ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 430
400-52 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
v. A landscape buffer/strip, detectable by cane and under foot, between the sidewalk and the back of curb for the circular roadway of the roundabout should be a minimum of 2 feet wide, 3 feet is preferred. For more information see NCHRP Report 834, entitled “Crossing Solutions at Roundabout and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities.” See Figure 405.10C.
Figure 405.10C
Typical Cross Section of Buffer Between Sidewalk and Roundabout (b) Bicyclist Use. Bicyclists may choose to travel in the circular roadway of a roundabout by taking a lane, while others may decide to travel using the sidewalk to bypass the circular roadway. Therefore, the approach and circular roadways, as well as the sidewalk, need to be designed for the mobility needs of bicyclists.
i. General. Bicycle ramps at roundabouts have the potential to be confused as pedestrian ramps, particularly for pedestrians who are visually impaired. The detectable warning surface (truncated domes) are not to be used on bike ramps. ii. Bicyclist Use of the Circular Roadway. A bicyclist approaching from the roadway shoulder needs to be provided a choice of merging left into the lane to traverse the roundabout in the circulating lane with the vehicles or using the bicycle ramp to use the sidewalk. Single lane roundabouts tend to be comfortable for most bicyclists to travel through. Even, multilane roundabouts, that require bicyclists to change lanes at the entry to the circular roadway to select the appropriate lane for their direction of travel, appear to be comfortable for bicyclists who prefer to travel in the traveled way. iii. Bicyclists Use of the Sidewalk. At roundabouts, bicyclists may ride around the roundabout using the sidewalk along with the pedestrians. This multi-modal situation introduces additional design considerations. The sidewalk is to be designed using the guidance in NCHRP Report 672 Section 6.8.2.2, the accessibility guidance in DIB 82, and the following:
• To accommodate mounted cyclists and pedestrians, a sidewalk should be included and have a minimum paved width of 8 feet, 10 feet is preferred. • A minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance from the outside paved edge of the sidewalk to obstructions should be provided, 3 feet is preferred. Although not considered a shoulder, the surface should be flush with the edge of the sidewalk to allow bicyclists to recover. The surface material only needs to support the sidewalk pavement and minimize edge drop-off.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 431
Highway Design Manual 400-53
May 20, 2022
• Bicycle ramps are to be located to avoid being confused with curb ramps for pedestrians.
• The design details of the bicycle ramp are also important to the bicyclist. Bicycle ramps should be placed at a 35 to 45 degree angle to the departure roadway to enable the bicyclists to use the ramp while discouraging bicyclists from entering the sidewalk at a high speed.
• If there is a difference in the standards, the accessibility guidance in DIB 82 is to be followed to ensure the facility is accessible to pedestrians with disabilities. (8) Transit Use. Transit vehicles and buses will not have difficulty negotiating a roundabout when it has been designed using the California Legal design vehicle or the STAA design vehicle. However, to minimize passenger discomfort, a roundabout should be designed such that the transit vehicle or bus does not use the truck apron. (9) Stopping Sight Distance and Visibility. See NCHRP Report 672 Section 6.7.3 for stopping sight distance guidance at roundabouts.
A domed or mounded central island, between 3.5 to 6 feet high, is needed to focus attention on the approach and through roundabout alignment. A domed central island provides a visual screen to the downstream alignment and other distractions, and provides a visual cue for vehicles approaching the roundabout.
In high speed environments, additional lighting of, and vertical elements in the central island (i.e., landscaping and aesthetic features) may be needed. (10)Speed Consistency. Consistency in operating speeds between the various movements within the roundabout can minimize collisions between traffic streams. The operating speeds between competing traffic streams and between consecutive geometric elements should be minimized such that the maximum speed differential between them is no more than 10 miles per hour.
(11)Path Alignment (Natural Path). As two traffic streams approach a multilane entry roundabout in adjacent lanes, drivers and bicyclists will be guided by lane markings up to the entrance line. At the yield point, they will continue along their natural trajectory into the circulatory roadway. The speed and orientation of the vehicle at the entrance line determines what can be described as its natural path. The geometry of the exits also affects the natural path that the vehicle travels. The natural path of two adjacent entering vehicles are not to overlap, see NCHRP Report 672, Section 6.7.2. (12)Splitter Islands. Splitter islands (also called separator islands, divisional islands, or median islands) will be provided on all roundabouts. The purpose is to provide refuge for pedestrians, assist in controlling speeds, guide traffic into the roundabout, physically separate entering and exiting traffic streams, and deter wrong-way movements.
The total length of the raised island should be at least 50 feet although 100 feet is desirable.
Additionally, the splitter island should extend beyond the end of the exit curve to prevent exiting traffic from crossing into the path of approaching traffic. The splitter island width should be a minimum of 6 feet at the pedestrian crossing to adequately provide refuge for pedestrians.
Roadways with posted speeds greater than or equal to 45 miles per hour, or at freeway exit ramps, require the splitter island lengths, as measured from the ICD, to be 200 feet. In some instances, a longer splitter island may be desirable. Concrete curb is to be provided on the right side of the approach roadway equal to the length of the splitter island.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 432
400-54 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
At a low volume driveway leg of a roundabout, the splitter island may be eliminated if there would be no disruption to traffic flow.
(13)Access Control. The access control standards in Index 504.3(3) and 504.8 apply to roundabouts at interchange ramp intersections. The dimensions shown in Index 504.8 are to be measured from the ICD.
Driveways can occur within the roundabout or outside the access control. Driveways on approach and egress legs should not be placed within 50 feet from the ICD. Regarding crosswalk placement, consider the direction a driver exiting the driveway is looking for approaching traffic. Driveways should not be within 50 feet of a downstream crosswalk. At non-interchange roundabouts, a driveway may be added as a leg to a roundabout if supported operationally. Also consider if a driveway would be appropriate at that location if the intersection were eventually to become a signalized intersection. (14)Lighting. Lighting is required at all roundabouts. See NCHRP Report 672 Chapter 8, the Traffic Manual Chapter 9 as well as consult with the District Traffic Safety Engineer. (15)Landscaping. Landscaping should be designed such that drivers and bicyclists can observe the signing and shape of the roundabout as they approach, allowing adequate visibility for making decisions prior to and within the roundabout. The landscaping of the central island can enhance the intersection by making it a focal point, by promoting lower speeds and by breaking the headlight glare of oncoming vehicles or bicycles. It is desirable to create a domed or mounded central island, between 3.5 to 6 feet high, to increase the visibility of the intersection on the approach. Central island landscaping should provide elements that absorb kinetic energy of errant vehicles or redirect the vehicle, and not include features that may lead to the vehicle becoming airborne. Contact the District Landscape Architecture Unit to provide technical assistance in designing the roundabout landscaping. See Chapter 900 for additional Landscape Architecture requirements.
(16)Vertical Clearance. The vertical clearance guidance provided in Index 309.2 applies to roundabouts.
(17)Drainage Design. See Chapters 800 to 890 for further guidance. (18)Maintenance. Contact the District Maintenance Engineer and appropriate Regional Manager for maintenance strategies and practices, including seasonal operations, maintenance resources, and specialized equipment. Maintenance responsibilities may also include multiple state, county, and city agencies where coordination of maintenance efforts and funding is needed.
Consider maintenance of the central island. Provide a maintenance vehicle pullout within the central island beyond the truck apron, so maintenance vehicles will not conflict with circulating trucks, see Figure 405.10A.
(19)Snow Areas. In climate regions where snowfall requires the use of snow removal equipment, consider the equipment to be used. Design ICD’s as well as entrance and exit geometry to accommodate snow removal equipment and plow limitations. Check with District Maintenance for their requirements and limitations. Geometric elements to consider that facilitate snow removal are; mountable curb, tapering the ends of curbs down to allow plows to ride over curbs, plowing accommodation in both directions, providing snow storage space within the central island, and providing minimum entry/exit widths to accommodate the plow blade. Mountable curb may be used if the sidewalk/shared use path is not contiguous to the curb. Provide a planter or textured pavement between the path and the roadway. Snow storage areas must be designed to prevent snow melt from entering the circulating lanes where it can freeze. Snow storage areas must not block pedestrian paths.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 433
Highway Design Manual 400-55
May 20, 2022
(20)Utilities. Utility access openings (manholes) should not be located within the traveled way within the boundary of the roundabout. Roundabouts do not have shoulders to accommodate traffic while manholes are accessed. Manholes should not be allowed within the circulating roadway to avoid closing down the intersection during access. If a manhole is absolutely necessary within the boundary of the ICD, place it in the central island and off of the truck apron. Provide a maintenance vehicle pullout to allow access to the manhole without blocking truck traffic, see Figure 405.10A.
(21)Performance Checks. Roundabout design is not standard-based; it is a performance-based design method, which uses an iterative design process. As the design progresses through performance checks, as outlined in NCHRP Report 672, the geometrics of the design is refined. Any roundabout design submitted for geometric review without completed performance checks is an incomplete design. A roundabout design submitted for review during the Project Approval or Plan, Specification and Estimate phases must be accompanied by completed performance checks. However, a roundabout design submitted for review during the Project Initiation phase does not require completed performance checks.
(22)Turbo Roundabouts. Some multilane roundabouts experience higher than expected frequencies of sideswipe collisions. To prevent this, some countries have implemented a modified version of a multilane roundabout called the turbo roundabout. The significant differences between turbo roundabouts and modern roundabout are that a physical separation is included to prevent lane changes within the circulating lanes of the turbo roundabout. This separation results in a larger roundabout footprint with little to no deflection on entry and with all vehicles staying completely within their lane. To date there are only a few hundred worldwide and less than five in the US and Canada combined; consequently, there is limited information regarding the design of turbo roundabouts, especially regarding North American driver and vehicles. The traditional capacity analysis tools for roundabouts do not apply to turbo roundabouts. Due to the limited experience in the U.S. and lack of analysis tools, caution should be used before selecting a turbo roundabout for an intersection alternative on the State highway system.
