding roads and picturesque vistas. The district consists of two one-story red brick, Gothic Revival buildings, a neoclassical columbarium and mausoleum, nineteenth century mausoleums, and Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, Romanesque and pyramid tombs. Gravestones span more than 160 years. The cemetery district includes an avenue dedicated to Civil War soldiers lined with City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Open Space, approximately 30 percent of the MCSP Area. The study summarizes the methods and results of archival research and a field survey. [redacted]. None of these resources are located within or adjacent to the current MCSP Area.

S-052486
Study S-052486 is a cultural resources assessment prepared by Michelle D. Noble in 2018 in support of the Piedmont Corporation Yard Tower Installation in the city of Piedmont, Alameda County (Noble 2018). The study area includes a portion of the corporation yard, approximately 10 percent of the MCSP Area. The study summarizes the methods and results of archival research and a field survey. The report identified one historic-period built environment resource (Mountain View Cemetery District [P-01-011355]) within the 2018 study area and identifies a portion of the Mountain View Cemetery District as located within the MCSP Area, bounding the western margin of the current project. This resource is discussed in further detail in the following section.

The CHRIS records search and background research identified three cultural resources within 0.5 mile of the project site. Resources recorded in the search radius are listed in Table 1 below. [redacted]. These resources are discussed in further detail below.

Table 1 Known Cultural Resources
[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 182
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 29
cannon balls. Resource P-01-011355 was updated by Dana E. Supernowiez in 2013, from encompassing 220 acres to 226 acres total. Supernowiez (2013a) noted that the cemetery was established by a group of East Bay pioneers in 1863, under the California Rural Cemetery Act of 1859. Supernowiez (2013b) recommended resource P-01-011355 eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A as it appears to be associated with an event or events of significance in this history of Oakland, under Criterion B as it is directly associated with one of the nation’s most prestigious landscape architects, and under Criterion C for its variety of buildings, structures and objects representing a significant example of a designed landscape (Supernowiez 2013b). 898 Red Rock Road – Piedmont Corporation Yard
898 Red Rock Road was documented in 2021 as part of the Piedmont Housing Element Update. The resource consists of the Piedmont Corporation Yard, and is the base for the city fleet and plant maintenance facility and the street maintenance crew and is comprised of four buildings organized at the center of drive that encircles the buildings and continues to the entry gate. Buildings include a garage, a maintenance building, an office, and a shed. 898 Red Rock Road is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under any eligibility criteria due to a lack of historical or architectural significance and limited integrity (see Appendix C for DPR Form). As this resource has been previously evaluated and does not qualify as a historical resource as per CEQA it is not further considered in this report.

Sacred Land File Search
On July 22, 2024, the NAHC responded to Rincon’s SB 18 contacts request and SLF request, stating that the results of the SLF search were negative. The NAHC further provided a list of persons to be contacted for SB 18 consultation. See Appendix B for the NAHC response, including Tribal contacts list(s).

Senate Bill 18 Consultation
The City of Piedmont contacted the NAHC to request a search of the SLF and for an SB 18 consultation list. No California Native American Tribe has requested, in writing, formal notice of and information on proposed projects for the City of Piedmont. However, in an effort to identify potential tribal cultural resources, the City provided notice to those on the consultation list provided by the NAHC.

The NAHC responded to the request on July 22, 2024, stating that the results of the SLF search were negative and provided an SB 18 consultation list. The City emailed letters on July 24, 2024, to the Tribes on this list and the City’s letters included a description of the project, its location, and stated that the Tribes had 90 days to respond.

The list of Tribes contacted are included in Table 2 below.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 183
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
30 Table 2 Tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission Consultation List Tribe/Tribal Affiliation Listed Contact
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Ed Ketchum, Vice-Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson Confederated Villages of Lisjan Deja Gould, Language Program Manager Confederated Villages of Lisjan Corrina Gould, Chairperson Confederated Villages of Lisjan Cheyenne Gould, Tribal Cultural Resources Manager Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Henry Munoz, Cultural Resource Officer Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Samuel Rodriguez, Cultural Resources Officer Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Carla Munoz, Tribal Council Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Kanyon Sayers-Rood, Most Likely Descendent Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area Richard Massiatt, Council Member/Most Likely Descendent Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone Tribe Timothy Perez, Tribal Compliance Officer Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone Tribe Katherine Perez, Chairperson The Ohlone Indian Tribe Desiree Vigil, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer The Ohlone Indian Tribe Vincent Medina, Cultural Leader The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan, Chairperson
Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson The City received five responses:
▪ Irene Zwierlein of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista responded on July 25, 2024, with recommendations to complete a SLF search at the NAHC and to complete a CHRIS records search. Additionally, if cultural sensitivity is identified within 1 mile of the project, the Amah Mutsun recommend the following:
 Cultural sensitivity training for all crew, individuals and personnel that will be on-site during all ground-disturbing activities
 A qualified and trained archaeological monitor is present during all ground disturbing activities
 A qualified tribal monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities On August 14, August 22, and August 26, 2024, the City responded and left a voicemail requesting confirmation whether the Tribe would like to request SB 18 consultation for this project. On August 26, 2024, the Tribe responded and a consultation meeting with the City, Tribe, and Rincon was held on September 12, 2024. Christopher Zimmer and Michelle Zimmer attended the meeting on behalf of the Tribe and recommended cultural resources training for all construction staff and the development of an accidental discovery plan. The Tribe further expressed concern regarding the fill soils used to infill the quarry in the 1960s and that these soils could contain cultural materials. On September 19, 2024, the Tribe provided recommendations for the inclusion of a Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training, Stop Work and Notification Upon Discovery protocols, Preservation in Place protocols, Archaeological ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 184
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 31
Treatment (if a Tribal resource cannot be avoided), protocols for Human Remains and Funerary Objects, and recommendations for an interpretative program if a Tribal resource cannot be preserved in place. On October 29, 2024, the City emailed the Tribe to invite tribal members to participate in a tour and cultural resources survey of the MCSP Area. No response was received to the October 29, 2024 email and the City sent an email on December 11, 2024, noting the City’s appreciation for the tribal involvement and attached a draft of the new MCSP cultural and tribal resource policies that have been developed in response to the Tribes’ SB 18 consultation.

In addition, the City confirmed that the Amah Mutsun would be contacted regarding the development of specific projects in the MCSP Area. The City requested a response by December 20, 2024 with any requests for additional information or meetings otherwise the City would consider consultation closed. No further responses have been received to date. ▪ Lucy Gill, Project Manager for the Confederated Villages of Lisjan responded on July 24, 2024, requesting SB 18 consultation and requesting copies of any cultural resources studies completed for the project, the SLF search results and the NWIC CHRIS records search results. The City responded on August 14, 2024 notifying the Tribe that a report, SLF search and records search had not been completed and a consultation meeting was held on October 23, 2204. The Tribe requested an introduction to the project and enquired about project specific information that is not currently available. The Tribe further requested confirmation about whether they would have the opportunity to be involved in the consultation process when there were project specifics. The City responded that this would need to be confirmed. The Tribe further requested copies of the records search results and the SLF search results and these were provided to the Tribe on October 16 and December 2, 2024. On October 29, 2024, the City emailed the Tribe to invite Tribal members to participate in a tour and cultural resources survey of the MCSP Area.

The Tribe responded that they would not attend. The City sent an email on December 9, 2024, noting the City’s appreciation for the tribal involvement and attached a draft of the new tribal cultural resource policies that have been developed in response to SB 18 consultation. Lucy Gill responded on December 11, 2024, requesting two revisions to the draft MCSP policies:
1) The Tribe requests that in addition to a qualified archaeologist, the Tribe has the opportunity to provide a qualified tribal monitor to also execute the Worker's Environmental Awareness Program. The Tribe may not always feel that this is necessary depending on the project but would like to have this opportunity. 2) Instead of “outreach to Tribes,” the Tribe would like the mitigation measure to read “consultation between Tribes and the appropriate lead agency.” We assume this will most likely be the City of Piedmont but understand that the agency may change depending on the project and funding source.

The above revisions were incorporated into the draft policies and the revised policies were provided to the Tribe on December 17, 2024, along with a request for the Tribe to approve of the changes and confirm that consultation was closed. On December 18, 2024, Lucy Gill responded on behalf of the Tribe that the changes were reviewed and approved and confirmed consultation was closed.
▪ Samual Rodriguez of the Costanoan Rumsun Carmel Tribe responded on July 25, 2024, noting that the Tribe was not culturally affiliated with the MCSP Area and recommended reaching out to Choychenyo relatives for consultation. The City responded on July 29, 2024, and on August 14, 2024, the City discussed the project with Mr. Rodriguez on a telephone call. Mr. Rodriguez requested a meeting to discuss the project further and a consultation meeting was completed ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 185
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
32 ▪
▪
on October 3, 2024. [redacted].

Mr. Munoz recommended the following:
 Tribal members would like to participate in the archaeological survey, if one is completed for the project.
 Tribal monitoring for all ground-disturbing work and the development of an accidental discovery plan prior to the initiation of construction
 Cultural Resource Training prior to initiation of construction [redacted]. During the meeting Mr. Munoz requested a map of the MCSP area and the City provided this via email on October 3, 2024. On October 29, 2024,the City emailed the Tribe to invite Tribal members to participate in a tour and cultural resources survey of the MCSP Area. No response was received to the October 29, 2024, email and the City sent an email on December 11, 2024, noting the City’s appreciation for the tribal involvement and attached a draft of the new tribal cultural resource policies that have been developed in response to SB 18 consultation. In addition, the City confirmed that the Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe would be contacted regarding the development of specific projects in the MCSP Area. The City requested a response by December 20, 2024, with any requests for additional information or meetings otherwise the City would consider consultation closed. No further responses have been received to date.

Kanyon Sayers-Rood of the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan responded on August 13, 2024, [redacted] requesting consultation. Ms. Sayers-Rood included recommendations for a Native American monitor and an archaeological monitor be present for all ground disturbing activities.

The City responded by telephone and email on August 14, 2024, and a consultation meeting was held on August 28, 2024. During the meeting, Ms. Sayers-Rood stated she would defer to the preferences of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation for this project and requested to receive the results of those consultation meetings. The City agreed to share this information and the information was provided on December 11, 2024. [redacted]. On October 29, 2024, the City emailed the Tribe to invite Tribal members to participate in a tour and cultural resources survey of the MCSP Area scheduled for November 14, 2024. No response to this request was received and on December 11, the City emailed the Tribe noting the City’s appreciation for the tribal involvement and attached a draft of the tribal cultural resource policies that have been developed in response to the SB 18 consultation completed for this project. The City included a statement that if no response was received by the Tribe by December 20, 2024, then the City would consider consultation closed.

No further correspondence has been received to date.

Richard Massiatt of the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay responded on August 2, 2024 stating the Tribe was interested in the project and would like to discuss the project further. In addition, Alan Levanthal of the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area responded on August 4, 2024, requesting the results of a records search if one had been conducted and requested formal SB 18 consultation. The City responded by ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 186
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 33
telephone and email on August 14, 2024 requesting dates and times for a consultation meeting and notified the Tribe that a records search had not been completed at that time.

On October 29, 2024, the City emailed the Tribe to invite tribal members to participate in a tour and cultural resources survey of the MCSP Area scheduled for November 14, 2024. No response to this request was received. On December 11, the City emailed the Tribe summarizing the results of identification efforts (survey, the SLF search results, and the CHRIS records search results) and attached draft Tribal resource policies for the Tribe’s review and input. The City noted in the December 11, 2024 correspondence that as a result SB 18 consultation the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area input will be contacted for specific projects that include ground disturbance in the MCSP area. The City included a statement that if no response was received by the Tribe by December 20, 2024, then the City would consider consultation closed. Mr. Massiatt responded on December 26, 2024 stating “we are interested in your project and would like to have further discussions in assisting you with our services if needed.” The City responded on April 29, 2025 that the City considers SB 18 consultation closed for this project and confirmed that the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area would be contacted for specific projects involving ground disturbance in the MCSP Area and included a copy of the developed MCSP Area tribal resource policies regarding tribal resources and draft MCSP published April 18, 2025.

No other Tribes responded during the 90-day period to request consultation pursuant to SB-18.

Aerial Imagery and Historical Topographic Maps Review
Rincon completed a review of historical topographic maps and aerial imagery to ascertain the development history of the project site. Historical topographic maps from 1897 to 1915 depict the project site as undeveloped land east of Hayes Creek with railroad lines northeast of the project site (NETR Online 2024, USGS 2024). By 1915, historical topographic maps depict the Mountain View Cemetery District within the western boundary of the current project site, with residential development south of the project site (USGS 2024). By 1942, Moraga Avenue is depicted within the current project site and additional residential development is shown west of the project site (USGS 2024). Topographic maps from 1947 onward no longer depict Hayes Creek and the area is depicted as developed for residential housing. Aerial imagery from 1946 to 1958 depicts two building structures analogous with present day Wildwood Dad’s Club Pumpkin Patch parking area within the current MCSP Area, northwest of the intersection of Red Rock Road and Moraga Avenue (NETR Online 2024). In 1958, additional residential development is depicted along the southern boundary of the MCSP Area (NETR Online 2024). Imagery from 1968 to 1980 shows no further development surrounding the MCSP Area (NETR Online 2024, USGS 2024). Between 1982 and 1987, aerial imagery depicts grading west of Wildwood Dad’s Club Pumpkin Patch and additional building structures associated with the pumpkin patch (NETR Online 2024). By 1993, a baseball field analogous with present day Coaches Field is shown within the MCSP Area (NETR Online 2024). The Kennelly Skatepark is depicted within the MCSP Area by 2000 (NETR Online 2024). Imagery from 2022 depicts the MCSP Area in its current condition (NETR Online 2024).