Turbo roundabout intersections on the State highway system should be developed and evaluated in accordance with the following: The FHWA Safety Program Informational Primer entitled “Turbo Roundabouts;” NCHRP Report 672 “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide;” “Roundabouts-Application and Design, A Practical Manual,” from the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Partners for Roads; and, TOPD Number 13-02 “Intersection Control Evaluation.” Per FHWA’s recommendation for capacity analysis of turbo roundabouts, refer to Transportation Research Record (TRR) Issue Number 2517- 08 entitled “Capacity Estimation on Turbo roundabouts with Gap Acceptance and Flow Level Methods.” Also see Index 401.5 for general information and guidance.
Topic 406 – Ramp Intersection Capacity Analysis
The following procedure for ramp intersection analysis may be used to estimate the capacity of any signalized intersection where the phasing is relatively simple. It is useful in analyzing the need for additional turning and through traffic lanes. For a more complete analysis refer to the Highway Capacity Manual.
(a) Ramp Intersection Analysis--For the typical local street interchange there is usually a critical intersection of a ramp and the crossroads that establishes the capacity of the interchange.
The capacity of a point where lanes of traffic intersect is 1500 vehicles per hour. This is ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 434
400-56 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
expressed as intersecting lane vehicles per hour (ILV/hr). Table 406 gives values of ILV/hr for various traffic flow conditions.
If a single-lane approach at a normal intersection has a demand volume of 1000 vph, for example, then the intersecting single-lane approach volume cannot exceed 500 vph without delay.
The three examples that follow illustrate the simplicity of analyzing ramp intersections using this 1500 ILV/hr concept.
(b) Diamond Interchange--The critical intersection of a diamond type interchange must accommodate demands of three conflicting travel paths. As traffic volumes approach capacity, signalization will be needed. For the spread diamond (Figure 406A), basic capacity analysis is made on the assumption that 3-phase signalization is employed. For the tight diamond (Figure 406B), it is assumed that 4-phase signal timing is used. (c) 2 Quadrant Cloverleaf--Because this interchange design (Figure 406C) permits 2-phase signalization, it will have higher capacities on the approach roadways. The critical intersection is shared two ways instead of three ways as in the diamond case.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 435
Highway Design Manual 400-57
May 20, 2022
Table 406
Vehicle Traffic Flow Conditions at Intersections at Various Levels of Operation
ILV/hr Description
< 1200:
Stable flow with slight, but acceptable
delay. Occasional signal loading may
develop. Free midblock operations.
1200-1500:
Unstable flow with considerable delays
possible. Some vehicles occasionally wait
two or more cycles to pass through the
intersection. Continuous backup occurs on
some approaches.
1500 (Capacity):
Stop-and-go operation with severe delay
and heavy congestion(1). Traffic volume is
limited by maximum discharge rates of
each phase. Continuous backup in varying
degrees occurs on all approaches. Where
downstream capacity is restrictive, mainline
congestion can impede orderly discharge
through the intersection.
NOTE:
The amount of congestion depends on how much the ILV/hr value exceeds 1500. Observed flow rates will normally not exceed 1500 ILV/hr, and the excess will be delayed in a queue.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 436
400
-58HighwayDesignManual
May 20, 2022
Figure 406A
Spread Diamond
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 437
Highway
DesignManual 400-59
May 20, 2022
Figure 406B
Tight Diamond
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 438
400-60 Highway Design Manual
May 20, 2022
Figure 406C
Two-quadrant Cloverleaf
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 439
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 440
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 441
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 442
March 1, 2024 Statement to Piedmont City Council
Ralph Catalano
Today’s staff report implies that you can consider the Moraga Canyon Sports Field EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2009112054) when formulating the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. That EIR found that new entrances and exits to Blair Park would create a significant and unavoidable safety hazard for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Moraga Avenue.
How did LSA consultants, the authors of the EIR, come to such a conclusion? Caltrans has adopted US DOT equations that use road alignment, slope, and sight distances to calculate maximum speeds for safe stopping at intersections. As described on pages 253 to 255 of the EIR, LSA engineers assumed two entrances/exists to Blair Park positioned at Caltrans recommended distances from each other and from Red Rock and Maxwelton. They measured the shortest sight line to these intersections at 385 feet. Using the Caltrans equations, they estimated the maximum safe speed to be 35 MPH. 15% of trips on Moraga exceeded that speed.
Today, your consultants tell you that they have found locations for entrances to Blair Park that provide a longer minimum sight line than assumed by LSA. With this longer sight line, they calculate the fastest safe speed at 40 MPH. They than claim, without documentation, that no one on Moraga travels at speeds greater than 40 MPH.
I am surprised to learn that your consultants have found two entrance/exits with a minimum sight line that, when added to the DOT/Caltrans equations, produces a 40 MPH safe speed. But let’s stipulate, for the sake of the conversation, that this is true. The simple fact remains, however, that the distribution of speeds observed on Moraga shows that at least 10% of trips exceed 40 MPH. This distribution was found before the preparation of the LSA EIR and was found again in subsequent studies including that for the City of Piedmont Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Plan (I have attached that distribution and accompanying crash analysis).
So, how big is the problem? Assuming conservative trip generation of 4 per household, 132 families in Blair Park would generate more than 500 entrances from and exits to Moraga Avenue per day. How many of these will be at a time when they encounter a vehicle traveling faster than 40 MPH? Moraga Avenue will, according to the Housing Element EIR, carry about 15,000 trips a day. About 10%, or 1,500, of these will exceed 40 MPH. That implies more than 1 per minute. So, virtually every one of the 500 entrances or exits from Blair Park will likely encounter a safety hazard as defined by Caltrans. And this circumstance assumes your consultants’ yet to be verified locations for entrances/exits.
The risk will be even greater should the LSA locations prove correct. And remember, it remains city policy that projects will not be approved in Piedmont unless they provide safe sightlines. Indeed, the Housing Element EIR you have adopted states you will enforce that policy.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 443
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 444
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 445
March 1, 2024
Piedmont City Council and Staff
RE: Comments on Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Thank you Mayor Cavanaugh and council members for listening to my comments this morning at your session on the above matter. I support the City’s effort to make affordable housing available and believe that Moraga Canyon is a suitable place for such development.
I applaud the City of Piedmont, staff, and council, for taking the State’s affordable housing requirement seriously.
I can see that housing could be ‘made to fit’ in the allotted space but careful planning and weighting of options can make a good plan a great plan. To that end, the planning is at an early enough stage and has the flexibility to re-imagine the space and not just work around existing infrastructure.
My main question: Can Moraga Avenue be moved to the south? (see sketch below) Regardless of whether housing or recreational facilities are placed in the current “park” (I use that term loosely) the simple act of scooting the road to the south would mean that virtually nobody, no adults, no kids, no dogs, would need to cross this very busy road to access facilities.
On the other hand, crossing roads is a deadly risk; it’s just a matter of time before there is a serious accident. Especially at the average speeds we see on the road and I don’t see that changing much.
Having the road “out of the way” would mean that no pedestrian crossing (or overpass as shown in the previous EIR) would be necessary to access the facilities and walkway toward town. It would also mean a far more tranquil experience for those using these spaces. I encourage you all to think about realigning the road and don’t just look at maps but go out and walk the site and imagine it!
Other comments:
Corp Yard: The existing corporation yard is featured in all four scenarios in pretty much the same size. I have a pretty good idea what we need to hold a soccer game but I am not familiar with the needs and constraints of the existing corporation yard. Did the City ask the public works staff what their minimum space requirements are or should be? Can a smaller yard be built elsewhere within the Canyon, or must it remain at the current size? Or could the City acquire space elsewhere for a Corporation yard which would free up space within the study area? For instance can some of the vehicle storage be shifted to another parking area, such as a gas station or could the city acquire other (more urban) lot? I understand the City needs space ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 446
to support city vehicles, principally DPW trucks, but the question is: does it need to sit on this highly desirable property and how much space is really needed? Storm Drain: The study area is [obviously] a canyon which has been filled with soil. I have seen some storm drain manholes in the middle of the property so I wonder about the specifications of this drainage (how big; how deep?) It appears that the watershed is substantial and discharges to a storage pond on cemetery property. My question is whether the apartment buildings shown in Option 1 or other facilities shown in Options 2 and 3 can be built atop the pipeline as-is? Or whether there would need to be extensive (and expensive) work to the drain to allow construction?
Skate Park: It should be relocated to a more central space within the city. The current location always felt forced and I know most skaters are too young to drive as it is not close enough to home for most kids to ride or skate to. I am a big supporter of skate, BMX and pump tracks (I helped build one in Joaquin Miller Park) but think they need to centrally located and within walking or biking distance of users. They typically have a small footprint (like 3 pickle ball courts!) and though space is at a premium, I’m sure we can find room at an existing park to build a new skate facility.
Housing Mix: I think most of us have been thinking that we need to build the bare minimum of units required by the state. But it sounds as if the City allows more than the minimum of 72 units of market rate housing, the development could generate more profit and hence more money coming back to the City. How many more units could be added without the development becoming something completely out of scale with the area? I would encourage you to leave the door open to more units and run some scenarios once an option is selected.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Gandesbery
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 447
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 448
March 11, 2024
Dear Members of the City Council:
We are writing to provide input on the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. We are a group of Piedmont residents eager to see the city move forward with its legal and moral obligation to create affordable housing in our community, as other East Bay cities already have done.
We are grateful to Piedmont’s leaders, city staff, and consultants for the robust analysis and informative study sessions that you have hosted. As the City Council moves towards recommending a path forward at Moraga Canyon, we urge you to keep one principle foremost:
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to enable housing to be built. Program 1.L of the City’s Housing Element states: “The first goal [of the specific plan] is to enable construction of housing at a minimum of 132 units,... [including] a minimum of 60 units of housing affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI).” The Housing Element goes on to list other secondary goals, including improved safety, updating of public works and recreational facilities, pedestrian and vehicular circulation improvements, and landscaping.
Any plan that does not lead with housing, and instead prioritizes building an expanded soccer field, a new corporation yard, or other amenity, misses the mark and potentially puts the City in violation of state Housing Element law. Using this criterion, we believe that of the options presented by the City’s Specific Plan consultants, Options 2, 3 and 4 should be removed from consideration, since they all require the city to come up with millions of dollars for non-housing amenities and infrastructure, such as a new soccer field or a new corporation yard, before any housing is built. These plans would postpone the construction of housing for a decade or more, if not forever.
Option 1 (building on the vacant lot on the south side of Moraga Canyon) is the only viable plan that puts housing first, and that realistically will accomplish the goal of creating housing in this housing cycle. (Option 2 might be acceptable if the City is willing to reverse the two phases–that is, by beginning to develop housing on Coaches Field before the completion of a new replacement soccer field. The current Option 2 schedule would postpone housing construction until a multi-year soccer field development has been completed.) It would be a tragicomedy–and all too predictable–for a town like Piedmont to set out with the intention to build affordable housing, and end up with a plan in which we build ourselves a new deluxe soccer field, and then run out of steam (as well as the collective will to pass new bond measures and parcel taxes) to construct housing. A central goal of state law is to break the century-long pattern of enclave communities such as ours erecting invisible barriers to ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 449
building housing, as well as hoarding resources and tax dollars that only serve ourselves and not the wider public interest. There are many ways for affluent communities to kill affordable housing. Zoning is one. Saying “we want housing” but not if it increases traffic, noise, or costs anything is another. Saddling a development with unrealistic required amenities is yet another.
State law requires cities to maintain their Housing Element site inventories. Specifically, the law requires that sites on the inventory have “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period.”1If a site on the site inventory is found to be incapable of allowing for the number of units anticipated, or is made unviable by City action (such as placing unrealistic requirements on the plan), then the City will be obligated to find a replacement site to meet the required capacity. While the City does not have control over sites owned by private owners, it does have control over City-owned sites, and failure to develop a City-owned site may invite additional scrutiny by HCD. In fact, during its review of the draft Housing Element, HCD urged the City to discuss “the extent existing uses impede additional development [at the Moraga Canyon site], including timing of potential relocation or similar activity, any known conditions that preclude or affect the timing or feasibility of development in the planning period and potential schedule for development.” HCD then required that based on this analysis, the City add or modify policies in the draft element “with a schedule of actions to facilitate development in the planning period.”
2 Likewise, state law mandates jurisdictions to remove governmental constraints to housing development.3If the City were to impose new constraints on the development of housing in Moraga Canyon by requiring expensive recreational and institutional facilities that have no relationship with the proposed housing and are not intended to address any of the impacts that the housing may cause (whether fiscal or environmental), HCD will likely regard this unfavorably, as a potential violation of the City’s commitments under the adopted Housing Element and its obligations to affirmatively further fair housing. As you know, “HCD has authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Housing Element Law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element.”4 4 HCD accountability and enforcement page, citing Government Code sections 65580-65589.11 available at www.hcd.ca.gov.
3 Gov’t Code Section 65583(a)(5) and (c)(3); see also HCD’s Building Blocks, A Comprehensive Housing-Element Guide to assist jurisdictions in creating comprehensive housing elements, available at www.hcd.ca.gov. 2 Letter from Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager at the California Department of Housing and Community Development, to Kevin Jackson, Director of Planning & Building Departments, City of Piedmont, dated February 16, 2023, Appendix, pages 4-5 [emphasis added].
1 The site inventory must have “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.” (Gov’t Code Section 65583(a)(3).) ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 450
In conclusion, we urge the City to be clear as it deliberates that housing is the priority.
To realize this goal, street improvements and traffic calming measures that ensure pedestrian, bicycling and vehicular safety, as well as emergency egress, are absolutely essential.
Recreational amenities that serve existing and new residents, such as a playground and walking paths, can and should be part of the plan. Getting a new soccer field and/or a modern corporation yard would be nice, but they are not the reason for the plan, and we must be careful not to get sidetracked and let our desire for these add-ons prevent us from building housing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Irene Cheng
Andrea Ruiz-Esquide
Elise Marie Collins
Frances Fisher
Randy Wu
Deborah Leland
Susy Struble
Andy Madeira
Alice Talcott
Jessica Burke
Sarah Karlinsky
Carol Galante
Jill Lindenbaum
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 451
From: Randolph Wu
To: Jen Cavenaugh; Betsy Andersen; Conna McCarthy; Jennifer Long; Tom Ramsey Cc: Kevin Jackson; Pierce Macdonald; City Clerk
Subject: Comments on Second Study Session for Moraga Canyon Date: Friday, March 08, 2024 10:02:08 AM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Mayor Cavenaugh, Vice-Mayor Andersen and Council members McCarthy, Long and Ramsey, Thank you for sponsoring the second study session ably presented by the City's expert team. I learned a lot (and know that the time was best spent for discussion among council members). Here are some thoughts based on my observations over the last three years of Piedmont's role in the Bay Area's housing crisis and its reluctant compliance with RHNA.
1. Piedmont can and should be part of the solution to the housing shortage rather than relying on other East Bay cities stepping forward to build more affordable housing. The City has permitted plenty of ADUs suitable for single occupants and as a complement now needs to build larger homes especially for family households limited to affordable incomes.
2. The desire for mixed income or "integrated" housing may be best met by building affordable multifamily housing (MF) not only in Moraga Canyon but also in other areas of the City. The City Council should focus on getting this first MF project done. In my opinion the only feasible affordable housing site in this sixth cycle is in the Moraga Canyon area. Piedmont is well behind other cities in its adoption of MF programs; for this reason developers have more attractive opportunities in other cities with proven track records supporting MF development.
3. The Moraga Canyon specific area study identifies the key variables and trade-offs. The City has a thorough comparison of the four primary options and can with confidence pick the best path forward.
While your choice may not be "something for everyone", you can reach a sound decision for the community based upon urban planning, schedule, financing and environmental impacts. Based on this study, you should issue a RFP as soon as possible and solicit proposals from developers for housing development.
4. You undoubtedly would like to have a broad consensus based upon a win-win-win. If there was a realistic option for timely construction of a MF project, an expanded soccer field and a modernized Corp Yard then that would be an easy choice. Unsurprisingly there are schedule trade-offs and significant financial costs for the MF project if other desired community projects are attached. In particular Piedmont's A-1 bond allocation may be jeopardized. This should be avoided. The MF project must be the first priority unencumbered by unrelated improvements.
5. Piedmont is an economically segregated community. While some believe that location of a MF project in Moraga Canyon would be wrong, to me that is a "through the looking glass" perspective. The residents in affordable housing will be a small minority in Piedmont. The communal support from living in the same building will be highly preferable to a scattering of low income households among different neighborhoods. A single family living in subsidized housing among more affluent neighbors likely would feel isolated. We all know the history of school integration in the U.S. and the brave children that enrolled, bused and then were jeered as they walked though the doors of segregated schools. That will not happen in Piedmont. But 60 families living together in the first MF project is a very good outcome that will create a strong family community and break down a century of housing barriers in the City.
6. The Piedmont community wants to help its schools which have significant financial and recruitment challenges. The benefit of adding another 30 market rate units to the Moraga Canyon specific plan should be considered not only for improved economics, but also for the possibility to add moderate ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 452
income housing for PUSD employees that make more than the low income limit. In other words 10 of the 70-100 market units could be reserved for teachers on moderate incomes if PUSD and its philanthropic partners can contribute the lost margin (RLV) from converting 10 market units to moderate income units.
There may be no better opportunity for PUSD to reserve housing for teachers. This potential inclusion of moderate income housing need not be decided now and should be explored through a RFP from developers. But if the City decides to add 30 dwelling units to the Moraga Canyon area because it is likely to enable a break-even outcome, then PUSD should be given an opportunity to step in and subsidize moderate income housing for its teachers.
7. The Fehr & Peers transportation report definitively lays to rest all concerns that have been raised about increased traffic. As someone who has biked up Moraga Ave. at 5-6 MPH, I applaud the road improvements that will ensure traffic safety for pedestrians, cyclists and cars. While some may prefer an up to 40 MPH speed for a quicker commute, I support "traffic calming" measures that will ensure safety for those that live, work and play in the Moraga Canyon neighborhood.
Summary
This is a momentous decision for Piedmont. As you deliberate I expect you will try to reach a consensus that meets the desires of everyone in the community. In my opinion a consensus is not possible in Moraga Canyon as those that insist upon preservation of all open space at Blair Park will not yield any ground for housing. Some open space can easily be preserved in Blair Park with housing development, but that concession will not be enough for them. If there is a strong desire in the community for more recreational space, the City should look to the large. undeveloped area below the Piedmont Reservoir.
This secluded area is a much better recreational prospect when compared to Blair Park, a narrow, lightly used park adjoining an arterial road.
Last, after weighing the competing interests in new housing, enhanced recreation, modern city facilities and the status quo, if your vote upsets one or more constituencies, then you will have done the right thing. I respect the opinions of others that favor the status quo lifestyle, but I urge you to move forward with MF Option 1, with an additional 30 dwelling units, as the best overall choice for Piedmont and the broader community we all must live in together.
Randy Wu
York Drive
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 453
From: irene cheng
To: City Council
Cc: Piedmont Is Home; Kevin Jackson; Pierce Macdonald; Rosanna Bayon Moore; Carol Galante; Ellen Greenberg; Andy Madeira; Sarah Karlinsky; Randy Wu; Jill Lindenbaum; Elise Marie; Deborah Leland; Andrea Ruiz-Esquide Subject: Comments on Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Date: Friday, May 17, 2024 12:45:51 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Dear Members of the City Council:
We are writing in response to the actions taken by the City Council at its meeting on March 18, 2024, during which the Council gave direction to City staff and consultants on the Moraga Canyon Specific plan. We are residents of Piedmont and advocates for affordable housing who are eager to see the city move forward on a feasible plan for the site, as it has committed to doing in its recently adopted Housing Element. Several of us are housing policy and development professionals with many decades of experience in the field.
As part of its 6th cycle Housing Element, the City of Piedmont identified Moraga Canyon as its main opportunity site to build affordable housing. The City committed to creating a specific plan for Moraga Canyon and taking steps to issue an RFP.