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 187
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
34 Geologic and Soils Map Review
The entire MCSP Area is mapped as underlain by one geologic unit: the Mesozoic-age (66 to 201 million years ago) marine sedimentary and metasedimentary deposit (Dibblee and Minch 2005).

The Mesozoic-age deposit is primarily comprised of Jurassic and Cretaceous-aged submetamorphosed eugeosynclinal marine sedimentary and mafic igneous rocks that form in through the precipitation of dissolved minerals from water, often in a marine environment. This marine sediment was deposited during a time span that does not encompass human occupation of the region nor is conducive to the natural burial and preservation of archaeological deposits.

Soils mapping indicates three soil types are present within the MCSP Area including: Maymen loam in the mid to norther portion of the MCSP Area, Los Gatos loam in the mid to eastern portion of the MCSP Area, and Millsholm loam in the western corner, the northeastern corner and the southern portion of the MCSP Area. None of the these soil types contain previously documented buried A horizons within the stratigraphy. Buried A horizons often indicate that a soil has experienced episodic turnover or the burial of newer sediments under older sediments and indicate the potential for buried archaeological deposits.

In summary, given the age of the geologic unit and the absence of buried soil horizons, the MCSP Area has low sensitivity for the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits. Moreover, the degree of previous disturbance within the MCSP associated with the construction of the Coaches Field, corporation yard, parking areas, and Kennelly Skatepark, would further reduce the likelihood for encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits during project construction.

Field Survey Results
Built Environment Resources
The field work and background research resulted in the identification of two historic-age properties; one within the MCSP Area, the Piedmont Corporation Yard at 898 Red Rock Road, and one immediately adjacent to the MCSP Area, the Mountain View Cemetery at 5000 Piedmont Avenue.

The property at 898 Red Rock Road was previously recorded and evaluated and determined ineligible for listing in NRHP and CRHR for a lack of historic or architectural significance (Appendix C).

It is not, therefore, a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

Mountain View Cemetery
Background
Mountain View Cemetery was first recorded as the Mountain View Cemetery District in September 1998 as part of the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey. This survey was undertaken by the City of Oakland Planning Department to support their effort to establish a “Local Register of Historical Resources.” This list categorizes the City of Oakland’s most important buildings and districts, regardless of an official designation.

As part of the effort, the property was recorded on a DPR form that included a Primary Record (DPR A) with Continuation Sheets (DPR L) and a Location Map (DPR J). It did not include an evaluation, and was assigned a NRHP Status Code “7,” indicating it was not evaluated. The map figure, a USGS ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 188
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 35
map, included the boundary of the property, but erroneously included the area southeast of the cemetery, located in Piedmont and including the MCSP Area.

The 1998 DPR form also included locational data of properties to be included in the district boundary, as outlined in Table 3. A review of the current Assessor’s Map for the Mountain View Cemetery property shows that Mountain View Cemetery is comprised of a single, 223-acre parcel (048-7002-003-7). Other parcel numbers also appear to have been updated since that time.

Table 3 Mountain View Cemetery Property List
Address Building
Build Date
(estimated) 1998 Parcel Number Current Parcel Number
4529 Howe St. St. Mary’s Office 1900s 048A 7002 001 48A-7002-1 4499 Piedmont Ave. Chapel of Chimes 1927 013 1128 023 013-1128-24 5000 Piedmont Ave. Mountain View Cemetery 1860s 048A 7002 003 048-7002-3-7 5000 Piedmont Ave. Chapel 1920s 048A 7002 003 G 048-7002-3-7 5000 Piedmont Ave. Admin Building 1920s 048A 7002 003 J 048-7002-3-7 The property record was subsequently updated in July 2013 by Dana Supernowicz. It included a three-page update comprised of two Continuation Sheets (DPR L) with an attached map. Similar to the 1998 map, it has an imprecise boundary and includes areas beyond the property’s parcel boundary including a portion of the MCSP Area. The update includes a brief description and aerial photograph of a 1964 addition to the 1929 Mausoleum, not described in the 1998 record. The record was further updated to include a Building, Structure, Object Form (DPR B) and included an evaluation. The evaluation recommended the Mountain View Cemetery District eligible for listing in the NRHP. It was recommended eligible under Criterion A for being significant as the largest cemetery in Oakland, the resting place of many prominent Oakland residents, and the influence of its “park-like” setting and designed landscape. It was recommended eligible under Criterion B for its association with Frederick Law Olmstead, as it was reportedly his first solo project and the only cemetery he designed. It was recommended eligible under Criterion C as a significant designed landscape as well as for its important examples of Gothic Revival, Neo-Classical, and Art Deco Architecture. Its period of significance was defined at 1865, coinciding with the development of the cemetery, to 1964, when the last addition was added to the mausoleum. It was assigned an NRHP Status Code “3D,” indicating it is a “contributor to a district that has been fully documented according to OHP instructions and appears eligible for listing.” The evaluation does not include a refined discussion on the district boundary and does not include a clear discussion of contributing and non-contributing elements of the district.

Current Historical Designation Status
The Mountain View Cemetery is not listed in the NRHP or the CRHR. Though it was recommended a “3D” NRHP Status Code as the result of the 2013 evaluation, the Built Environment Resources Directory does not reflect that recommendation. Instead, it includes the Mountain View Cemetery District with a NRHP Status Code of “7R,” indicating it was “Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey in an Area of Potential Effect: Not evaluated.” Its contributing features, as identified in the 1998 record, were assigned a status code of “7N” indicating, “Needs to be reevaluated – formerly coded as may become NR eligible with specific conditions.” ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 189
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
36 The Mountain View Cemetery (APN 48A-7002-3-7) is not a City of Oakland designated landmark, heritage property, or preservation district. It is, however, on the local register as an “Area of Primary Importance” and has rating “A1+” under the City’s Rating System, which means it is the “highest importance” and is in an area of primary importance or “National Register quality district.” An “A1+” rating was also assigned to the Administration Building (1930) and Chapel and Crematorium Building (1929/1969 addition), both of which are within the cemetery boundary.

Significance and Character-Defining Features
Though the 2013 evaluation provides more detailed history and discussion of significance, it does not correctly apply the NRHP criteria. Specifically, the 2013 evaluation recommends the property eligible under Criterion B for its association with the cemetery’s designer landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead. As provided in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, properties associated with the work of an architect are appropriately eligible under Criterion C.

Instead, Rincon recommends that the cemetery district is significant for listing in the NRHP and CRHR Criterion A/1 for its association with the evolving history of cemetery development and other physical development in Oakland, and Criterion C/3 for its picturesque master plan by reputed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, as well as its buildings, structures and objects of high artistic value. Garavaglia Architecture (2003) outlined the following character-defining features:
▪ Lower Oakland Hills (below Piedmont) location
▪ 200 acres in size
▪ Naturalistic manner of design by Frederick Law Olmsted (1864) ▪ Winding roads
▪ Picturesque vistas
▪ Gated entrance
▪ Circular fountain
▪ Office building (1929) by Weeks and Day
▪ Chapel and Crematorium building (1929) by Weeks and Day ▪ Columbarium and Mausoleum (1929)
▪ Newer garden mausoleum with reflecting pool
▪ “Millionaire’s Row” at top of cemetery with nineteenth century mausoleums ▪ Gravestones
▪ Chapel of the Chimes (1927) by Julia Morgan at 4499 Piedmont Avenue (Contributing Property) ▪ St. Mary’s Office (1900s) at 4529 Howe Street (Contributing Property) Cemetery Boundary
Archival, background, and survey work confirmed that neither the historic nor current boundary of the Mountain View Cemetery is or was within the MCSP Area but is immediately adjacent (Figure 5).

The DPR record has been updated to reflect Rincon’s findings (Appendix D).

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 190
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 37
Figure 5 Mountain View Cemetery Boundary
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 191
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
38 Archaeological Resources
Ground visibility was poor (0 to 10 percent) in developed areas north of Moraga Avenue, including the Coaches Field (Photograph 1), Kennelly Skatepark (Photograph 2), and the Piedmont Corporation Yard (Photograph 3). Ground visibility was fair (60 to 70 percent) in accessible undeveloped areas north of Moraga Avenue and along the area south of Moraga Avenue.

Approximately 1.9 acres of area north of Moraga Road and east of the Piedmont Maintenance facility and approximately 2 acres of area south of Moraga Road was inaccessible for survey due to steep sloping and vegetation (Figure 6). Vegetation overgrowth and leaf litter generally obscured surface visibility in undeveloped areas. Vegetation generally consisted of oak, pine, and other trees with dry brush and grasses in undeveloped areas, freshwater reeds along creek alignments (Photograph 4), and redwood trees and ornamental trees and grass in developed areas of Coaches Field and the Piedmont Corporation Yard. Coaches Field, Kennelly Skatepark, and the Piedmont Maintenance Facility have been heavily disturbed from construction and general maintenance. Soils in these areas generally consisted of sandy loam and gravel. Soils in undeveloped slope sides and forested areas north of Moraga Road generally consist of a sandy clay loam, with higher concentrations of sand along creek alignments. Soils in the area south of Moraga Road generally consisted of sandy loam with higher concentrations of sand near the roadway and path. Modern refuse was observed throughout the MCSP Area. The area immediately adjacent to the Mountain View Cemetery was given particular attention for any archaeological resources or built environment elements that may be associated with the Mountain View Cemetery District. Rincon did not identify any archaeological or built environment resources in this area and the steep topography in this area further indicated that it would not have been an area previously utilized by the cemetery. [redacted] (Appendix E).

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 192
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 39
Photograph 1 Coaches Field, View to the West
Photograph 2 Kennelly Skatepark, View to the East
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 193
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
40 Photograph 3 Piedmont Corporation Yard, View to the North Photograph 4 Hillside Slope and Vegetation near Creek, View to the West ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 194
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 41
Figure 6
[redacted]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 195
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
42 [redacted]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 196
Findings
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 43
Photograph 5
Photograph 6
[redacted]
[redacted]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 197
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
44 Photograph 7
Photograph 8
[redacted]
[redacted]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 198
Conclusions
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 45
6 Conclusions
Historical Built Environment Resources
The field survey and background research identified one built environment historical resource adjacent to the MCSP Area. As detailed above in Section 5.2.1, Mountain View Cemetery was previously recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR and is an identified historical resource by the City of Oakland. The property, therefore, qualifies as a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Though the project would not result in demolition or destruction to the Mountain View Cemetery, adjacent new construction facilitated by the MCSP could result in changes to the historical resource adjacent to the MCSP Area leading to its material impairment, meaning it could alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR. The project could therefore result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource.

Recommended MCSP Policy
In order to address the potential for future project impacts to the historic Mountain View Cemetery, the following MCSP policy is incorporated into the MCSP:

Visual Impacts to Mountain View Cemetery. The MCSP Area is adjacent to the historical Fredrick Law Olmstead designed Mountain View Cemetery, which is partially defined by its historic setting, inclusive of its naturalistic design and picturesque vistas. In order to maintain its historic setting, proposed new construction adjacent to Mountain View Cemetery in the MCSP Area shall be designed in a manner that minimizes the potential impacts to the viewshed from pathways, roadways or buildings within Mountain View Cemetery grounds. The new construction shall not introduce a visual element that creates a built element of contrast so visually overpowering that it:
demands attention; would not be overlooked; and would be dominant in the landscape, thereby amounting to a substantial adverse change in setting to the historical resource. An impact would occur if new construction were of such a large size, reflectivity, or source of light that it would be the major focus of visual attention and dominate the view, noticeably detracting from views of the Mountain View Cemetery’s landscape elements.

Prior to the approval of development projects that have the potential to introduce a new visual element to the historic Mountain View Cemetery’s historic setting, site-specific visual analysis for new buildings proposed to be abutting to the cemetery boundary shall be conducted and shall consider if modifying proposed new buildings design through revised placement, modified massing, usage of vegetative screening, or other means to reduce visual impacts would be feasible.

Archaeological and Tribal Resources
This study did not identify any archaeological resources or unique cultural resources in the MCSP Area. However, sensitivity for tribal cultural resources was identified as a result of SB 18 consultation. Currently the General Plan provides policies and actions that oversee the MCSP Area and these are as follows:

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 199
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
46 Policy 30.1: Archaeological Resource Protection. Ensure that future construction and/ or earth movement does not result in the loss of important archaeological resources.

Action 30.A: Procedures for Managing Archaeological Resources. Implement the following procedure in the event that archaeological deposits or features are discovered and/or disturbed: (1) Work within 50 feet of the discovery should cease until the find is flagged, secured, and assessed by a qualified archaeologist. (2) If the find is determined to be isolated or recent, then construction may resume. If it is potentially significant, appropriate mitigation measures should be developed and the City and property owner should be notified. Movement of significant materials by personnel other than a qualified archaeologist should be prohibited. (3) Following resolution, a report documenting the methods, findings, and recommendations of the archaeologist should be prepared.

Action 30.B: Procedures for Managing Native American Remains. Follow accepted protocol in the event that human remains from the period of pre-European settlement or later are encountered during construction. This includes halting work in the immediate area until the Alameda County Coroner and California Native American Heritage Commission have been contacted. As appropriate, it may also include contact with the Most Likely Descendant to make recommendations for the respectful treatment of remains and related burial goods, and accompanying documentation.

Policy 30.2: Archaeological Resources Assessment and Treatment. Prior to approval of development projects (excluding small structures exempt under CEQA) that have the potential to impact an archaeological resource(s), such as through grading, excavation for foundations or basements, or new swimming pools, an Archaeological Resources Assessment shall be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall be completed in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidance and will follow the Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format guidelines. If the Archaeological Resource Assessment identifies resources that may be affected by the project, Phase II testing and evaluation will be required. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be identified in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites.

Policy 30.3: Tribal Cultural Resources. For future projects that are determined through tribal consultation to potentially affect tribal cultural resources, in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts to Native American cultural objects and human remains discovered during construction, project proponents shall retain tribal cultural monitors to monitor work done in areas of Tribal concern, as determined through tribal consultation. In the event that Native American cultural objects and/or human remains are discovered during construction, all earth-disturbing work in the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist meeting the Professional Qualifications Standards of the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR Part 61) has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 200
Conclusions
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 47
American representative is consulted. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with local Native American Tribes and group(s). The mitigation plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American Tribe and tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist.

Recommended MCSP Policies
In addition to the above, revised General Plan policies, Rincon recommends including the following policies to the MCSP Area to address the concerns and recommendations of the consulting tribal entities:

Impacts to Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources within the Specific Plan Area. As a result of consultation efforts completed by the City of Piedmont with tribal representatives, the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan area has been identified as sensitive for the presence of potential tribal cultural resources, specifically tribal archaeological resources. Although much of the Specific Plan area was previously used as a quarry and infilled with soils from the construction of Highway 13, consultation identified the soils used to infill the quarry as potentially containing sensitive tribal archaeological resources. In order to address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, new construction in the Specific Plan area that requires ground disturbance, shall require the following additional procedures:
▪ The project proponent will execute a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program for all project personnel working in the Specific Plan area. A qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall conduct a training for all construction personnel on archaeological sensitivity prior to the commencement of any construction activities within the Specific Plan area. The Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training will include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the regulatory environment, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. In addition, a representative of a Tribe culturally and geographically affiliated with the MCSP Area shall conduct a Tribal Cultural Sensitivity training for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any construction activities within the Specific Plan area.

In accordance with General Plan Policy 30.2, and prior to the initiation of development project approval, the project proponent will complete an Archaeological Resources Assessment. In addition to Policy 30.2, this Specific Plan policy requires the Archaeological Resources Assessment to include an analysis for the potential for buried archaeological resources and outreach to Tribes that requested consultation during the development of the Specific Plan. Tribes to be contacted for subsequent consultation under this Specific Plan policy are the Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, and Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Consultation process shall include the following:
▪ Interested Tribes will be provided the opportunity to contact the lead agency with any concerns for tribal cultural resources within the development project area. ▪ If the Archaeological Resources Assessment identifies the potential for archaeological and/or tribal resources to be impacted by the development project, then additional work will be ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 201
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
48 necessary, including, but not limited to, Phase II archaeological testing, evaluation of cultural/tribal resources for inclusion in the CRHR, and additional tribal consultation. If cultural resources cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will be developed and implemented to mitigate any impacts to historical resources that are archaeological resources. Any mitigation measures for pre-contact resources will be developed in consultation with the City of Piedmont, the project proponent, and applicable tribal representatives.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 202
References
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 49
7 References
Burns, Gregory, Susan Cook Talcott, Kathyrn Demps, Jason Edmonds, John Lambert, Andrew Tremayne, and Jelmer Eerkens
2012 Isotopic Evidence for Changing Residence Patterns through the Middle to Late Holocene in Central California. SCA Proceedings 26: 164–171.

Byrd, Brian, Adrian Whitaker, Patricia Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Rosenthal, Todd Jaffke, Philip Kaijankoski, Jack Meyer, Randall Milliken, and Eric Wohlgemuth
2017 “San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4.” Report on file with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
2006 “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register),” California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #10. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California 2011 “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register),” California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.

City of Piedmont
2009 General Plan Design and Preservation Element. https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Department s/Planning%20Division/General%20Plan/2024%20General%20Plan/Final%20draft%20ch apter%208-
designpreservation%20amendments_CAO%20PM%2012%204%202023.pdf?v=r9Hl0BuZ 5&v=r9Hl0BuZ5. Accessed October 2024
2024 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Project Environmental Impact Report. https://www.piedmont.ca.gov/services___departments/planning___building/about_pla nning_/environmental_review. Accessed October 2024
Chavez, David
2000 Archaeological Resources Investigations for the City of Piedmont, East Bay Infiltration/Inflow Correction Program, Piedmont, California.

Cole, Alexandra
1999 Santa Barbara Waterfront Historic Context. Prepared by Preservation Planning Associates. Prepared for the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department, Planning Division.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 203
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
50 Cultural Heritage
1998 DPR 523 Form for P-01-011355. Department of Parks and Recreation.

D’Oro, Stella
2009 “Native California Prehistory and Climate in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

Dumke, Glenn S.
1994 The Boom of the 1880s in Southern California. Southern California Quarterly 76(1): 99– 114.

Field, Les W. and Alan Leventhal
2003 “What Must It Have Been Like!: Critical Considerations of Precontact Ohlone Cosmology as Interpreted through Central California Ethnohistory.” Wicazo SA Review 18(2): 95– 126.

Garavaglia Architecture
2003 “Substantial Adverse Change/Material Impairment Review: Mountain View Cemetery Mausoleum Project.” Mountain View Cemetery Expansion Project DEIR. Gifford, Edward W.
1916 Composition of California Shellmounds. American Archaeology and Ethnology 12(1): 1–

29. Graffy, Neal
2010 Historic Santa Barbara: An Illustrated History. San Antonio, Texas: Historical Publishing Network.

Historic Resources Associates
2006 Cultural Resources Study of the Moraga Avenue Project. Cingular Wireless Service Site No. SNFCCA2299B 898 Red Rock Road, Piedmont, Alameda County, California 94611. 2017 Architectural Evaluation Study of the Piedmont Fire4 Station, Sprint Site No.

FN03XC025, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, Alameda County, California 94611.

Hylkema, Mark G.
2002 Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.233–262. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Jones, Barbara L.
2010 “Mythic Implications of Faunal Assemblages from Three Ohlone Sites.” Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.

Jones, Doug
2015 “Ritual and Religion in the Ohlone Cultural Area of Central California.” Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 204
References
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 51
Kroeber, Alfred J.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.

Originally published 1925, Smithsonian Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Unabridged reprint 1976, Dover Publications, Inc. New York.

Kyle, Douglas E.
2002 Historic Spots in California. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Lentz, Kari
2012 Flaked and Groundstone Technology at CA-ALA-554: Mortar Bowls and Stockton Points.

SCA Proceedings 26: 192–211.

Leventhal, Alan and Diane DiGiuseppe
2009 “Analysis of the Stone, Bone and Shell Artifacts from CA-SCL-869.” In Final Report on the Burial and Archaeological Data Recovery Program Conducted on a Portion of a Middle Period Ohlone Indian Cemetery, Katwáš Ketneyma Waréeptak (The Four Matriarchs Site) CA-SCL-869, Located at 5912 Cahalan Avenue, Fire Station # 12 San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Ohlone Families Consulting Services. Submitted to City of San Jose Department of Public Works.

Lewis, Aubry E.
1906 The Structural and Industrial Materials of California. Issued by the California State Mining Bureau. Sacramento, California.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Edward M. Luby
2002 Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area: Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L.

Jones, pp.263–281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Livingston, M.M.
1914 The Earliest Spanish Land Grants in California. Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California 9(3): 195–199.

Luby, Edward M. and Mark F. Gruber
1999 The Dead Must be Fed: Symbolic Meanings of the Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Area. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1): 95–105.

Milliken, R. T., R.T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S.

Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A. Fredrickson 2007 Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99-124. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 205
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
52 National Park Service
1983 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Department of the Interior. 1997 National Register Bulletin-How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

Accessed online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB15_web508.pdf. October 2022.

NETR Online
2024 Historic aerial imagery for the years 1946, 1958, 1968, 1980, 1982, 1993, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2014, 2016 and 2022. Electronic resource,
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed November 1, 2024.

Noble, Michelle
2018 Phase I Investigation for the Piedmont Corp Yard Tower Project, Piedmont, Alameda County, California.

Oakland Geology
2017 “Red Rock Quarry,” January 9. Accessed July 2023.
https://oaklandgeology.com/2017/01/09/red-rock-quarry/.

Oakland Tribune
1913 “Park Site Is Cause of Dispute,” October 3. Accessed July 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/78513582/?terms=%22corporation%20yard%22 %20%22piedmont%22%20%22quarry%22&match=1.
1913 “The Cost of Several Parks,” December 10. Accessed July 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/79699340/?terms=%22blair%20park%22%20%22 corporation%20yard%22&match=1.
1918 “Old Blair Park is Now a Modern Residence Center,” May 12. Accessed July 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/82736775/?terms=%22blair%20park%22%20%22 piedmont%22%20&match=1 .
1972 “The Knave,” November 12. Accessed July 2023.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/547137398/?terms=%22red%20rock%22%20%22 piedmont%22&match=1.

Ragir, Sonia
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 15. Berkeley.

Rodriquez, Andrew, Julieann Murphy and Steven Treffers
2021 Historical Resources Evaluation – Piedmont Corporation Yard. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma, California.

Schick, Grant W.
1994 “The Ohlone and the Oak Woodlands: Cultural adaptation in the Santa Clara Valley, Research Manuscript No. 4.” Santa Clara University. Santa Clara, California.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 206
References
Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report 53
Simons, Dwight and Tim Carpenter
2009 Fish Remains from CA-MRN-44/H, Angel Island, Marin County, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 21: 69–81.

Skowronek, Russell K.
1998 “Sifting the Evidence: Perceptions of Life at the Ohlone (Costanoan) Missions of Alta California.” Ethnohistory 45: 675–708.

Sogorea Te’ Land Trust, “Lisjan (Ohlone)
N.D. History & Territory,” https://sogoreate-landtrust.org/lisjan-history-and-territory/) Supernowicz, Dana E.
2013a DPR 523 Form for P-01-011355. Department of Parks and Recreation. 2013b DPR 523 Form for P-01-011355. Department of Parks and Recreation.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps 1897 Concord, Calif. 7.5-minute topographical map. Topo View [HTMC, 1897 ed.]. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=8f6dc00709121b7974fc1ba1648ad180 (accessed November 1, 2024).
1915 Concord, Calif. 7.5-minute topographical map. Topo View [HTMC, 1915 ed.]. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=e5009c21a40689f156e9fee8c4bdfd23 (accessed November 1, 2024).
1942 Concord, Calif. 7.5-minute topographical map. Topo View [HTMC, 1942 ed.]. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=07c9f8fb0961f66c461f743637c2dae9 (accessed November 1, 2024).
1971 San Francisco, Calif. 7.5-minute topographical map. Topo View [HTMC, 1971 ed.]. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=a2730609a23404853f498c7b4b9a69b7 (accessed November 1, 2024).

Van Der Porten, Peter, Katherine Dixon, and Alex DeGeorgey 2014 Seriation of Clam Shell Disk Beads in Central California. SCA Proceedings 28: 267–281.

Walking Piedmont
2023 “Blair and Coaches Field Skate and Park Walk.” Accessed July 2023. Blair and Coaches Field Skate and Park Walk (walkingpiedmont.com)
2023 “Walking in Walter’s Shoes.” Accessed July 2023. Walking in Walter's shoes (walkingpiedmont.com)
Waugh, John C.
2003 On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How it Changed the Course of American History. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 207
City of Piedmont
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
54 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 208
Appendix C
DPR 523 Records for 898 Red Rock Road, the Piedmont Corporation Yard ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 209
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 6 ends

P1. Other Identifier: Piedmont Corporation Yard / Piedmont Maintenance *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: Alameda and
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Oakland East Date: 1997 T: 01S ; R: 03W ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec: 19; M.D. B.M. c. Address: 898 Red Rock Road City: Piedmont Zip: 94611 d. UTM: N/A Zone: N/A ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: 048A-7002-003-03 Elevation: N/A *P3a. Description:

Located at 889 Red Rock Road in the city of Piedmont, the Piedmont Corporation Yard is a large irregularly shaped parcel which contains several uses including the city’s maintenance yard, Coaches Field, and Kennelly Skatepark. Both the sports field and the skatepark are functionally independent and less than 45 years old, the generally accepted threshold for recording historical resources per guidance from OHP, and were not considered further for historical resources eligibility.