After several months of meetings and analysis, at its January 22, 2024, study session on Moraga Canyon, members of the City Council reviewed four options for siting housing in Moraga Canyon, prepared by the city’s consultants. The Council members narrowed the choices to two options: Option 1, which would build housing on the existing open space on the south side of Moraga Canyon, and Option 2, which would entail constructing a new sports field on the open space on the south side and building housing on the existing soccer field site on the north side. At the same meeting, Council ruled out two other options that would have been unreasonably expensive, since they entailed moving the existing Corporation Yard or rebuilding the existing soccer field with parking underneath.
As we have stated in our public comments and previous correspondence, we believe Option 1 is the only viable plan that will realistically lead to housing construction during the current housing cycle. Even Option 2 would require first fundraising for and building a new sports field (a controversial project that the community attempted and failed to carry out a decade ago, and that ended in a lawsuit) before building any housing. Option 2 would increase the project costs and delay the project by at least several years if not indefinitely.
To our surprise, at its March 18, 2024, meeting, the City Council, after previously narrowing the options to Options 1 and 2, voted to take Option 2 off the table, because it was discovered that the resulting sports field would not be large enough to fit a full baseball field. The Council then put back on the table Option 3 (which requires the City to move its ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 454
Corporation Yard from the north to the south side of Moraga Canyon)--an even more expensive project than the ball field, according to analyses prepared by the city’s consultants.
In addition, Council instructed staff to seek the development of community facilities, specifically an “under-14 soccer field, youth baseball/softball field, batting cages, artificial turf field, and ballfield seating” as well as a “dog park, playground, or pickleball court.” (Piedmont City Council Meeting Minutes, March 18, 2024) This decision seems to illustrate the extent to which the City is not prioritizing housing production in its decision making around Moraga Canyon, but instead is allowing the development to be saddled with unrealistic requirements that will pose barriers and inevitably make the project infeasible.
As we have stated in our public comments and in previous correspondence, the purpose of the Specific Plan is to enable housing to be built. Program 1.L of the City’s Housing Element states: “The first goal [of the specific plan] is to enable construction of housing at a minimum of 132 units,... [including] a minimum of 60 units of housing affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI).” Any plan that does not lead with housing, and instead prioritizes building an expanded sports field, a new corporation yard, or other amenities, misses the mark and potentially puts the City in violation of state Housing Element law. During its review of the draft Housing Element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) raised this very concern, urging the City to analyze “the extent existing uses impede additional development [at the Moraga Canyon site], including timing of potential relocation or similar activity, any known conditions that preclude or affect the timing or feasibility of development in the planning period and potential schedule for development.” HCD required that, based on this analysis, the City add or modify policies in the draft element “with a schedule of actions to facilitate development in the planning period.” State law requires cities to remove governmental constraints to housing development.
This is especially imperative in a city like Piedmont that has historically created numerous visible and invisible barriers to affordable housing. That history has resulted in the status quo:
a city with exactly ZERO income-restricted, multifamily affordable housing units, and one of the most segregated in the region. Moraga Canyon represents a wonderful opportunity to begin to redress this history, consistent with the Housing Element and the City’s past commitments to anti-racism and housing and equity.
In conclusion, we ask that as the City moves forward to finalize the specific plan for Moraga Canyon and issues a request for proposals to prospective developers, that it follows its legal and ethical obligations to smooth the way to construct affordable housing in Piedmont rather than creating further obstacles and roadblocks. We urge you to prioritize housing, and to select a final plan that will maximize the likelihood that our city will see affordable housing constructed in the next decade. This will put us on a path to becoming the more diverse and inclusive community that we have all expressed we want to be.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 455
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Irene Cheng
Carol Galante
Ellen Greenberg
Andy Madeira
Sarah Karlinsky
Randy Wu
Jill Lindenbaum
Elise Marie Collins
Deborah Leland
Andrea Ruiz-Esquide
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 456
From: Kevin Jackson
To: Aradhana Jajodia; Julie Ortiz; Wayne Rowland; Raffi Zaroukian; [email protected] Cc: Pierce Macdonald; Timothy Haagen; Andrew Watkins; Joshua Muller Subject: Fwd: Please make these comments and attachment available to Planning Commission Date: Monday, September 23, 2024 2:51:48 PM
Attachments: LSA Analysis of Sightlines.pdf
Planning Commissioners,
I’m forwarding you a comment on the MCSP received this afternoon. We’ll provide a printed copy at the dais.
Kevin
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Ralph Catalano >
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2024 2:25:56 PM
To: Kevin Jackson <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Long <[email protected]>
Subject: Please make these comments and attachment available to Planning Commission [EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Mr. Jackson,
I am hoping that you will make the following comments and the attachment available to the Planning Commission before tonight's meeting.
Tonight's staff report asserts that 200 families housed in Blair Park could safely access Moraga Avenue as motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. This assertion is at odds with an EIR prepared for the 2010 proposal to add playfields in Blair Park. The relevant pages of that EIR are attached. As you will see, the consultants who prepared that report concluded that access to Moraga Avenue from much of Blair Park would not meet State of California Corner Sight Distance (CSD) standards for safety. That inference assumed that the 85th percentile of speed among the then 10,000 or so daily vehicular trips on Moraga would be 35 MPH and that motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians accessing and leaving play fields in Blair Park would be few. Your staff report, however, shows presumably safe access for the entire length of Blair Park despite the facts that the 85th speed percentile is now 39 MPH, that current daily trips exceed 11,000, that 15,000 trips are expected under the new Housing Element, and that the 200 homes planned for Blair Park will generate more than 800 daily vehicular entrances and exits – many more than were anticipated under the 2010 playfield analyses.
You should also be aware that the staff report applies a Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) standard to assess safety hazards. This standard assumes that hazards arise only from the behavior of drivers intending to pass Blair Park and not from that of drivers exiting or entering the Park. The CSD standard accounts for both and should also be applied ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 457
to fully inform the Commission of the safety hazards that will arise from housing 200 families in Blair Park.
Also note that the staff report does not show the proposed Blair Park sidewalk as fenced, as is the existing Coaches Field sidewalk, to prevent children from “dashing” across Moraga where 15% of 15,000 vehicles will travel at speeds greater than 40 MPH making stopping sight distance too short to avoid pedestrian and bicyclist injury and death. I assume that this is an oversight, but correcting the plan to show the fence will better convey to constituents that you have been asked to endorse a Blair Park neighborhood sealed off from the remainder of Piedmont by impassable terrain, high fences, and a dangerous arterial.
Thank you,
Ralph Catalano, Ph.D.
Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, Ca. 94720
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 458
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 459
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 460
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 461
Statement of Ralph Catalano at the Piedmont Planning Commission Meeting of October 14, 2024
Our City Council will soon choose either the north or south side of Moraga Avenue as the site for a new 200-household neighborhood envisioned to comply with state law. That choice will reflect how safely pedestrians and bicyclists can cross Moraga Avenue at Red Rock. This is true because the south side option presumes that children residing in Blair Park will cross Moraga at the Red Rock intersection when leaving for, or returning from, school, Coaches Field, or visits with friends. As is now the case on the existing sidewalk west of Red Rock, a fence on the proposed sidewalk along Blair Park would likely be built to keep children from “dashing” across Moraga where about 2,200 of the 15,000 cars expected to use the road each day will travel at speeds exceeding 40 MPH. The Blair Park fence would funnel pedestrians and bicyclists from Blair Park to the Red Rock intersection where they could activate a planned “stop light” presumably visible for a sufficient distance to allow motorists on Moraga to stop safely.
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, the city’s traffic consultant opined that stopping sight distances for drivers approaching the proposed Red Rock stop light from either direction on Moraga Avenue would be safe. He reported basing his opinion on Caltrans guidelines.
Several of us who live in Moraga Canyon found the consultant’s opinion surprising because a 2010 EIR prepared for proposed playfields in Blair Park found that sight distances on the segment of Moraga that includes the intersection at Red Rock did not meet Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. Hoping to understand this concerning contradiction, I applied the Caltrans guidelines to the proposed Red Rock intersection. Results, described below, were the same as reported in the earlier EIR -- stopping sight distances were less than Caltrans deems safe. I hasten to add that I am not a traffic engineer. The city’s consultant may judge the following analyses incorrect. If so, he should explain, to your satisfaction, how I am wrong.
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual is large and technical but includes two tables (attached) that summarize the calculation of stopping sight distances. The first table (i.e., 405.1B) lists the appropriate guidelines for various types of roads and intersections. For signalized intersections such as that proposed at Red Rock and Moraga, a footnote to the table refers the reader to a second table (i.e., 201.1) showing stopping sight distances for various “design speeds.” Design speed for existing roads equals the “operational speed” adjusted for circumstances specific to the analyzed road segment. Operational speed equals the 85th percentile of vehicle
ATTACHMENT G
Late Mail - Agenda Item 4. October 14, 2024
Agenda Report Page 462
speeds observed on the road segment in question. The September 25 Planning Commission staff report cited an operational speed of 39 MPH and a design speed of 40 MPH for Moraga Avenue at Red Rock and Blair Park.
Table 201.1 in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual shows a stopping sight distance of 300 feet for a signalized intersection on a roadway with a “design speed” of 40 MPH.
I have attached two Google maps showing sight distances on the segment of Moraga Avenue that includes the Red Rock intersection. Figure A shows about 190 feet between the point at which drivers traveling east on Moraga first see the Red Rock intersection and the intersection itself. Figure B shows about 380 feet between the point at which vehicles traveling west first see the intersection and the intersection itself. If correct, these graphs imply no safe location for a signalized intersection near the current Red Rock Road. Even if the city took private property on Moraga Avenue and moved the intersection 110 feet to the east to provide a 300-foot sight distance for vehicles traveling east, vehicles traveling west would encounter an unsafe 270-foot sight distance.
As noted above, design speed can be modified to reflect local circumstances. Caltrans, for example, modifies design speeds shown in Table 201.1 to reflect the grade of roads. Downhill grades increase design speed whereas uphill grades decrease them. The staff report did not describe the grade of the road segment in question, but Moraga Avenue is not flat. The downhill, or westerly, grade decreases at Red Rock but for the purposes of this analysis, I assumed the grade was constant. If so, grade adjusting my analyses would not affect my conclusion that a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock would not be safe. Any shortening of the 300-foot stopping sight distance for drivers approaching Red Rock from the west (i.e., traveling east) would be canceled by lengthening of that for drivers approaching from the east (i.e., traveling west). There would be no safe location for a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock.
Also note that 200 households would likely generate over 1,000 vehicular entrances and exits from Blair Park each day. The analyses described above imply that no connecting road between Blair Park and Moraga Avenue could be safely located between the current Red Rock intersection and the “first sight” point shown on Figure B for vehicles traveling west. A connector in this segment would cause dangerous stacking of vehicles making left turns into Blair Park from a point within 300 feet of first sight by drivers traveling west on Moraga. More than a 1,000 daily trips out of and into Blair Park would, therefore, occur on a single connector east of the first sight point on Figure B. AM stacking in Blair Park and PM stacking on Moraga at such a single ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 463
connector would be considerable with the latter causing stacking on the Moraga/Thornhill exit of Route 13 which has a dangerously short stopping sight distance for vehicles traveling east.
The above analyses assume a design speed of 40 MPH. About 2,200 vehicles a day will, however, exceed 40 MPH when traveling on Moraga Avenue. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual, in fact, recommends (Page 100-2) a 45 MPH Design Speed for local roads, like Moraga Avenue, that connect to State highways like Route 13. If we assume a 45 MPH design speed, housing 200 families in Blair Park would appear even more dangerous than implied by my conservative analyses described above.
Staff and consultants noted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 25 that strategies such as narrowing the roadway could lower the design speed for Moraga Avenue.
This, of course, assumes that the resulting “stacking” of vehicles on Route 13 at the Moraga/Thornhill exit during peak traffic hours would be safe. Stopping sight distance to that exit on Route 13 for vehicles traveling east is, however, far below safe levels given the speeds traveled on that highway.
Assuming the above analyses are correct, protecting pedestrians and bicyclists would favor planning Piedmont’s new neighborhood for the north side of Moraga Avenue. This is true because residents would have no reason to cross Moraga where the only land use would be a relocated Corporation Yard.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 464
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 465
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 466
Figure A
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 467
Figure B
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 468
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 469
From: Ralph Catalano
To: City Council
Subject: Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Date: Monday, April 28, 2025 4:39:19 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Dear Councilmember,
The draft plan before you this evening (i.e., 4/28/25) implies that land developers, not the City Council, will decide whether a mixed income neighborhood of 199 homes will be built in Blair Park or around Coaches Field. Keeping in mind that you have the authority and obligation to protect the public’s health and safety, ask yourself this question: do you really believe that housing 199 families in Blair Park would produce as safe a neighborhood as housing them around Coaches Field? When answering this question please consider several facts we know from city-led studies and debates. We know that Blair Park includes an unengineered landfill with unknown contents. We know that entrances and exits from Blair Park will not meet Caltrans’ safety standards. We know that we will have to build a fence, like that now east of Red Rock, along the entire length of Blair Park to keep children from dashing across Moraga Avenue while attempting to reach recreational facilities at Coaches Field. That fence will funnel pedestrians to a crossing at Red Rock, but will also “cage” the city’s only mixed-income neighborhood.
On the other hand, we know that building the neighborhood around Coaches Field would allow families to walk safely to existing and planned recreation facilities. We know that pedestrian access to and from schools would be, as it now is, by protected walkways from Coaches Field to the Highland/Moraga intersection. We know that safe vehicular access to a new Coaches Field neighborhood could be provided via connections to Clarewood Drive.
Given the above, why did we ever consider housing 200 families in Blair Park? Two answers appear in the public record. The first is that making the flat portion of Blair Park available for high-density housing was thought the fastest and surest way for developers to secure subsidized financing. The second was that building the neighborhood around Coaches Field would require the city to incur the cost of moving the corporation yard to Blair Park. My response to these concerns would be that, first, your obligation is to protect the health and safety of your constituents – not the financial interests of land developers. And second, attributing the cost of improving the corporation yard to the new neighborhood is a logical error. We will soon incur that cost regardless of whether or where the new neighborhood is built. As Councilmembers and staff have publicly stated, the city must soon upgrade its public safety infrastructure including the police and fire stations as well as the corporation yard where much emergency response equipment is stored and maintained.
Thank you for your service to the community and for your continued attention to my concerns regarding Moraga Canyon,
Ralph Catalano, Ph.D.
Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, Ca. 94720
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 470
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 471
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Kevin Jackson
To: Pierce Macdonald
Subject: FW: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Date: Monday, May 05, 2025 3:13:59 PM
Attachments: Brohard letter-4282025.pdf
Tom Brohard letter- 10022024.docx
R.Catalano- MCSP lletter 022024.docx
Forwarding,
Kevin Jackson, AICPPlanning & Building Director
City of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Tel: (510) 420-3039Fax: (510) 658-3167
Receive Planning & Building Department news emails by subscribing at:
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/rMGm1oM/PiedmontPlanBuild “ From: Marjorie Blackwell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2025 3:10 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin Jackson <[email protected]>
Subject: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
To:Piedmont City Council
From: Friends of Moraga Canyon, Board of Directors members Re:
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, Traffic Plan
Cc:Piedmont Planning Commission, Piedmont Planning Department Date:
May 5, 2025
Dear City Council Members,
Friends of Moraga Canyon (registered 501-C3 nonprofit) has retained ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 472
the services of
Tom Brohard, a licensed California traffic engineer,to review the proposed traffic plan in the Moraga Avenue Specific Plan. Please see his attached letter (#1), dated April 28, 2025.
As you can see, Mr. Brohard does not agree with the Plan’s traffic analysis of existing speeds, stopping sight distances required for a traffic signal and pedestrian crossing at Red Rock Road, or driveway placements on the south side of Moraga Ave.Mr. Brohard refers to an earlier analysis (Oct. 1, 2024) which he did of the traffic plan in the MCSPAdministrative Draft (Attach #2).
Piedmont resident Ralph Catalano further spelled out the traffic and pedestrian safety issues in a statement to City Council on Oct. 7, 2024. His statement refers to a 2010 EIR for a proposed Blair Park sports field that also found that stopping sight distances at Red Rock Road do not meet Caltrans standards (Attach #3).
We realize you have many issues to consider with this extremely challenging Plan, and we appreciate the careful, thoughtful and deliberative analysis you are giving it. Traffic and pedestrian safety surely are at the top of the list. Please keep asking the tough questions.
Thank you for your consideration, and let us know if you have any questions or need further information.
Friends of Moraga Canyon Board of Directors
Marj Blackwell, President
Daphne Albert, Treasurer
Julie Watters, Secretary
Peggy Esposito, Oakland representative
Attach. 1
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 473
Attach. 2
Attach. 3.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 474
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 475
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 476
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 477
Statement of Ralph Catalano at the Piedmont City Council of October 7, 2024 Our City Council will soon choose either the north or south side of Moraga Avenue as the site for a new 200-household neighborhood required by State law. That choice will reflect how safely pedestrians and bicyclists can cross Moraga Avenue at Red Rock.
This is true because the south side option presumes that children residing in Blair Park will cross Moraga at the Red Rock intersection when leaving for, or returning from, either school or Coaches Field. As is now the case on the existing sidewalk west of Red Rock, a fence on the proposed sidewalk along Blair Park would likely be built to keep children from “dashing” across Moraga where about 2,200 of the 15,000 cars using the road each day will travel at speeds exceeding 40 MPH. The Blair Park fence would “funnel” pedestrians to the Red Rock intersection where they could activate a planned “stop light” presumably visible for a sufficient distance to allow motorists on Moraga to stop safely.
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, the city’s traffic consultant opined that stopping sight distances for drivers approaching the Red Rock intersection from either direction on Moraga Avenue would be safe. He reported basing his opinion on Caltrans guidelines.
Several of us who live in Moraga Canyon found the consultant’s report surprising because a 2010 EIR prepared for proposed playfields in Blair Park found that sight distances on the segment of Moraga that includes the intersection at Red Rock did not meet Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. Hoping to understand this important contradiction, I applied the Caltrans guidelines to the proposed Red Rock intersection.
Results were the same as reported in the earlier EIR -- stopping sight distances were less than Caltrans deems safe.
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual is very technical but includes two tables (attached) that succinctly provide the information regarding stopping sight distances.
The first table (i.e., 405.1B) lists the appropriate guidelines for various types of roads and intersections. For signalized intersections such as that proposed at Red Rock and Moraga, a footnote to the table refers the reader to a second table (i.e., 201.1) showing stopping sight distances for various “design speeds.”
Design speed for existing roads equals the “operational speed” adjusted for circumstances specific to the analyzed road segment. Operational speed equals the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds observed traveling on the road segment in question.
The September 25 Planning Commission staff report cited an operational speed of 39 MPH and a design speed of 40 MPH for Moraga Avenue at Red Rock and Blair Park.
Table 201.1 in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual shows a stopping sight distance of 300 feet for a signalized intersection on a roadway with a “design speed” of 40 MPH.
I have attached two Google maps showing my results. Each shows the segment of Moraga Avenue that includes the Red Rock intersection. Figure A shows about 190 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 478
feet between the the point at which drivers traveling east on Moraga first see the Red Rock intersection and the intersection itself. Figure B shows about 380 feet between the point at which vehicles traveling west first see the intersection and the intersection itself. If correct, these graphs imply no safe location for a signalized intersection near the current Red Rock Road. Even if the city took private property on Moraga Avenue and moved the intersection 110 feet to the east to provide a 300 foot sight distance for vehicles traveling east, vehicles traveling west would encounter an unsafe 270-foot sight distance.