The city’s maintenance yard, also known as the Piedmont Corporation Yard, is the base for the city fleet and plant maintenance facility and the street maintenance crew and is comprised of four buildings organized at the center of drive that encircles the buildings and continues to the entry gate. Buildings include a garage, a maintenance building, an office, and a shed. All of the buildings have a primary, south elevation. The maintenance building, office, and shed all front the garage building which features a wide, U-shaped footprint that follows the curve of the encircling drive.

See Continuation Sheet 4.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP9: Public Utility Building *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo:

Primary (south) Elevation of Garage
Building, Camera Facing Northeast
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
Circa 1920 (walkingpiedmont.com)
*P7. Owner and Address:

City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, California, 94611
*P8. Recorded by:

JulieAnn Murphy
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 N. Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
*P9. Date Recorded:

June 22, 2023
*P10. Survey Type:

Pedestrian
*P11. Report Citation:

Rodriguez, A., J. Murphy, S. Treffers, Historical Resources Evaluation – Piedmont Corporation Yard, 898 Red Rock Road, Piedmont, Alameda County, California, Rincon Consultants, Inc., Project Number 21-11542, report on file at Northwestern Information Center, Sonoma State University.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 210
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial

Page 2 of 6 ends

*Map Name: Oakland East, California *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1997 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 211
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 3 of 6 ends

*Resource Name: 898 Red Rock Road
B1. Historic Name: Piedmont Corporation Yard
B2. Common Name: Piedmont Maintenance
B3. Original Use: Public Utility B4. Present Use: Public Utility *B5. Architectural Style: Non-discernable style
*B6. Construction History:

Available topographical maps show that there was one building at the end of Red Rock Road by 1915 (USGS 2023). The corporation yard was established by the 1920s, and likely incorporated the existing building (Walking Piedmont 2023). According to historical aerial photographs, the corporation yard was the only development north of Moraga Avenue in this area for many years.

The earliest available aerial photograph from 1939 indicates that the property included the garage building, the maintenance building, and a third building that appears to have since been demolished (UCSB 2023).

A historical aerial photograph from 1946 shows the site included a third building at north end of the property that has since been demolished (NETR 2023). The shed building was constructed by 1959, and a third building between the shed and maintenance building in the area of the current office building was demolished and replaced with the current building sometime between 1993 and 2000, according to historical aerial images (NETR 2023). It was during that period when Coaches Field and Kennelly Skatepark were constructed. The site has remained unchanged since that time. In addition to available aerial imagery and newspaper accounts, visual observations confirm that the buildings have been continuously altered over time to adapt to the changing needs of the corporation yard.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect(s): N/A b. Builder: N/A
*B10. Significance: N/A Theme: N/A Area: N/A
Period of Significance: N/A Property Type: N/A Applicable Criteria: N/A The area surrounding the subject property was known as Blair Park and historically encompassed the subject property, as well as a portion of the Mountain View Cemetery to the west. Blair Park was named after Walter Blair, the first European settler in the area that would become Piedmont (Walking Piedmont 2023). When Blair first came to the area in 1853, it was primarily large ranchos.

Blair purchased 600 acres of the former Rancho San Antonio from the Peralta family and ran a dairy and farm on the property, that extended from the cemetery wall to beyond present-day Blair Avenue and supplied milk and butter to the surrounding area and San Francisco. In 1884, Blair developed 40 acres of his land for a “picnic park,” which eventually became the 75-acre Blair Park, an amusement park, at the end of the Oakland-Piedmont Railroad horsecar line, the regional transportation line that he helped to develop. The park, with small sail boats, pony rides, and acrobats served as a way to lure riders to the cable cars.

See Continuation Sheet 4.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
*B12. References:

History of Piedmont. 2023. “Walter Blair.” Accessed July 2023. https://www.historyofpiedmont.com/blair.

History of Piedmont. 2023. “Blair Park.” Accessed July 2023. https://www.historyofpiedmont.com/blair-park
Oakland Geology. 2017. “Red Rock Quarry.” January 9. Accessed July 2023. https://oaklandgeology.com/2017/01/09/red-rock-quarry/.

See Continuation Sheet 5.

B13. Remarks: N/A
*B14. Evaluator: Andrew Rodriguez, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: July 13,2023
(This space reserved for official comments.)
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 212
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 4 of 6 ends

*Recorded by: JulieAnn Murphy, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: July 13, 2023  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*P3a. Description (Continued):

The garage building is a one to two story building and features a skillion roof that slopes toward the rear of the building with overhanging eave at the primary, south elevation for the length of the building. It has a horizontal wood plank exterior. As described above, the building has an irregular, U-shaped footprint. It continues for 11 bays – four bays at the eastern, two-story portion; a one bay breezeway followed by three bays at the center; and three bays at the western end. The two-story portion has three garage entries with metal rollup doors and one man door with a rollup door at the ground floor with two three-over-three wood frame windows flaking a wood horizontal slide door below a hoist beam at the second floor. The second floor is accessed via an exterior wood stair at the building’s east elevation, which also features a two-over-two wood window. The remainder of the building features additional roll-up doors at each bay described above, with the exception of the breezeway between the one- and two-story portions of the building, which provides access to the rear of the building. The rear of the is devoid of openings or ornamentation. The building’s west elevation includes an additional vehicular bay.

The two buildings at the western end of the site include the shed and office buildings. Adjacent to a vehicle gas pump, the shed building is a one-story wood frame building with a gable roof and wood plank exterior. It has aluminum horizontal slide windows on each elevation, and a rear entry door at its north elevation. The office building is between the shed and the maintenance building. It is a one-story wood frame building with a gable roof and horizontal wood plank exterior. A deep eave overhangs above the east elevation, covering a concrete ramp with wood railing below. The elevation includes two entry doors. A short stair at the north elevation provides access to a third entry. The west elevation has a short wood stair to a paired door entry and includes two horizontal slide windows. The south elevation includes two horizontal slide windows. *B10. Significance (Continued):

Walter Blair passed away in 1888. Blair Park kept operating with its various attractions until 1905. Thereafter, a portion of Blair Park was sold to the Mountain View Cemetery. The City of Piedmont was incorporated in 1907 and subsequently began establishing and codifying city institutions and services. During the early 1900s, various cities in the Bay Area constructed corporation yards in order to facilitate growing and developing cities, which began to rely more on motor equipment to carry out city projects, like paving streets. According to historical newspaper accounts, the prospect of using a portion of the remaining Blair Park land for a municipal corporation yard was discussed as early as 1913. At that time, the mayor argued that quarrying rock from the site could be used to pay for it (Oakland Tribune 10/03/1913). Before that time, the property was the site of the red rock quarry operated by local businessman WH Maxwell (Oakland Geology 2017). Located at the head of Blair Park, it was a popular material for local driveways (Oakland Tribune 1972). In late 1913, the remaining portion of the Blair Park property and an adjacent property called Blackberry Brae, totaling 52.39 acres, was optioned for sale to the City of Piedmont to develop a playground and corporation yard until January 1914 (Oakland Tribune 12/10/1913). It is unclear from available archival records if the City exercised the option at that time, but residential development in the former park began to emerge by 1918 (Oakland Tribune 1918).

The subject property is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under any eligibility criteria due to a lack of historical or architectural significance and limited integrity. The subject property was initially developed as a municipal corporation yard for the city by the 1920s. After its incorporation in 1907, Piedmont steadily grew and expanded to provide municipal services for its residents, including establishing parks, municipal buildings, and support infrastructure like the corporation yard. Typical of the function of an incorporated city, the corporation yard was constructed during a period when cities began to rely on motor equipment to carry out city projects, like paving streets. The property at 898 Red Rock Road is typical of the development of municipal services properties of the early twentieth century. Research did not indicate that the property is significant within this trend or associated with any important events in the history of the city, region, state, or nation. Furthermore, the property has been consistently updated over time with a series of new and replaced buildings. The two oldest buildings, the maintenance building and the garage building have been altered with additions and material replacement and do not maintain their historic integrity. The property is therefore recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1.

Research through newspapers and ancestry databases did not yield any information on any significant individuals associated with the property. Though originally part of Walter Blair’s property, it was developed for the corporation yard several decades after his death and he was not historically associated with its use as the corporation yard. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2.

A series of utilitarian buildings constructed between the 1910s through the 1990s, the corporation yard buildings do not embody distinctive characteristics of any architectural style. They do not have distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. Archival research was unable to identify information on the builder or architect and it does not represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value. Furthermore, the oldest buildings on site, the garage building and the maintenance building have been altered over time with additions, new windows, infilled openings, and replacement garage doors. The site has also been continuously updated with the consistent addition and removal of buildings. As a result, the property does not retain sufficient integrity as an early twentieth century corporation yard. The property is, therefore, recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C/3. A review of available evidence does not suggest 898 Red Rock Avenue has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of Piedmont or the greater Bay Area, California, or the nation. It is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion D/4.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 213
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 5 of 6 ends

*Recorded by: JulieAnn Murphy, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: July 13, 2023  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*B12. References (Continued):

Oakland Tribune. 1913. “Park Site Is Cause of Dispute,” October 3. Accessed July 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/78513582/?terms=%22corporation%20yard%22%20%22piedmont%22%20%22quarry%22&match=1.

Oakland Tribune. 1913. “The Cost of Several Parks,” December 10. Accessed July 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/79699340/?terms=%22blair%20park%22%20%22corporation%20yard%22&match=1.

Oakland Tribune. 1918. “Old Blair Park is Now a Modern Residence Center,” May 12. Accessed July 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/82736775/?terms=%22blair%20park%22%20%22piedmont%22%20&match=1 .

Oakland Tribune. 1972. “The Knave,” November 12. Accessed July 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/547137398/?terms=%22red%20rock%22%20%22piedmont%22&match=1.

NETR Online. 2023. “Historic Aerials.” Various historic aerials and topographic maps of the project area. Accessed July 2023. https://www.historicaerials.com/.

Parcel Quest. 2023. Alameda County property information for 898 Red Rock Road. Accessed July 2023, https://pqweb.parcelquest.com/#home Walking Piedmont. 2023. “Blair and Coaches Field Skate and Park Walk.” Accessed July 2023. “Blair and Coaches Field Skate and Park Walk.” Walkingpiedmont.com
Walking Piedmont. 2023. “Walking in Walter’s Shoes.” Accessed July 2023. “Walking in Walter’s Shoes.” Walkingpiedmont.com *P5a. Photographs (Continued):

Primary Elevation of Maintenance Building, Camera Facing North.

See Continuation Page 6.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 214
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 6 of 6 ends

*Recorded by: JulieAnn Murphy, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: July 13, 2023  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*P5a. Photographs (Continued):

Primary and West Elevation of Shed Building, Camera Facing Northeast.

Rear and East Elevation of Office Building, Camera Facing Southwest.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 215
Appendix D
DPR 523 Records for P-01-011355, Mountain View Cemetery ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 216
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 1 of 4 ends

*Recorded by: JulieAnn Murphy, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: November 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
In July 2013, Dana E. Supernowicz recorded and evaluated the subject property. Supernowicz’s recording included an update of a 1998 DPR form prepared by the City of Oakland.

It included a three-page update comprised of two Continuation Sheets (DPR L) with an attached map. Similar to the USGS map included in the 1998 record, it has an imprecise boundary and includes the area southeast of the cemetery, beyond the cemetery property’s parcel boundary. The update includes a brief description and aerial photograph of a 1964 addition to the 1929 Mausoleum, not described in the 1998 record. The record was further updated to include a Building, Structure, Object Form (DPR B) and included an evaluation.

The evaluation recommended the Mountain View Cemetery District eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It was recommended eligible under Criterion A for being significant as the largest cemetery in Oakland, the resting place of many prominent Oakland residents, and the influence of its “park-like” setting and designed landscape. It was recommended eligible under Criterion B for its association with Frederick Law Olmstead, as it was reportedly his first solo project and the only cemetery he designed. It was recommended eligible under Criterion C as a significant designed landscape as well as for its important examples of Gothic Revival, Neo-Classical, and Art Deco Architecture. Its period of significance was defined at 1865, coinciding with the development of the cemetery to 1964, when the last addition was added to the Mausoleum. It was assigned an NRHP Status Code “3D,” indicating it is a “contributor to a district that has been fully documented according to OHP instructions and appears eligible for listing.” The evaluation does not include a refined discussion on the district boundary and does not include a clear discussion of contributing and non-contributing elements of the district.

The current update was conducted as part of the City of Piedmont’s Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (Blind et al.). Since the property was last evaluated in 2013, there have been no major alterations or changes to suggest that it is no longer eligble for listing in the NRHP. The 2013 evaluation, however, did not correctly apply the NRHP criteria. Specifically, the 2013 evaluation recommends the property eligible under Criterion B for its association with the cemetery’s designer landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead. As provided in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, properties associated with the work of an architect are appropriately eligible under Criterion C.