Also note that 200 households would likely generate over 1,200 vehicular entrances and exits from Blair Park each day. The guidelines described above imply no connecting road between Blair Park and Moraga Avenue could be safely located between the current Red Rock intersection and the “first sight” point shown on Figure B for vehicles traveling west. A connector in this segment would cause dangerous stacking of vehicles making left turns into Blair Park from a point within 300 feet of first sight by drivers traveling west on Moraga. All 1200 or so daily trips out of and into Blair Park would, therefore, occur on a single connector east of the first sight point on Figure B. AM stacking in Blair Park and PM stacking on Moraga at such a single connector would be considerable with the latter causing stacking on the Moraga/Thornhill exit of Route 13 which has a dangerously short stopping sight distance.
Assuming the above is correct, it would seem that any scheme to house 200 families in Moraga Canyon will be dangerous by Caltrans standards. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety, however, favors planning Piedmont’s new neighborhood for the north side of Moraga. This is true because residents would have no reason to cross Moraga where the only land use would be the relocated Corporation Yard.
As noted above, design speed can be modified to reflect local circumstances. Caltrans, for example, modifies design speed shown in Table 201.1 to reflect the grade of roads.
Downhill grades increase design speed whereas uphill grades decrease them. The staff report did not describe the grade of the road segment in question, but Moraga Avenue is not flat. The downhill, or westerly, grade decreases at Red Rock but for the purposes of this analysis, I assumed the grade was constant. If so, grade adjusting my analyses would not affect my conclusion that a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock would not be safe. Any shortening of the 300 foot stopping sight distance for drivers approaching Red Rock from the west (i.e., traveling east) would be canceled by lengthening of that for drivers approaching from the east (i.e., traveling west). There would be no safe location for a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock.
The above result assumes a design speed of 40 MPH. As noted above, however, about 2,200 vehicles a day will exceed 40 MPH when traveling on Moraga Avenue. Indeed, the Highway Design Manual recommends (Page 100-2) that the Design Speed for local roads connecting to a State highway like Route 13 be 45 MPH or higher. If we assume this design speed (i.e., 45 MPH), housing 200 families in Blair Park would appear even more dangerous than implied by my conservative analyses described above. The ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 479
argument entertained at the Planning Commission meeting, moreover, that narrowing Moraga Avenue could yield safer speeds assumes that the resulting “stacking” of vehicles on Route 13 at the Moraga/Thornhill exit during peak traffic hours would be safe. Stopping sight distance to that exit on Route 13 while traveling east is, however, far below safe levels given the speeds traveled on that highway.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 480
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 481
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 482
Figure A
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 483
Figure B
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 484
To Friends of Moraga Canyon Board:
October 2, 2024
As requested, I have now reviewed the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Administrative Draft and the Staff Report that were discussed by the City Council at their September 23, 2024, meeting. I have several comments for consideration as follows:
1. Traffic Speeds and Critical Speeds – In 2011, my reports questioned the 25 MPH speed limit and the data that was collected at that time. Speed limits are established at about the 85th percentile speed as measured in an engineering and traffic survey. Establishing an enforceable speed limit requires starting at the 5 MPH increment closest to that speed. The 85th percentile speed (or critical speed), is the speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or less under light, free-flowing conditions in good weather. Current speeds need to be measured in both directions on Moraga Avenue in the vicinity of Red Rock Road, with at least 100 vehicles measured in each direction. The speeds uphill and downhill should be averaged together and the critical speed calculated.
2. Design Speeds – When selecting a design speed from the measured speeds, typically a speed of 10 MPH above the critical speed is chosen. At the design speed, about 95 percent of the traffic would be travelling at or below that speed. If the critical speed was found to be 43 or 44 MPH, then a design speed of 55 MPH should be utilized. If the critical speed was found to be 42 or 41 MPH, then a design speed of 50 MPH should be utilized.
3. Stopping Sight Distance – The chart from the Caltrans Design Manual attached to Ralph’s draft letter does not account for the roadway profile grade. Downhill grades require additional stopping distance and uphill roadway grades require less stopping distance. For Moraga Avenue, the roadway grade at Red Rock Road should be considered. The stopping sight distance on a flat road would be 500’ as shown in the chart for 55 MPH and 430’ for 50 MPH.
In each case, the impact of the roadway grade should be added for downhill traffic and subtracted for uphill traffic.
4. Residential Development – Section 3.11 of the Administrative Draft indicates that up to 197 multi-family units and 2 single family homes could be constructed in the area available. From the 11th Edition of Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), each affordable housing unit would be expected to generate about 5 weekday daily trips and each multi-family housing unit would generate about 7 weekday daily trips. I understand that the City Council is continuing to consider the location of the housing, but all housing will either be on the north side of Moraga Road or all on the south side. With residential development north of Moraga Avenue, all vehicle access would occur from Red Rock Road, a proposed signalized intersection that would also serve the Corporate Yard and Coaches Field. With residential development on the south side of Moraga Avenue, multiple driveways would be constructed to serve the new housing and parking along the side of Moraga Avenue at Blair Field. Page 99 of the Administrative Draft illustrates that at least 3 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 485
driveways would be provided, with each creating uncontrolled vehicle access to and from Moraga Avenue. These three vehicle access driveways would create numerous additional conflict points with Moraga Avenue traffic compared to providing a single access point for residential development on the north side at Red Rock Road controlled by a traffic signal.
5. Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road Configuration – Page 70 of the Administrative Draft illustrates a traffic signal with pedestrian facilities and advance flashing beacons for this intersection. With the housing development that is proposed and if it is located on the north side of Moraga Avenue, a traffic signal would be warranted and should be installed. I do not believe that a traffic signal would be warranted if the housing is built on the south side of the roadway. Furthermore, traffic safety would be compromised with several driveways that would create additional conflict points on Moraga Avenue. Based on this finding alone regarding traffic safety, the housing should be constructed on the north side of Moraga Avenue. Several suggestions should also be considered as follows:
a. Traffic Signal Operation – With only one through lane in each direction, separate left turn phasing (arrows) would not be needed on Moraga Avenue. When constructing the traffic signal, provisions such as wiring and larger pole foundations should be included that would easily and economically accommodate left turn phasing in the future should it be desired.
b. Moraga Avenue – The roadway should include a separate eastbound left turn lane with a 150’ reverse taper and adequate length to accommodate 10 MPH slowing in the through lane and slowing to 15 MPH for left turns from the downhill design speed.
Moraga Avenue should also include an eastbound acceleration lane that mirrors the eastbound left turn lane and allows smooth acceleration and merging into the single lane for eastbound traffic.
c. Red Rock Road – The roadway should intersect Moraga Avenue at a 90-degree angle (squared off) and there should not be a free right turn into Red Rock Road from the east – all traffic should be controlled by the traffic signal. d. Pedestrian Crosswalks – One should be across Red Rock Drive and only on one side across Moraga Avenue with accessible ramps (probably the east side for Blair Park). “Walk” “Don’t Walk” pedestrian indications should be provided for the crosswalks, together with sufficient time for pedestrians to cross Moraga Avenue.
Raised islands for pedestrians to stand on in the middle of Moraga Avenue would not be safe and should not be provided. Pedestrian crossings of the west leg should be prohibited with signs and pedestrian barricades.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 486
e. Advance Flashing Beacons – Advance flashing beacons should be installed on Moraga Avenue with traffic signal warning signs, not a Pedestrian warning sign as illustrated. “Signal Ahead” pavement markings adjacent to the flashing beacons should also be painted.
f. Public Transit – Drop Off/Pick Up Zones – The location of public transit stops on the far side of the signalized intersection on Moraga Avenue and Red Rock Road is appropriate. These bus zones could also be used for drop off/pick up zones for the new housing and for Coaches Field so that users would not be required to enter the site.
g. Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities – I agree with the proposed sidewalks shown in Chapter 4.8. Existing bicycle facilities are shown on Chapter 4.10, with the proposed bicycle facilities shown on Chapter 4.11. Based on the counts cited from September 2023 in Chapter 4.10 of “up to 5 bicyclists per hour were observed in both directions”, I do not believe that the bicycle lane network proposed in Chapter 4.11 is needed.
Today’s low bike volume together with the profile grades facing additional bike riders with the required professional quality of the riders would not seem to justify the expense. Constructing the proposed facilities for the few bicyclists would require significant cutting, filling, grading, and drainage structures.
6. Provide Stopping Sight Distances – Trees, bushes, and side slopes should be cut back to provide stopping sight distances for downhill and for uphill traffic on Moraga Avenue of the traffic signal indications and the flashing beacons. It may be necessary to provide an additional traffic signal indication on the far-left approach at 18’ high to obtain the needed stopping sight distance for the design speed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments for consideration. Please call me or email if there are questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Brohard, Principal
Tom Brohard and Associates
81905 Mountain View Lane
La Quinta, California 92253-7611
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 487
(760) 398-8885
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 488
Statement of Ralph Catalano at the Piedmont City Council of October 7, 2024 Our City Council will soon choose either the north or south side of Moraga Avenue as the site for a new 200-household neighborhood required by State law. That choice will reflect how safely pedestrians and bicyclists can cross Moraga Avenue at Red Rock.
This is true because the south side option presumes that children residing in Blair Park will cross Moraga at the Red Rock intersection when leaving for, or returning from, either school or Coaches Field. As is now the case on the existing sidewalk west of Red Rock, a fence on the proposed sidewalk along Blair Park would likely be built to keep children from “dashing” across Moraga where about 2,200 of the 15,000 cars using the road each day will travel at speeds exceeding 40 MPH. The Blair Park fence would “funnel” pedestrians to the Red Rock intersection where they could activate a planned “stop light” presumably visible for a sufficient distance to allow motorists on Moraga to stop safely.
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, the city’s traffic consultant opined that stopping sight distances for drivers approaching the Red Rock intersection from either direction on Moraga Avenue would be safe. He reported basing his opinion on Caltrans guidelines.
Several of us who live in Moraga Canyon found the consultant’s report surprising because a 2010 EIR prepared for proposed playfields in Blair Park found that sight distances on the segment of Moraga that includes the intersection at Red Rock did not meet Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. Hoping to understand this important contradiction, I applied the Caltrans guidelines to the proposed Red Rock intersection.