Instead, Blind et al. recommends that the cemetery district is significant under for the NRHP and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criterion A/1 for its association with the evolving history of cemetery development and other physical development in Oakland, and Criterion C/3 for its picturesque master plan by reputed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted as well as its buildings, structures and objects of high artistic value. Its character-defining features include:
▪ Lower Oakland Hills (below Piedmont) location
▪ 200+ acres in size
▪ Naturalistic manner of design by Frederick Law Olmsted (1864) ▪ Winding roads
▪ Picturesque vistas
▪ Gated entrance
▪ Circular fountain
▪ Office building (1929) by Weeks and Day
▪ Chapel and Crematorium building (1929) by Weeks and Day ▪ Columbarium and Mausoleum (1929)
▪ Newer garden mausoleum with reflecting pool
▪ “Millionaire’s Row” at top of cemetery with 19th century mausoleums ▪ Gravestones
▪ Chapel of the Chimes (1927) by Julia Morgan at 4499 Piedmont Avenue (contributing property) ▪ St. Mary’s Office (1900s) at 4529 Howe Street (contributing property) ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 217
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 2 of 4 ends

*Recorded by: JulieAnn Murphy, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: November 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Furthermore, this update changes the cemetery boundary (Figure 1). The 1998 DPR form included locational data of properties to be included in the district boundary, as outlined in
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 218
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 4 ends

*Recorded by: JulieAnn Murphy, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: November 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Table 1. A review of the current Assessor’s Map for the Mountain View Cemetery property shows that Mountain View Cemetery is comprised of a single, 223-acre parcel (048-7002-003-7). Other parcel numbers also appear to have been updated since that time.

Archival and background research confirmed that neither the historic nor current boundary of the Mountain View Cemetery is within the boundary of the City of Piedmont. Furthermore, pedestrian survey along the boundary of the “Project Location” and “Cemetery Property Boundary”, depicted below, suggests that the landform along this boundary is prohibitively steep for accommodating human internments, and as such would not have been utilized for a cemetery.

Blind, Heather, JulieAnn Murphy, Nichole Jordan, Shannon Carmack, and Debbie Balam 2024. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, Piedmont, Alameda County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 23-14195. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, California.

Figure 1. Mountain View Cemetery Property Boundary
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 219
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 4 of 4 ends

*Recorded by: JulieAnn Murphy, Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Date: November 2024  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Table 1. Mountain View Cemetery Property List
Address Building
Build Date
(estimated) 1998 Parcel Number Current Parcel Number
4529 Howe St. St. Mary’s Office 1900s 048A 7002 001 48A-7002-1 4499 Piedmont Ave. Chapel of Chimes 1927 013 1128 023 013-1128-24 5000 Piedmont Ave. Mountain View Cemetery 1860s 048A 7002 003 048-7002-3-7 5000 Piedmont Ave. Chapel 1920s 048A 7002 003 G 048-7002-3-7 5000 Piedmont Ave. Admin Building 1920s 048A 7002 003 J 048-7002-3-7 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 220
Appendix B
Transportation Analysis Memorandums
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 221
Memorandum
Date:

To:

From:

Updated August 20, 2025
Timothy Haagen, JZMK Partners
Sam Tabibnia
Subject: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan – Transportation Data OK23-0522
This memorandum summarizes the background transportation data and analysis that informs the Circulation and Multi-Modal/Complete Streets Improvements chapter (Chapter 4) of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan.

This document addresses the following topics:

1. Existing traffic counts

2. Collision Data

3. Trip Generation

1. Existing Traffic Counts
Fehr & Peers contracted with a traffic data collection firm that collected the following data:
• Traffic volume, speed, and vehicle classification counts by direction on Moraga Avenue just east of Red Rock Road from Wednesday September 13 through Sunday September 17, 2023, via pneumatic tubes
• Vehicle turning movement counts as well as pedestrian and bicycle counts at the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection on Wednesday September 13, 2023, from 7:00 to 9:30 AM and from 3:30 to 6:30 PM
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 222
Attachment A provides the detailed data collection sheets. Major findings from the collected data are summarized below:
• Moraga Avenue has an average daily traffic volume of about 11,000 vehicles on a weekday
• The 85th percentile speed1 on Moraga Avenue is about 38-39 mph and the median speed is about 35 mph, which are above the posted speed limit of 25 mph • About 7 percent of vehicles travel at a speed of over 40 mph, and less than 1 percent travel above 45 mph
• About 2% of the vehicles on Moraga Avenue are heavy vehicles (trucks and buses) • The weekday morning peak hour (the hour with the highest volume during the morning commute period) on Moraga Avenue is from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM. The total volume is about 1,015 vehicles with 427 eastbound vehicles and 588 westbound vehicles • The evening peak hour (the hour with the highest volume during the evening commute period) on Moraga Avenue is from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The total volume is about 1,169 vehicles with 740 eastbound vehicles and 430 westbound vehicles • The weekday morning peak hour at the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection is from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM and about 8 vehicles use Red Rock Road during the peak hour (4 turning in and 4 turning out)
• The evening peak hour (the hour with the highest volume during the evening commute period) at the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection is from 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM and about 71 vehicles use Red Rock Road during the peak hour (38 turning in and 33 turning out)
• Up to 3 pedestrians per hour were observed crossing Moraga Avenue at Red Rock Road • Up to 5 bicycles per hour were observed using both directions of Moraga Avenue

2. Collision Data
The Piedmont Police Department provided data on reported collisions in the study area from 2019 to 2023. Attachment B provides the summary collision data. Ten collisions were reported during this period along this segment of Moraga Avenue. One collision involved a bicycle, and no collisions involved pedestrians. No collision fatalities were reported during this period. The most common reported causes were “unsafe speed” and “unsafe turn” (4 collisions each). 1 The 85th percentile speed is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of all vehicles are observed to travel on a roadway.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 223

3. Trip Generation
Trip generation is the process of estimating the number of vehicles that would likely access a project on any given day. Table 1 presents the trip generation for the residential component of the project based on the data and methodology published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). The Project is estimated to generate about 910 daily, 74 AM peak hour, and 79 PM peak hour trips.

Table 1: Project Automobile Trip Generation
Land Use Size1 Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Muti-Family Residential2 197 DU 890 73 77
Single-Family Residential3 2 DU 20 1 2
Total Trips 910 74 79
Notes:

1. DU = Dwelling Units.

2. ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) land use category 221 (Multi-Family [Mid-Rise] – Not Close to Rail Transit) in general urban/suburban setting:

Daily: T = 4.54*(X)
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.37*(X)
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.39*(X)

3. ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) land use category 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) in General urban/ suburban setting:

Daily: T = 9.43*(X)
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.70*(X)
PM Peak Hour: T = 0.94*(X)
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Attachments:

A. Traffic Volumes Data
B. Collision Data (2019-2023)
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 224
Appendix A
Traffic Volume Data
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 225
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 - 9/19/2023
Site Code:

EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total 12:00 AM 9 4 13 6 6 12 7 8 15 17 9 26 22 22 44 - - - - - - 8 5 13 1:00 AM 10 2 12 5 1 6 7 2 9 15 11 26 21 17 38 - - - - - - 8 2 9 2:00 AM 1 3 4 1 2 3 3 1 4 10 3 13 4 1 5 - - - - - - 1 3 4 3:00 AM 1 3 4 3 3 6 2 3 5 5 4 9 2 4 6 - - - - - - 2 3 5 4:00 AM 3 1 4 8 1 9 1 2 3 0 2 2 4 3 7 - - - - - - 6 1 7 5:00 AM 24 26 50 17 24 41 20 26 46 7 9 16 6 9 15 - - - - - - 21 25 46 6:00 AM 66 86 152 72 76 148 49 67 116 35 24 59 20 17 37 - - - - - - 69 81 150 7:00 AM 181 252 433 170 254 424 147 244 391 80 65 145 66 51 117 - - - - - - 176 253 429 8:00 AM 429 583 1,012 425 592 1,017 353 491 844 146 180 326 144 123 267 - - - - - - 427 588 1,015 9:00 AM 303 374 677 299 358 657 307 294 601 265 294 559 252 203 455 - - - - - - 301 366 667 10:00 AM 320 303 623 301 280 581 327 292 619 378 374 752 292 263 555 - - - - - - 311 292 602 11:00 AM 325 305 630 363 294 657 351 328 679 406 387 793 316 305 621 - - - - - - 344 300 644 12:00 PM 344 288 632 349 277 626 386 345 731 439 347 786 342 358 700 - - - - - - 347 283 629 1:00 PM 390 372 762 377 334 711 357 370 727 415 396 811 325 360 685 - - - - - - 384 353 737 2:00 PM 459 418 877 383 347 730 449 450 899 376 363 739 339 339 678 - - - - - - 421 383 804 3:00 PM 583 402 985 653 396 1,049 623 409 1,032 392 303 695 343 303 646 - - - - - - 618 399 1,017 4:00 PM 751 430 1,181 692 372 1,064 583 375 958 323 316 639 304 289 593 - - - - - - 722 401 1,123 5:00 PM 734 432 1,166 745 427 1,172 600 402 1,002 343 301 644 294 298 592 - - - - - - 740 430 1,169 6:00 PM 492 323 815 456 332 788 425 346 771 265 234 499 225 231 456 - - - - - - 474 328 802 7:00 PM 238 248 486 240 209 449 264 241 505 197 162 359 179 184 363 - - - - - - 239 229 468 8:00 PM 177 153 330 153 126 279 173 153 326 130 135 265 115 108 223 - - - - - - 165 140 305 9:00 PM 111 84 195 100 68 168 132 100 232 99 105 204 77 81 158 - - - - - - 106 76 182 10:00 PM 43 33 76 34 36 70 81 82 163 60 64 124 31 26 57 - - - - - - 39 35 73 11:00 PM 16 16 32 16 25 41 43 30 73 32 37 69 9 6 15 - - - - - - 16 21 37 Total 6,010 5,141 11,151 5,868 4,840 10,708 5,690 5,061 10,751 4,435 4,125 8,560 3,732 3,601 7,333 - - - - - - 5,939 4,991 10,930 Percent 54% 46% 55% 45% 53% 47% 52% 48% 51% 49% - - - - 54% 46% AM Peak 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 - - - - - - 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 429 583 1,012 425 592 1,017 353 491 844 406 387 793 316 305 621 - - - - - - 427 588 1,015 PM Peak 16:00 17:00 16:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 15:00 14:00 15:00 12:00 13:00 13:00 15:00 13:00 12:00 - - - - - - 17:00 17:00 17:00 Vol. 751 432 1,181 745 427 1,172 623 450 1,032 439 396 811 343 360 700 - - - - - - 740 430 1,169

1. Mid-week average includes data between Tuesday and Thursday. 9/13/2023 9/14/2023 9/15/2023 9/16/2023 9/17/2023 9/18/2023 Time Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Mid-Week Average 9/19/2023
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
Note: Orange highlights indicate the AM and PM peak hours.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 226
Location:

Count Direction:

Date Range:

Site Code:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
132 23,489 1,830 28 237 13 0 3 3 0 0 0 0

0.5% 91.3% 7.1% 0.1% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 244 20,659 1,615 38 196 7 0 5 3 1 0 0 0

1.1% 90.7% 7.1% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 376 44,148 3,445 66 433 20 0 8 6 1 0 0 0

0.8% 91.0% 7.1% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FHWA Vehicle Classification
Class 1 - Motorcycles Class 8 - Four or Fewer Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 2 - Passenger Cars Class 9 - Five-Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 3 - Other Two-Axle, Four-Tire Single Unit Vehicles Class 10 - Six or More Axle Single-Trailer Trucks Class 4 - Buses Class 11 - Five or fewer Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 5 - Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single-Unit Trucks Class 12 - Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 6 - Three-Axle Single-Unit Trucks Class 13 - Seven or More Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks Class 7 - Four or More Axle Single-Unit Trucks
Vehicle Classification Report Summary
01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Eastbound / Westbound
9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Total
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Direction Total
Volume
Eastbound
Westbound
48,503
22,768
25,735
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 227
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
1:00 AM 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 AM 0 18 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
6:00 AM 0 61 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
7:00 AM 1 162 11 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181
8:00 AM 1 378 46 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 429
9:00 AM 0 272 23 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
10:00 AM 1 279 30 1 7 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 320
11:00 AM 2 278 40 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325
12:00 PM 2 304 31 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 344
1:00 PM 3 349 30 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 390
2:00 PM 3 410 39 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 459
3:00 PM 2 504 66 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 583
4:00 PM 4 685 59 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 751
5:00 PM 5 675 49 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 734
6:00 PM 3 469 17 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 492
7:00 PM 1 228 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238
8:00 PM 2 165 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
9:00 PM 1 102 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111
10:00 PM 0 39 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
11:00 PM 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
31 5,417 478 12 67 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0.5% 90.1% 8.0% 0.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Wednesday, September 13, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
Total 6,010
2 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 228
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
1:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2:00 AM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 AM 0 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
6:00 AM 0 70 12 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
7:00 AM 5 201 34 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252
8:00 AM 5 517 53 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 583
9:00 AM 1 321 39 3 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 374
10:00 AM 1 263 31 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
11:00 AM 1 259 40 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305
12:00 PM 3 254 25 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288
1:00 PM 5 334 29 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 372
2:00 PM 2 372 37 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 418
3:00 PM 4 373 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402
4:00 PM 6 396 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430
5:00 PM 5 409 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 432
6:00 PM 6 295 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323
7:00 PM 5 228 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248
8:00 PM 0 143 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153
9:00 PM 1 82 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84
10:00 PM 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
11:00 PM 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
52 4,597 421 18 48 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

1.0% 89.4% 8.2% 0.4% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Wednesday, September 13, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
Total 5,141
3 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 229
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
1:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
5:00 AM 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
6:00 AM 0 63 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
7:00 AM 1 153 13 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170
8:00 AM 1 384 38 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425
9:00 AM 1 267 22 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
10:00 AM 0 263 29 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301
11:00 AM 3 314 34 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 363
12:00 PM 3 309 32 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349
1:00 PM 0 329 35 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 377
2:00 PM 0 336 39 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 383
3:00 PM 2 581 63 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 653
4:00 PM 6 618 62 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 692
5:00 PM 6 700 35 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 745
6:00 PM 5 428 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 456
7:00 PM 2 225 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240
8:00 PM 1 145 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153
9:00 PM 0 96 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
10:00 PM 2 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
11:00 PM 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
33 5,291 458 8 71 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.6% 90.2% 7.8% 0.1% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 5,868
Thursday, September 14, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
4 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 230
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
1:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3:00 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 AM 0 19 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
6:00 AM 0 58 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
7:00 AM 3 217 24 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
8:00 AM 4 538 43 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 592
9:00 AM 1 311 35 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358
10:00 AM 4 228 38 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 280
11:00 AM 2 261 26 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294
12:00 PM 2 245 25 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 277
1:00 PM 4 294 27 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 334
2:00 PM 5 315 22 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347
3:00 PM 1 371 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 396
4:00 PM 8 337 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
5:00 PM 2 404 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427
6:00 PM 1 307 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 332
7:00 PM 4 193 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209
8:00 PM 1 117 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126
9:00 PM 0 61 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68
10:00 PM 0 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
11:00 PM 0 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
42 4,343 380 9 62 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0.9% 89.7% 7.9% 0.2% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 4,840
Thursday, September 14, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
5 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 231
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
1:00 AM 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
2:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 AM 0 18 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
6:00 AM 0 47 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
7:00 AM 0 135 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
8:00 AM 1 310 37 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 353
9:00 AM 2 274 25 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 307
10:00 AM 1 281 38 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 327
11:00 AM 1 303 37 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351
12:00 PM 0 337 43 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 386
1:00 PM 3 322 30 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 357
2:00 PM 0 390 44 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 449
3:00 PM 1 564 51 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 623
4:00 PM 1 537 42 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 583
5:00 PM 3 566 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600
6:00 PM 3 406 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425
7:00 PM 1 254 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 264
8:00 PM 1 163 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173
9:00 PM 0 128 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
10:00 PM 1 75 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81
11:00 PM 0 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
19 5,169 434 6 59 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0.3% 90.8% 7.6% 0.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 5,690
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
Friday, September 15, 2023
6 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 232
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
1:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:00 AM 0 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
6:00 AM 0 49 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67
7:00 AM 6 204 24 1 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 244
8:00 AM 5 439 38 3 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 491
9:00 AM 0 243 44 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294
10:00 AM 3 260 23 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 292
11:00 AM 3 284 34 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 328
12:00 PM 2 313 28 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 345
1:00 PM 5 327 30 1 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 370
2:00 PM 2 401 40 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450
3:00 PM 3 379 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 409
4:00 PM 0 350 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375
5:00 PM 1 384 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402
6:00 PM 4 319 21 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 346
7:00 PM 5 216 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241
8:00 PM 0 149 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153
9:00 PM 2 94 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
10:00 PM 1 76 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82
11:00 PM 0 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
42 4,553 398 8 54 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0

0.8% 90.0% 7.9% 0.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 5,061
Friday, September 15, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
7 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 233
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
1:00 AM 0 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
2:00 AM 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
3:00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6:00 AM 0 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
7:00 AM 2 69 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
8:00 AM 1 136 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146
9:00 AM 2 243 18 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 265
10:00 AM 5 348 23 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 378
11:00 AM 3 367 30 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 406
12:00 PM 0 403 32 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 439
1:00 PM 2 393 17 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 415
2:00 PM 1 349 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 376
3:00 PM 0 370 19 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
4:00 PM 2 299 18 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323
5:00 PM 2 323 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 343
6:00 PM 2 251 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 265
7:00 PM 0 180 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197
8:00 PM 0 127 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130
9:00 PM 0 91 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99
10:00 PM 0 57 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
11:00 PM 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
22 4,117 265 1 27 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0.5% 92.8% 6.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 4,435
Saturday, September 16, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
8 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 234
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
1:00 AM 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
2:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:00 AM 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
6:00 AM 0 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
7:00 AM 2 58 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
8:00 AM 4 147 24 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 180
9:00 AM 7 260 24 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294
10:00 AM 3 351 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 374
11:00 AM 1 350 27 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 387
12:00 PM 6 326 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347
1:00 PM 7 373 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 396
2:00 PM 5 338 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 363
3:00 PM 2 275 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
4:00 PM 3 296 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316
5:00 PM 1 286 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301
6:00 PM 4 216 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234
7:00 PM 0 150 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162
8:00 PM 0 130 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135
9:00 PM 0 97 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105
10:00 PM 0 60 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64
11:00 PM 0 33 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
45 3,803 252 2 22 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

1.1% 92.2% 6.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 4,125
Saturday, September 16, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
9 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 235
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
1:00 AM 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
2:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5:00 AM 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
6:00 AM 0 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
7:00 AM 0 63 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
8:00 AM 1 133 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144
9:00 AM 2 233 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252
10:00 AM 0 280 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 292
11:00 AM 3 300 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316
12:00 PM 6 318 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 342
1:00 PM 3 306 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325
2:00 PM 0 320 17 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 339
3:00 PM 1 325 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 343
4:00 PM 3 276 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 304
5:00 PM 4 275 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294
6:00 PM 1 211 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225
7:00 PM 1 170 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179
8:00 PM 1 103 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115
9:00 PM 1 72 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77
10:00 PM 0 27 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
11:00 PM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
27 3,495 195 1 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.7% 93.6% 5.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 3,732
Sunday, September 17, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
10 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 236
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
1:00 AM 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
2:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 AM 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
6:00 AM 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
7:00 AM 0 50 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
8:00 AM 0 118 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123
9:00 AM 6 188 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 203
10:00 AM 5 244 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 263
11:00 AM 3 280 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305
12:00 PM 11 334 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358
1:00 PM 10 332 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360
2:00 PM 4 321 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 339
3:00 PM 5 289 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
4:00 PM 6 268 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289
5:00 PM 4 278 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298
6:00 PM 7 217 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231
7:00 PM 1 172 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 184
8:00 PM 0 101 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
9:00 PM 0 73 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81
10:00 PM 0 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
11:00 PM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
63 3,363 164 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.7% 93.4% 4.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 3,601
Time
Sunday, September 17, 2023
FHWA Vehicle Classification
11 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 237
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Total Study Average
Eastbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
1:00 AM 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
2:00 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 AM 0 13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
6:00 AM 0 44 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48
7:00 AM 1 116 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128
8:00 AM 1 268 28 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
9:00 AM 1 258 21 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
10:00 AM 1 290 26 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 322
11:00 AM 2 312 30 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350
12:00 PM 2 334 31 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
1:00 PM 2 340 25 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
2:00 PM 1 361 32 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401
3:00 PM 1 469 43 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 519
4:00 PM 3 483 41 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 530
5:00 PM 4 508 30 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 544
6:00 PM 3 353 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
7:00 PM 1 211 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223
8:00 PM 1 141 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150
9:00 PM 0 98 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103
10:00 PM 1 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
11:00 PM 0 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
25 4,697 364 4 47 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.5% 91.4% 7.1% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data.

Total 5,139
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
12 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 238
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Total Study Average
Westbound
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Volume
12:00 AM 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
1:00 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
2:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:00 AM 0 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
6:00 AM 0 43 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
7:00 AM 3 146 17 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172
8:00 AM 4 352 33 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 394
9:00 AM 3 265 30 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305
10:00 AM 3 269 25 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302
11:00 AM 2 287 30 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 324
12:00 PM 5 294 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 322
1:00 PM 6 332 24 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 366
2:00 PM 4 349 26 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 383
3:00 PM 3 337 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 363
4:00 PM 5 329 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 356
5:00 PM 3 352 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
6:00 PM 4 271 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 293
7:00 PM 3 192 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209
8:00 PM 0 128 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134
9:00 PM 1 81 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87
10:00 PM 0 45 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
11:00 PM 0 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
49 4,130 321 6 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.1% 90.8% 7.1% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data.

Total 4,546
FHWA Vehicle Classification
Time
13 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 239
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Direction: Eastbound / Westbound
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + 38 41 85 486 2,955 10,299 9,376 2,153 255 39 7 1 0 0 0 0 0

0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 1.9% 11.5% 40.0% 36.4% 8.4% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5 40 57 347 2,890 10,578 7,740 1,017 82 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 1.5% 12.7% 46.5% 34.0% 4.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43 81 142 833 5,845 20,877 17,116 3,170 337 49 9 1 0 0 0 0 0

0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 1.7% 12.1% 43.0% 35.3% 6.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 34.5 mph

38.8 mph 10 mph Pace 29.8 - 39.8 mph

41.6 mph Percent in Pace 76.5 %
50th Percentile (Median) 34.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 33.8 mph

37.6 mph 10 mph Pace 29.2 - 39.2 mph

39.9 mph Percent in Pace 81.8 %
Vehicle Speed Report Summary
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics 85th Percentile
48,503
22,768
25,735
Westbound Westbound
Eastbound Eastbound
Total
Westbound
Eastbound
Total
Volume Direction
Speed Range (mph)
95th Percentile
85th Percentile
95th Percentile
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 240
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 9 7 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
6:00 AM 0 0 1 2 7 12 31 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
7:00 AM 0 0 0 4 17 54 89 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181
8:00 AM 0 1 0 7 52 177 161 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 429
9:00 AM 0 0 1 9 35 112 108 34 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
10:00 AM 1 0 0 5 35 124 131 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320
11:00 AM 0 0 2 0 43 128 119 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325
12:00 PM 1 2 0 2 28 125 150 33 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 344
1:00 PM 0 2 0 11 43 167 139 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 390
2:00 PM 1 0 3 0 51 197 172 31 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 459
3:00 PM 0 0 0 10 79 256 198 38 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 583
4:00 PM 2 2 3 20 70 336 278 37 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 751
5:00 PM 1 3 1 14 111 350 215 35 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 734
6:00 PM 1 0 1 4 65 210 172 35 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 492
7:00 PM 0 0 1 1 22 92 100 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238
8:00 PM 0 1 0 1 19 67 69 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 17 34 35 17 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 111
10:00 PM 0 0 0 4 4 15 14 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
7 11 13 95 706 2,479 2,202 438 53 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1.6% 11.7% 41.2% 36.6% 7.3% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 34.4 mph 85th Percentile 38.5 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 41.2 mph Percent in Pace 78.6 %
Total

29.3 - 39.3
Time
6,010
Wednesday, September 13, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics
2 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 241
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 3 10 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
6:00 AM 0 2 0 0 5 32 38 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
7:00 AM 0 0 0 3 33 115 86 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252
8:00 AM 3 4 9 16 62 292 182 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 583
9:00 AM 0 0 0 3 34 180 143 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 374
10:00 AM 0 0 1 6 35 137 112 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
11:00 AM 0 1 0 4 28 140 114 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305
12:00 PM 1 2 0 2 43 116 106 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288
1:00 PM 0 0 0 4 42 168 136 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
2:00 PM 0 2 2 2 48 185 148 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 418
3:00 PM 0 1 0 2 36 191 153 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402
4:00 PM 0 0 0 3 42 238 136 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430
5:00 PM 0 0 0 10 40 230 140 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 432
6:00 PM 0 0 0 5 24 144 130 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323
7:00 PM 0 0 0 5 25 146 63 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248
8:00 PM 0 0 0 2 23 78 43 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153
9:00 PM 0 0 2 2 13 49 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84
10:00 PM 0 0 0 4 4 15 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
4 12 14 74 545 2,481 1,768 228 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 1.4% 10.6% 48.3% 34.4% 4.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.1 mph Mean (Average) Speed 33.9 mph 85th Percentile 37.6 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 39.9 mph Percent in Pace 83.25 %
Total 5,141
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

29.5 - 39.5
Wednesday, September 13, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Time
3 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 242
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
5:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
6:00 AM 0 0 2 5 5 22 24 11 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72
7:00 AM 0 0 0 2 15 38 80 29 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170
8:00 AM 0 0 2 6 47 170 159 38 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425
9:00 AM 0 0 1 8 26 125 108 28 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299
10:00 AM 0 0 0 2 24 113 130 30 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301
11:00 AM 2 0 0 10 42 129 144 30 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 363
12:00 PM 0 2 0 3 48 181 89 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349
1:00 PM 3 0 7 4 38 174 123 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 377
2:00 PM 0 0 0 8 23 156 149 44 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 383
3:00 PM 2 0 0 16 88 257 249 36 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 653
4:00 PM 1 1 1 7 82 285 263 50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 692
5:00 PM 4 0 0 2 61 321 303 51 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 745
6:00 PM 0 0 0 3 24 150 192 80 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 456
7:00 PM 0 1 1 7 21 68 96 38 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240
8:00 PM 0 1 1 1 14 63 61 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153
9:00 PM 0 0 0 2 13 37 36 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
10:00 PM 0 1 0 0 3 16 10 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
11:00 PM 0 0 1 0 2 5 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
12 7 17 90 579 2,325 2,232 547 48 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 1.5% 9.9% 39.6% 38.0% 9.3% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.8 mph Mean (Average) Speed 34.7 mph 85th Percentile 39.0 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 41.5 mph Percent in Pace 77.7 %
Time
Total 5,868
Thursday, September 14, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