Results were the same as reported in the earlier EIR -- stopping sight distances were less than Caltrans deems safe.
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual is very technical but includes two tables (attached) that succinctly provide the information regarding stopping sight distances.
The first table (i.e., 405.1B) lists the appropriate guidelines for various types of roads and intersections. For signalized intersections such as that proposed at Red Rock and Moraga, a footnote to the table refers the reader to a second table (i.e., 201.1) showing stopping sight distances for various “design speeds.”
Design speed for existing roads equals the “operational speed” adjusted for circumstances specific to the analyzed road segment. Operational speed equals the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds observed traveling on the road segment in question.
The September 25 Planning Commission staff report cited an operational speed of 39 MPH and a design speed of 40 MPH for Moraga Avenue at Red Rock and Blair Park.
Table 201.1 in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual shows a stopping sight distance of 300 feet for a signalized intersection on a roadway with a “design speed” of 40 MPH.
I have attached two Google maps showing my results. Each shows the segment of Moraga Avenue that includes the Red Rock intersection. Figure A shows about 190 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 489
feet between the the point at which drivers traveling east on Moraga first see the Red Rock intersection and the intersection itself. Figure B shows about 380 feet between the point at which vehicles traveling west first see the intersection and the intersection itself. If correct, these graphs imply no safe location for a signalized intersection near the current Red Rock Road. Even if the city took private property on Moraga Avenue and moved the intersection 110 feet to the east to provide a 300 foot sight distance for vehicles traveling east, vehicles traveling west would encounter an unsafe 270-foot sight distance.
Also note that 200 households would likely generate over 1,200 vehicular entrances and exits from Blair Park each day. The guidelines described above imply no connecting road between Blair Park and Moraga Avenue could be safely located between the current Red Rock intersection and the “first sight” point shown on Figure B for vehicles traveling west. A connector in this segment would cause dangerous stacking of vehicles making left turns into Blair Park from a point within 300 feet of first sight by drivers traveling west on Moraga. All 1200 or so daily trips out of and into Blair Park would, therefore, occur on a single connector east of the first sight point on Figure B. AM stacking in Blair Park and PM stacking on Moraga at such a single connector would be considerable with the latter causing stacking on the Moraga/Thornhill exit of Route 13 which has a dangerously short stopping sight distance.
Assuming the above is correct, it would seem that any scheme to house 200 families in Moraga Canyon will be dangerous by Caltrans standards. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety, however, favors planning Piedmont’s new neighborhood for the north side of Moraga. This is true because residents would have no reason to cross Moraga where the only land use would be the relocated Corporation Yard.
As noted above, design speed can be modified to reflect local circumstances. Caltrans, for example, modifies design speed shown in Table 201.1 to reflect the grade of roads.
Downhill grades increase design speed whereas uphill grades decrease them. The staff report did not describe the grade of the road segment in question, but Moraga Avenue is not flat. The downhill, or westerly, grade decreases at Red Rock but for the purposes of this analysis, I assumed the grade was constant. If so, grade adjusting my analyses would not affect my conclusion that a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock would not be safe. Any shortening of the 300 foot stopping sight distance for drivers approaching Red Rock from the west (i.e., traveling east) would be canceled by lengthening of that for drivers approaching from the east (i.e., traveling west). There would be no safe location for a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock.
The above result assumes a design speed of 40 MPH. As noted above, however, about 2,200 vehicles a day will exceed 40 MPH when traveling on Moraga Avenue. Indeed, the Highway Design Manual recommends (Page 100-2) that the Design Speed for local roads connecting to a State highway like Route 13 be 45 MPH or higher. If we assume this design speed (i.e., 45 MPH), housing 200 families in Blair Park would appear even more dangerous than implied by my conservative analyses described above. The ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 490
argument entertained at the Planning Commission meeting, moreover, that narrowing Moraga Avenue could yield safer speeds assumes that the resulting “stacking” of vehicles on Route 13 at the Moraga/Thornhill exit during peak traffic hours would be safe. Stopping sight distance to that exit on Route 13 while traveling east is, however, far below safe levels given the speeds traveled on that highway.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 491
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 492
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 493
Figure A
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 494
Figure B
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 495
From: Lisjan Nation
To: Pierce Macdonald
Cc: Kevin Jackson
Subject: Re: Draft City of Piedmont Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Date: Thursday, May 08, 2025 5:48:46 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image002.png
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Hi Pierce,
Thank you for sharing this document with us for our records, and we appreciate the City of Piedmont's efforts to help us protect our Tribal Cultural Resources. The Tribe has no further concerns with this plan and looks forward to consulting on any development projects that may arise from this plan.
'Uni (Respectfully),
Lucy Gill, Cultural Resource Manager II
Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:40 AM Pierce Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning Deja Gould and Lucy Gill,
Thank you for consulting with Director Jackson and the City of Piedmont as we prepared the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, which was recently posted for public comment on the City website here:
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Departments/Pla nning%20Division/MCSP/2025-04-18_MCSP-PUBLIC%20REVIEW%20DRAFT.pdf? v=it1sJRaUF&v=it1sJRaUF
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 496
Chapter 10 includes the provisions for the protection of cultural resources.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Pierce Macdonald
Senior Planner
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
[email protected] | (510) 420 - 3063
Receive Planning & Building Department news emails by subscribing at:
https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/rMGm1oM/PiedmontPlanBuild ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 497
To: Piedmont City Council
From: Kathleen Hurley, [email protected]
Re: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, Traffic Plan Safety Concerns Cc: Piedmont Planning Commission
Date: June 3, 2025
Dear City Council Members,
Living as I do very close to the Moraga Canyon proposed development sites, I know firsthand how people speed up and down Moraga Ave, to and from Highway 13, to or from Pleasant Valley Road, ignoring posted City of Piedmont traffic signs. It is a challenging roadway that also serves as a major connector.
When the City of Piedmont considered developing new sports fields in Blair Park from 2008 to 2012, there were years of studies, a lawsuit and much controversy.
I attended meetings and read reports where experts and knowledgeable citizens explained why development was too dangerous, even with a pedestrian bridge and/or a crosswalk and/or a traffic light to have persons (children in particular) crossing busy Moraga Ave by Coaches field. Inadequate sightlines were a big part of that calculation. Identified safety issues weren’t just at the Coaches field site but also farther up the hill looking at traffic impacts and dangers of bottlenecks all along Moraga which serves as an important emergency escape route for residents from both Piedmont and Oakland.
An environmental impact study in 2010 found that stopping sight distances at for the former development plan did not meet Caltrans standards. How has that changed?
I was present at the April 30 presentation by the project consultant where traffic issues were discussed. The speaker acknowledged sightlines are a continuing concern yet seemed quite dismissive of projected impacts, I believe saying it would be quite minimal. He claimed Caltrans sightline standards remain in place, yet he somehow didn’t think there was a problem. It was clear their report did not address impacts along the length of Moraga Ave but only at what lies inside the boundaries of Piedmont. When asked how drivers exiting driveways from certain parts of the south side of Moraga could turn back toward central Piedmont, the consultant’s response was to say the drivers could simply turn around at the next block. That next block isn’t identified on the project ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 498
maps, yet locals know it is Harbord Drive he was referring to. This is a narrow winding road with an upslope side and downslope, not easy to turn in. Sightlines up to and on Harbord are poor with near blind curves depending on direction.
And yes, Harbord is the next block over the Piedmont border which seems to be why the consultants aren’t mapping it or looking at the issues and impact the proposed development would bring.
In 2012 there was acknowledgement that the intersection at Moraga Ave and Harbord was going to be impacted by traffic in a way that was problematic.
Before that proposal died, the City of Piedmont considered paying Oakland for the installation of a four-way traffic light at Harbord. To my knowledge the suggestion didn’t get far enough to check it out with State and Oakland requirements to be positioned so closely to the freeway. Cars already back up on Moraga at busy times waiting for a left turn light on Thornhill drive. Traffic on Moraga Ave and on Hwy 13 has not lessened and the need to maintain safe exits in the event of emergencies remains.
Before the Oakland firestorm in 1991, there was a freeway sign some may recall directing trucks to use Park Blvd to exit instead of Moraga, in acknowledgement Moraga isn’t a good route for heavy truck traffic. That sign has been gone for years now, and trucks make their way off Moraga, sometimes getting stuck as just happened recently on Harbord Drive, blocking traffic on streets that were not intended for such use.
I much appreciated the thoughtful questions to the consultants I observed at the April 30 meeting though some of their research and answers seemed greatly lacking. Traffic and pedestrian safety must continue to be safeguarded as before. No one wants deaths on their hands. Development was not deemed safe in 2010 or 2012. Please continue to question how it can be safer now with more density and traffic.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kathleen Hurley
Harbord Drive resident since 1986
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 499
From: Kenneth A Polse
To: Moraga Canyon News
Subject: MoragaCayon Project
Date: Friday, June 13, 2025 2:37:47 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
To: Piedmont City Planning Commission:
From: Kenneth & Joyce Polse
We have lived in Piedmont since 1972 and have always been impressed with the careful, thoughtful planning our City Council has done in planning future projects. We understand that Piedmont must meet certain housing requirements, however, we do not understand why a major source of this housing requirement is being planned for Moraga Canyon. Listed below are some our concerns:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.
<!--[endif]-->Traffic
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.
<!--[endif]-->Currently, from 7:30am -6:00pm there is a constant flow of traffic along Moraga Ave. The addition of so many housing units will add considerably more traffic.Also, because this additional traffic is associated with home occupancy, owners will be driving in and out several times a day in addition to the associated additional traffic from service vehicles, delivery trucks, etc. In sum for many periods during the day, cars will likely back up to Pleasant Valley Rd. and perhaps further.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.
<!--[endif]-->Safety:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.
<!--[endif]-->The increased traffic load will almost
certainly make pedestrian and bike travel dangerous. As a cyclist who often bikes up Moraga from Highland, I can assure the Council it is already dangerous.
Cars tend to speed, often get too close and sometimes cross into the bike lane.