29.9 - 39.9
4 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 243
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 4 6 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
6:00 AM 0 2 0 1 11 34 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
7:00 AM 0 0 0 5 34 98 98 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
8:00 AM 0 0 0 5 58 300 204 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 592
9:00 AM 0 0 0 2 54 192 99 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358
10:00 AM 0 0 0 1 47 140 80 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 280
11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 40 118 112 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294
12:00 PM 0 0 0 3 34 121 102 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
1:00 PM 0 0 1 8 41 159 109 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 334
2:00 PM 0 0 0 5 32 168 128 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347
3:00 PM 0 0 1 5 51 164 148 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 396
4:00 PM 0 0 0 3 24 161 156 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 37 183 191 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 427
6:00 PM 0 0 0 2 42 161 108 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 332
7:00 PM 0 1 3 1 22 95 75 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209
8:00 PM 0 0 3 0 26 64 29 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126
9:00 PM 0 1 3 4 9 21 23 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68
10:00 PM 0 0 0 1 4 19 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
11:00 PM 0 0 1 0 3 11 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
0 4 12 49 575 2,222 1,716 240 20 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 1.0% 11.9% 45.9% 35.5% 5.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.2 mph Mean (Average) Speed 34.1 mph 85th Percentile 37.9 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 40.2 mph Percent in Pace 82.02 %
Time
Total 4,840
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

29.2 - 39.2
Thursday, September 14, 2023
5 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 244
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 5 9 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
6:00 AM 0 0 0 3 1 16 18 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
7:00 AM 0 0 2 4 13 39 60 24 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
8:00 AM 0 1 2 2 33 138 137 34 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 353
9:00 AM 0 2 0 5 30 117 124 24 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 307
10:00 AM 0 1 0 7 38 127 122 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 327
11:00 AM 0 0 5 5 33 131 139 34 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 351
12:00 PM 0 0 0 10 29 139 167 34 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 386
1:00 PM 1 0 1 4 52 134 122 37 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 357
2:00 PM 0 0 1 3 47 196 170 27 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 449
3:00 PM 0 0 0 5 67 281 232 34 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 623
4:00 PM 0 0 0 7 53 248 219 49 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 583
5:00 PM 2 0 1 6 48 268 235 32 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 600
6:00 PM 0 0 3 15 55 165 139 43 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 425
7:00 PM 0 0 1 7 35 125 76 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 264
8:00 PM 0 0 1 2 28 79 48 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 16 61 42 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
10:00 PM 0 0 0 2 10 31 29 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 81
11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 15 17 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
3 4 17 90 591 2,318 2,115 466 72 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 1.6% 10.4% 40.7% 37.2% 8.2% 1.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.7 mph Mean (Average) Speed 34.6 mph 85th Percentile 38.8 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 41.7 mph Percent in Pace 77.8 %
Total 5,690
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

29.9 - 39.9
Friday, September 15, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Time
6 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 245
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 10 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
6:00 AM 0 0 0 1 9 28 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67
7:00 AM 0 4 4 6 24 101 91 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244
8:00 AM 0 1 2 4 58 219 184 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 491
9:00 AM 0 0 0 1 40 140 99 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294
10:00 AM 0 0 1 3 46 128 94 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 292
11:00 AM 0 1 0 10 47 144 106 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 328
12:00 PM 0 0 2 10 37 150 137 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 345
1:00 PM 0 1 1 18 57 166 114 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 370
2:00 PM 0 0 0 4 56 192 179 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450
3:00 PM 0 0 0 2 38 174 180 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 409
4:00 PM 0 0 0 3 56 187 108 17 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375
5:00 PM 0 0 1 2 32 207 146 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402
6:00 PM 0 0 0 5 50 183 95 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346
7:00 PM 0 0 0 1 38 119 74 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241
8:00 PM 1 1 1 1 29 63 50 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153
9:00 PM 0 0 0 1 16 58 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
10:00 PM 0 0 0 1 11 50 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82
11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 3 14 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
1 8 12 75 655 2,335 1,749 215 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 1.5% 12.9% 46.1% 34.6% 4.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.1 mph Mean (Average) Speed 33.8 mph 85th Percentile 37.5 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 39.7 mph Percent in Pace 83.58 %
Time
Total 5,061

28.9 - 38.9
Friday, September 15, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics
7 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 246
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 5 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
6:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 9 17 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
7:00 AM 1 1 0 2 14 16 25 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
8:00 AM 0 1 0 2 17 56 49 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146
9:00 AM 1 0 0 5 41 100 90 27 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 265
10:00 AM 0 2 2 14 46 149 129 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 378
11:00 AM 1 0 5 8 25 143 171 50 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 406
12:00 PM 0 4 7 19 68 171 139 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 439
1:00 PM 2 0 2 13 73 185 111 22 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 415
2:00 PM 2 1 1 4 69 167 98 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 376
3:00 PM 0 0 1 12 53 150 147 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
4:00 PM 0 1 3 10 33 114 136 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323
5:00 PM 0 2 0 4 42 128 138 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 343
6:00 PM 0 0 0 5 31 86 117 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 265
7:00 PM 0 0 0 4 24 76 71 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 14 48 54 12 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 130
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 13 42 34 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99
10:00 PM 0 0 1 1 12 26 14 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
11:00 PM 0 0 0 2 5 11 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
7 12 22 107 593 1,690 1,571 388 38 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 2.4% 13.4% 38.1% 35.4% 8.7% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.4 mph Mean (Average) Speed 34.3 mph 85th Percentile 38.9 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 41.7 mph Percent in Pace 73.5 %
Time
Total 4,435
Saturday, September 16, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

29.8 - 39.8
8 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 247
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
3:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 4 12 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 5 27 21 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 37 77 56 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180
9:00 AM 0 1 1 4 51 134 84 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294
10:00 AM 0 0 0 5 34 189 127 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 374
11:00 AM 0 1 0 5 46 199 121 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 387
12:00 PM 0 3 4 8 71 149 101 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347
1:00 PM 0 1 1 12 74 188 107 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 396
2:00 PM 0 1 0 9 53 158 124 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 363
3:00 PM 0 0 0 3 32 135 114 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
4:00 PM 0 0 0 9 30 149 118 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316
5:00 PM 0 0 0 3 31 157 98 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301
6:00 PM 0 2 0 4 30 97 86 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 234
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 26 80 50 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162
8:00 PM 0 0 2 1 28 72 24 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135
9:00 PM 0 0 0 1 18 46 37 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105
10:00 PM 0 0 0 1 7 37 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 16 12 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
0 9 8 70 584 1,936 1,317 176 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 1.7% 14.2% 46.9% 31.9% 4.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 33.7 mph Mean (Average) Speed 33.6 mph 85th Percentile 37.5 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 39.9 mph Percent in Pace 81.12 %
4,125
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

28.9 - 38.9
Total
Time
Saturday, September 16, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
9 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 248
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 9 6 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 4 5 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 14 29 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66
8:00 AM 1 0 1 1 19 54 51 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144
9:00 AM 1 0 0 8 22 110 87 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 18 107 124 35 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 292
11:00 AM 0 0 0 3 44 107 129 30 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 316
12:00 PM 2 0 0 5 41 134 132 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 342
1:00 PM 2 2 6 11 42 144 94 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325
2:00 PM 0 1 5 23 61 138 94 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 339
3:00 PM 1 0 1 18 69 159 84 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 343
4:00 PM 1 2 2 16 46 127 91 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 304
5:00 PM 0 1 0 4 29 116 96 37 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294
6:00 PM 0 0 1 8 25 76 83 28 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225
7:00 PM 0 1 0 2 21 82 59 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179
8:00 PM 0 0 0 2 15 43 45 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115
9:00 PM 0 0 0 3 13 32 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77
10:00 PM 1 0 0 0 3 11 10 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
9 7 16 104 486 1,487 1,256 314 44 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 2.8% 13.0% 39.8% 33.7% 8.4% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 34.3 mph Mean (Average) Speed 34.2 mph 85th Percentile 38.8 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 41.8 mph Percent in Pace 73.9 %
Time
Total 3,732
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

29.2 - 39.2
Sunday, September 17, 2023
10 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 249
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 1 0 0 4 9 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 4 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 6 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 21 19 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
8:00 AM 0 1 0 6 17 50 38 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123
9:00 AM 0 0 1 2 35 88 68 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 203
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0 35 91 123 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 263
11:00 AM 0 2 0 3 46 133 107 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305
12:00 PM 0 0 0 1 39 174 121 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358
1:00 PM 0 0 7 16 61 153 108 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360
2:00 PM 0 1 0 20 76 145 92 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 339
3:00 PM 0 2 0 9 47 147 86 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303
4:00 PM 0 0 3 10 53 137 75 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289
5:00 PM 0 0 0 3 25 129 127 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 15 102 93 17 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231
7:00 PM 0 0 0 5 14 113 45 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 184
8:00 PM 0 0 0 3 27 42 33 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
9:00 PM 0 0 0 1 20 32 25 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81
10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4 14 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
0 7 11 79 531 1,604 1,190 158 19 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 2.2% 14.7% 44.5% 33.0% 4.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile (Median) 33.9 mph Mean (Average) Speed 33.6 mph 85th Percentile 37.5 mph 10 mph Pace mph
95th Percentile 40.0 mph Percent in Pace 79.09 %
Time
Total 3,601
Sunday, September 17, 2023
Speed Range (mph)
Daily Percentile Speed Summary Speed Statistics

29.2 - 39.2
11 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 250
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Eastbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
6:00 AM 0 0 1 2 4 13 19 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
7:00 AM 0 0 0 2 12 32 57 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127
8:00 AM 0 1 1 4 34 119 111 27 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300
9:00 AM 0 0 0 7 31 113 103 27 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 284
10:00 AM 0 1 0 6 32 124 127 30 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 324
11:00 AM 1 0 2 5 37 128 140 35 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 352
12:00 PM 1 2 1 8 43 150 135 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
1:00 PM 2 1 3 9 50 161 118 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 374
2:00 PM 1 0 2 8 50 171 137 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401
3:00 PM 1 0 0 12 71 221 182 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 519
4:00 PM 1 1 2 12 57 222 197 36 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 530
5:00 PM 1 1 0 6 58 237 197 37 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 543
6:00 PM 0 0 1 7 40 137 141 42 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
7:00 PM 0 0 1 4 25 89 80 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223
8:00 PM 0 0 0 1 18 60 55 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148
9:00 PM 0 0 0 1 14 41 33 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103
10:00 PM 0 0 0 1 6 20 15 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48
11:00 PM 0 0 0 1 2 9 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
8 7 14 98 590 2,062 1,873 432 49 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 1.9% 11.5% 40.1% 36.4% 8.4% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 34.6 mph Mean (Average) Speed 34.5 mph 85th Percentile 38.8 mph 10 mph Pace 29.8 - 39.8 mph
95th Percentile 41.6 mph Percent in Pace 76.5 %
Time
Total 5,139
Speed Range (mph)
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Total Study Average
12 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 251
Location: 01 - Moraga Ave, S/O Redd Rock Rd
Date Range: 9/13/2023 to 9/17/2023
Site Code:

Westbound
Total
0 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 35 35 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 50 50 - 55 55 - 60 60 - 65 65 - 70 70 - 75 75 - 80 80 - 85 85 + Volume 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
1:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
2:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:00 AM 0 0 0 1 2 6 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
6:00 AM 0 1 0 0 6 22 20 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53
7:00 AM 0 1 1 3 20 72 63 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173
8:00 AM 1 1 2 6 46 188 133 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 394
9:00 AM 0 0 0 2 43 147 99 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 304
10:00 AM 0 0 0 3 39 137 107 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301
11:00 AM 0 1 0 4 41 147 112 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323
12:00 PM 0 1 1 5 45 142 113 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 322
1:00 PM 0 0 2 12 55 167 115 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 367
2:00 PM 0 1 0 8 53 170 134 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 383
3:00 PM 0 1 0 4 41 162 136 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362
4:00 PM 0 0 1 6 41 174 119 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 357
5:00 PM 0 0 0 4 33 181 140 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372
6:00 PM 0 0 0 3 32 137 102 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 292
7:00 PM 0 0 1 2 25 111 61 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209
8:00 PM 0 0 1 1 27 64 36 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134
9:00 PM 0 0 1 2 15 41 24 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87
10:00 PM 0 0 0 1 6 27 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 10 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
1 7 10 67 577 2,116 1,547 203 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 1.5% 12.7% 46.6% 34.1% 4.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: Average only condsidered on days with 24-hours of data. 50th Percentile (Median) 34.0 mph Mean (Average) Speed 33.8 mph 85th Percentile 37.6 mph 10 mph Pace 29.2 - 39.2 mph
95th Percentile 39.9 mph Percent in Pace 81.8 %
4,543
Total Study Average
Speed Range (mph)
Total Study Percentile Speed Summary Total Study Speed Statistics Time
Total
13 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 252
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-and-a-Half-Hour Count Summaries
Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Total
0 4
2 0
6 WB 1.2% 0.96
NB - -
Peak Hour: 8:00 AM 9:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 1.4% 0.78
Date: 09/13/2023
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:30 AM
SB 25.0% 0.25
TOTAL 1.4% 0.89
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT
0 151 0
0 0 0 0 4
0 Interval
Start
Moraga Ave Moraga Ave N/A Red Rock Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 142 1 0 0 0

UT LT TH
0 RT
8:00 AM 0 0 87 0 0

TH RT UT LT TH RT
0 0 270 0
LT
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:15 AM 2 1 116 0 0
234
0 138 0
8:30 AM 1 0 138 0 0 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287
0 0 226 1,017
Peak
Hour
All 3 3 427 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 14 0
HV% 0% 0% 1% -
8:45 AM 0 2 86 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1,017 0
HV 0 0 6 0 0 0 7
0 0 579 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
1% 0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)

EB WB NB SB
- - 1% 0% - - - - - - - 25%
0 0 0
8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 1 0
East West North South
8:00 AM 2 1 0 1 4
Total EB WB NB SB Total
0 8:45 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 2
1 2
8:30 AM 3 3 0 0 6 1 0
1 0 0 1 1 0
Peak Hour 6 7 0 1 14 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
3 2
0 1
N
Red Rock Rd
Moraga Ave
Moraga Ave
Red Rock Rd
Moraga Ave
TEV: 1,017
PHF: 0.89
40 4
4 0
1 579 580
427
0 427
3 433
586
3 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 253
www.idaxdata.com
Two-and-a-Half-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-and-a-half-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 2
1 0
0 4
2 0
0 0
9 6

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Moraga Ave Moraga Ave N/A Red Rock Rd
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 48 3 0 0
0 0 0 71 0
7:15 AM 0 1 39 0
7:00 AM 0 1 33 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 123 0
7:45 AM 1 1 65 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
93 0
7:30 AM 0 2 39 0 0 0 79
0 0 0 0 0 2
165 452
8:00 AM 0 0 87 0 0 0 142
0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 151 0 0 0
0 0 4 234 615
8:15 AM 2 1 116 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 287 956
8:45 AM 0 2 86 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
270 792
8:30 AM 1 0 138 0 0 0 148
0 0 0 0 0 0
226 1,017
9:00 AM 0 2 90 0 0 0 122
0 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 94 0 0 0
0 0 0 214 997
9:15 AM 1 3 67 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 4 169 896
Count Total 5 13 760 0 0 0 1,054 2 0 13 1,852 0
Peak
Hour
All 3 3 427
5 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0
4 1,017 0
HV 0 0 6 0 0 0
0 0 0 579 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 0% 1% - - - 1% 0% - - - - - - - 25% 1%
0 0
7:15 AM 1 2 0 0 3 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 0 2 0 0 2 1
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 1 1 0 1 3
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 7:30 AM 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 1
0 0
8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 2 1 0 1 4 0
1 1 0 0 2 0
8:45 AM 0 3 0 0 3
0 1 0 0 2 0
2 8:30 AM 3 3 0 0 6 1 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 1
0 0
9:15 AM 1 3 0 0 4 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
9:00 AM 1 6 0 0 7 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 2
Peak Hr 6 7 0 1 14 1 2
Count Total 12 22 0 2 36 3 4 0 0 7 2 0
0 0 3 1 0 3 2
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 254
www.idaxdata.com
Two-and-a-Half-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-and-a-Half-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Moraga Ave Moraga Ave N/A Red Rock Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 2 0
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

UT LT TH RT UT LT
3 0
7:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 3 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 4 13
8:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 11
8:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1
1 11
8:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 14
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 7 17
9:15 AM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 14
9:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 20
0 0 2 36 0
Peak Hour 0 0 6 0
Count Total 0 1 11 0 0 0 21 1 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
14 0
Interval
Start
Moraga Ave Moraga Ave N/A Red Rock Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 1 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 4
4 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
1 5
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 4
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
3 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Count Total 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
Peak Hour 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 255
www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Total
5 0
4 4
13 WB 0.0% 0.91
NB - -
Peak Hour: 4:45 PM 5:45 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 0.3% 0.94
Date: 09/13/2023
Peak Hour Count Period: 3:30 PM 6:30 PM
SB 0.0% 0.31
TOTAL 0.2% 0.91
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT
0 108 1
0 0 0 0 1
0 Interval
Start
Moraga Ave Moraga Ave N/A Red Rock Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
0 95 1 0 0 0

UT LT TH
0 RT
4:45 PM 0 4 188 0 0

TH RT UT LT TH RT
0 2 295 0
LT
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 5:00 PM 0 2 181 0 0
289
0 104 2
5:15 PM 0 17 191 0 0 0 114 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 327
0 20 345 1,256
Peak
Hour
All 1 31 763 0
0 0 0 0 0 7
0 0 0 2 0
HV% 0% 0% 0% -
5:30 PM 1 8 203 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1,256 0
HV 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 421 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 24
0% 0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)

EB WB NB SB
- - 0% 0% - - - - - 0% - 0%
0 3 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 0 4 2
East West North South
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Total EB WB NB SB Total
0 5:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 3
0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
Peak Hour 2 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 5 3 0 10 0
0 0 0 0 4 0
2 0
0 0
0 3
10 0
0 3
N
Red Rock Rd
Moraga Ave
Moraga Ave
Red Rock Rd
Moraga Ave
TEV: 1,256
PHF: 0.91
249 33
38 0
7 421 428
772
0 763
31 795
446
1 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 256
www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Three-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
2 0
0 4
1 5
0 4
4 0
0 3
23 13

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Moraga Ave Moraga Ave N/A Red Rock Rd
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
1 0 90 1 0 0
2 0 9 265 0
3:45 PM 1 3 166 0
3:30 PM 1 0 148 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 318 0
4:15 PM 0 0 175 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
263 0
4:00 PM 0 2 180 0 1 0 134
0 0 0 0 0 1
285 1,131
4:30 PM 0 2 194 0 0 0 87
1 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 95 1 0 0
2 0 1 287 1,153
4:45 PM 0 4 188 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 295 1,156
5:15 PM 0 17 191 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
289 1,179
5:00 PM 0 2 181 0 0 0 108
0 0 0 0 0 1
327 1,198
5:30 PM 1 8 203 0 0 0 104
0 0 114 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 98 2 0 0
7 0 20 345 1,256
5:45 PM 0 2 146 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 255 1,185
6:15 PM 0 1 153 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
258 1,225
6:00 PM 1 0 157 0 0 0 97
0 0 0 3 0 7
0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 253 1,111
Count Total 4 41 2,082 0 3 0 1,239 16 0 44 3,440 0
Peak
Hour
All 1 31 763
11 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
24 1,256 0
HV 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 421 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% 0% 0% 0% - - - 0% 0% - - - - - 0% - 0% 0%
1 0
3:45 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0
1 0 0 1 1 0
West North South
3:30 PM 1 1 0 0 2 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0 0
0 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0
4:30 PM 3 1 0 0 4 0
1 1 0 0 2 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 4 2 0 3
4 0
5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 2 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 0
5:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 0 0 0 0
0 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0
0 0 7 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0
17 0
Peak Hr 2 0 0 0 2 2 3
Count Total 10 2 0 0 12 10 13 0 0 23 6 0
0 0 5 3 0 10 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 257
www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Moraga Ave Moraga Ave N/A Red Rock Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 2 0
3:45 PM 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TH RT
3:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

UT LT TH RT UT LT
2 0
4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 7
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5
4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 2
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4
5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 12 0
Peak Hour 0 0 2 0
Count Total 0 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
2 0
Interval
Start
Moraga Ave Moraga Ave N/A Red Rock Rd
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0
2 0
4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 2 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 4
5 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
1 7
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4 8
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 5
5 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 12
6:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7 8
6:00 PM 0 4 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 13
Count Total 0 10 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0
Peak Hour 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 258
Appendix B
Collision Data (2019-2023)
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 259
Case number Location Vehicle vs? Injury Hit/run Noninj Date Day Time Cause Officer 2023-06863 Moraga Ave / Maxwelton
Road Veh 1 7/26/2023 Wed 9:34 Unsafe speed T. Petit
2022-04541 Moraga Ave / Pala Ave Object 1 6/5/2022 Sun 5:40 Unsafe Speed J. Faucher
2021-02280 Moraga Ave / Pala Ave Fixed object
(FO) 1 3/28/2021 Su 1:00 Unsafe turn J. Singh
2020-7058 Moraga Ave/ Maxwelton
Ave FO 1 9/13/2020 Sun 15:56 Unsafe turn Cutler
2020-4353 Moraga Ave/ Red Rock
Ave Bike 1 4/28/2020 Tues 12:30 Conflicting Singh
2020-0451 Moraga Ave/ Maxwelton
Road FO 1 1/14/2020 Tues 7:42 Unsafe turn Germano
2019-11554 Moraga Ave/ Maxwelton
Ave Animal 1 10/15/2019 Fri 0:00 N/A Petit
2019-12108 Moraga Ave/ Maxwelton
Ave V 1 10/28/2019 Mon 15:40 Unsafe turn Wright
2019-6208 Maraga Ave/Maxwelton
Ave PV 1 6/10/2019 Mon 10:47 Unsafe speed Seumalo
2019-1616 941 Moraga
Ave FO 1 2/13/2019 Weds 4:26 Unsafe speed Petit
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 260
Memorandum
Date:

To:

From:

Updated August 20, 2024
Andrew Watkins, JZMK Partners
Sam Tabibnia, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan – Sight Distance along Moraga Avenue OK23-0452
Section 4.17 of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) outlines various requirements, including sight distance requirements, such as placement of new driveways along Moraga Avenue that would serve the new developments envisioned by the MCSP. This memorandum provides more detail on the sight distance requirements.

The Highway Design Manual, Seventh Edition (HDM),
1 published by the California Department of
Transportation, establishes roadway design parameters, including minimum sight distance requirements, for various roadway facilities. According to the HDM (Section 405.1), the appropriate sight distance applicable to driveways on an arterial roadway, such as Moraga Avenue, is stopping sight distance (SSD), which is defined as the distance required by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to bring the vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible and in advance of reaching the object. SSD includes the distance traveled during the driver's reaction time (the time between when the driver sees an object on the roadway and applies the brakes) and the distance required to stop the vehicle after braking. SSD is primarily calculated using the roadway operating speed.

According to the HDM (Section 62.8), the 85th percentile speed is used most frequently to measure the operating speed on a particular roadway. The 85th percentile speed is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of all vehicles are observed to travel on a roadway. Based on data collected in September 2023 on Moraga Avenue, just east of Red Rock Road, the 85th percentile speed is about 38 mph on eastbound Morage Avenue and 38 mph on westbound Morage Avenue. The 85th percentile speeds in both directions of Moraga Avenue are above the posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to the HDM (Table 201.1), the minimum required SSD for vehicles for a design speed of 40 mph (rounding up the measured 85th percentile speed of 38-39 mph) is 300 feet.
1 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 261
HDM Section 201.3 requires increasing the SSD by 20 percent for roadway segments with sustained downhill slope of 5 percent or more over one mile long. Thus, the SSD for the downhill (westbound) Moraga Avenue is 360 feet, compared to 300 feet for the uphill (eastbound) direction.

Figure 4.37 in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan document (also shown below) illustrates the locations along Moraga Avenue where a new driveway could meet the minimum sight distance requirements discussed above.

The sight distance will depend on the exact location and orientation of the driveway and the final configuration of Moraga Avenue, including type and location of landscaping and on-street loading. The number and location of the driveways will be determined as part of the final project design for each particular development. Final project designs will include calculation of sight distance for each new driveway to ensure that each new driveway provides at least the minimum required sight distance.
www.fehrandpeers.com
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 262
Proposed Signal at the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road Intersection Section 4.9 of the MCSP recommends installation of a traffic signal at the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection to improve pedestrian connectivity between Blair Park and Coaches Field and facilitate vehicular turning to and from Red Rock Road.

The SSD requirements described above are also applicable at signalized intersections, where signal heads (i.e., the red, yellow, and green indicators) would need to meet the same SSD requirements. Based on field measurements conducted by Fehr & Peers staff in 2024 on Moraga Avenue, the signal heads for the proposed signal at Red Rock Road would have a sight distance of 320 feet for the uphill (eastbound) direction, which would meet the minimum SSD of 300 feet for the uphill (eastbound) and a sight distance of 390 feet for downhill (westbound) direction, which would meet the minimum SSD of 360 feet for the downhill direction. The final signal design process will confirm these sightlines based on the final location of the signal poles and the final roadway configuration.

ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 263
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan – Sight Distance for New Driveway August 20, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

Piedmont City CouncilOctober 6, 2025

Piedmont City Council
October 6, 2025