With the increased traffic along with more larger service vehicles, the danger for serious accidents will increase. Does Piedmont want to expose the children
and adults who will be walking
or cycling along Moraga to these serioussafety
conditions?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.
<!--[endif]-->Environmental Impact:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.
<!--[endif]-->Although we understand that the City has
done an environmental impact, I wonder if the correct estimates of cars, noise level, auto exhaust, etc. has been properly accessed in the evaluation. For example, did the impact study consider the “in and out” driving of homeowners and the extra number of serviceand delivery vehicles that will accompany the completion of the project? Also, there will be a marked increase in noise levels.
It is hard to believe that the additional traffic and associated noise would not have a substantial negative impact on the environment. Is the council sure that the impact study has included the many variables that will affect the environment?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.
<!--[endif]-->Costs:
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 500
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.
<!--[endif]-->The costs for this project are monumental.
Addressing the potential hazards of excavation of the mountain, street widening, pedestrian paths, etc. most likely can’t be accurately estimated.
Does the City believe that the developers will bear these costs? I think that is unlikely and once begun the responsibility for over budget costs, which may run into the millions will be borne by the City.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.
<!--[endif]-->Additional Building Sites:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.
<!--[endif]-->It is critical for the Council to find other building sites. These would include property on Grand Avenue, Linda Beach Dog Park, and other possible sites which have been discussed at previous meetings.
What is currently being planned is the “Perfect Storm”.The Moraga project should be eliminated, and other more feasible construction sites should be considered.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.
<!--[endif]-->Legacy:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a.
<!--[endif]-->If the project is funded, Piedmont will be leaving our future homeowners with a very busy street, heightened risk to pedestrians and cyclists, excessive noise, increased pollution, and potentially large property tax assessments to cover the almost certain over budget costs of the project.
We hope the city will reconsider this project. While we understand the need to add affordable housing in Piedmont, we also strongly feel that this current project is a mistake. We urge you to explore other alternatives to meet Piedmont’shousing needs.
Sincerely,
Joyce and Kenneth Polse
Kenneth A. POLSE
Professor of the Graduate School
Edward A. Dickson Emeritus Professor
Herbert Wertheim School of Optometry & Vision Science
University of California, Berkeley
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 501
From: Alice Talcott
To: Moraga Canyon News; Kevin Jackson; Pierce Macdonald Subject: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan: Public Comment
Date: Monday, June 16, 2025 12:40:12 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
June 16, 2025
Dear Director Jackson, Mayor Andersen and Members of the Piedmont City Council, I am writing to provide feedback on the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP). I am truly excited by how far we have come as a community in both adopting our Housing Element and creating this plan as part of implementing it. It has been a long and extensive process with much thoughtful planning and conversation and I am eager to see it result in new homes being built in Piedmont. As such, it’s important that that the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan be the path toward development and not create unrealistic requirements that will ensure its failure.
In addition to working with PREC on a group letter, I have the following more specific recommendations based on my professional experience financing and developing thousands of units of affordable housing in the Bay Area over the last 35 years.
The overarching comment I have is that the Plan should provide enough detail that potential developers understand the requirements and that realistic expectations are set. At the same time, development is a dynamic effort which needs to be able to respond to new information and changes in economic conditions, timelines and funding sources, and the Plan should be flexible enough to allow for these changes. Generally, I found Section 10 to reflect that need for flexibility with a more nuanced discussion of these implementation concerns than in the rest of the Plan, which has more blanket statements.
In particular, there are multiple statements in Section 9, Public Infrastructure, about which party pays for necessary infrastructure. For example, on p. 94, it states “... all underground utility infrastructure - both wet and dry- required to support the work w/in the MCSP area shall be constructed and funded by the developer." Further similar statements are made on pages 98, 103 and104. These should be removed, as Section 10.4.3 is a much more realistic statement of the reality of potential funding sources and obligations to build infrastructure, some of which may be financed with grants applied for by the City. The specifics on which costs are paid for by the developer as opposed to the City are better handled in the Developer RFP and then in the Development Agreement rather than in the Specific Plan.
There are a few details related to affordable housing that I believe are necessary/helpful for the financial feasibility of the affordable housing:
Section 10.5.2.6 B, p. 120 incorrectly defines the target population for the affordable ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 502
housing. it says the Development Agreement terms must require "the provision of affordable housing, with a minimum of 60 units affordable to households earning very low and extremely low incomes. This is not consistent with earlier statements in the plan or the Housing Element, and should instead say Low and Very Low Incomes. As stated, this restricts eligibility to 50% of AMI, which is inconsistent with the major funding programs for Low Income Housing which allow up to Low Income and which will likely be necessary for financial feasibility. In addition, clarification is needed on the continuation of that statement to make it clear that ALL of the housing is required to have 50% two bedrooms. As written it is not entirely clear.
Section 5.7.1 3, P. 52. Required Recreational Amenities. For projects up to 79 units, which the affordable housing will be, there are three amenities of which two are required, which include a playground for resident youth, picnic seating and an indoor gym/fitness area. I will note that it is unusual in affordable housing to provide an indoor gym/fitness area whereas a community/multi-purpose room which is available for resident use is both common and often required. This amenity description should be changed to an indoor gym/fitness area or community room.
Lastly, the Plan has design requirements that will impose unnecessary expense on the affordable housing project, which will be more specifically detailed in the letter from PREC. It is important that the housing meet a high quality of design that ensures it can be well maintained over time and blend well with the market rate housing. However, this must be balanced with the reality of ever-rising construction costs. In today’s housing finance landscape, cost effectiveness is absolutely vital for project success. I encourage you to delete these unnecessary design requirements.
Sincerely,
Alice Talcott
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 503
From: irene cheng
To: City Council
Cc: Kevin Jackson; Pierce Macdonald; Rosanna Bayon Moore; Moraga Canyon News Subject: Feedback on Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Date: Saturday, June 28, 2025 8:15:41 AM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Dear Mayor Andersen and Members of the Piedmont City Council, We are writing as Piedmont residents and housing advocates to provide feedback on the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP). We deeply appreciate the extensive and thoughtful planning effort that has gone into this document. However we have significant concerns about whether the plan, as currently drafted, will actually result in the housing production that Piedmont needs to meet its obligations under the state’s Housing Element law.
As a reminder of how we got here, and where we are trying to go: As part of its Housing Element, the City committed in 2022 to the creation of a MCSP in order to facilitate the construction of multifamily housing, specifically affordable housing. Program 1.L of the City’s Housing Element states: “The first goal [of the specific plan] is to enable construction of housing at a minimum of 132 units,... [including] a minimum of 60 units of housing affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI).” As we have stated in previous correspondence, we continue to be concerned that the MCSP fails to meet this legally mandated goal, because it does not put forward an actually feasible development plan. Our concerns fall in two primary areas: 1) financial feasibility stemming from the public infrastructure requirements, and 2) construction and cost feasibility stemming from the site and design guidelines.
Financial Feasibility Related to Public Infrastructure
The MSCP appears to place an unprecedented infrastructure burden on prospective housing developers, requiring them to fund in part or in whole:
Complete utility undergrounding and infrastructure upgrades Traffic signal installation and intersection improvements Sewer system capacity upgrades for the broader area
Potential relocation of the city corporation yard (Option B only) ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 504
Extensive grading, retaining walls, and slope stabilization "Community benefits" beyond standard development obligations The plan's own feasibility analysis found that "under current market conditions, it would be challenging for private developers to build all housing units and pay market value for the land, as well as cover the cost of public infrastructure and amenities identified in the Plan." Requiring housing developers to shoulder all of the above costs creates a significant barrier to project viability. Option B–which requires the City (or a developer) to relocate and build a new Corporation Yard–is patently unfeasible, both in terms of phasing (delays any housing construction by years if not decades) and cost (the MSCP implies that reconstruction of the Corporation Yard would have to be part of the development agreement, which no developer will accept). Even Option A presents significant hurdles.
Moreover, if the City is really asking developers to pay for infrastructure beyond what is needed specifically to serve the new development, then that may be in violation of constitutional nexus and proportionality requirements enshrined in the Mitigation Fee Act.
Jurisdictions are not supposed to ask a particular developer to subsidize the rest of the community; they can only charge for each developer’s “fair share” of the improvements.
Construction and Cost Feasibility related to Design Guidelines We shared the MCSP with two experienced affordable housing architects from Dahlin and David Baker Architects, who noted several requirements in particular which may pose challenges to the project’s feasibility:
The site setback requirements for Option A (housing south of Moraga Ave) cited in Section 5 Site Design produce a very constrained site footprint that may be too small to fit the 135 units prescribed in the plan. Has the City’s consultant done a massing plan using its own standards that show this number of units can fit, either with or without density bonus incentives?
While high-quality design is important, the MCSP includes numerous prescriptive and costly requirements, including highly detailed architectural styles, complex massing and roof form calculations, extensive landscape and lighting specifications, and firesafe material requirements beyond standard codes. These standards, while wellintentioned, may add substantial costs that could prevent a development from being feasible. In particular, the affordable housing architects pointed to two requirements that will add significant cost and that should be omitted:
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 505
Required 10 foot setbacks of the building massing (Guideline 6.5): These are very challenging to produce efficient multifamily housing, and are often produce visually clumsy massing
Deep window recesses of 3 inches or more (Guideline 7.4.3): Deep window recesses are expensive.
Requirement for private open space for each unit (Guideline 5.7.2): This will add unnecessary cost for the affordable housing units while also creating long term maintenance issues.
Recommendations for Revision
To better align the MCSP with housing production goals, we respectfully suggest the Council consider:
1. Infrastructure Cost Sharing: We recommend the MCSP be revised to clearly state and limit the costs of public infrastructure to be borne by the developers. The terms for the Development Agreement as listed in Section 10.5.6.2 of the plan include overly broad requirements related to the public infrastructure and corporation yard, as mentioned above. Item 9 (“development pays its fair share for the expansion costs and on-going service costs of City emergency response services, educational services provided by the Piedmont Unified School District, recreation services, library services, and public works services”) is not reasonable and should be removed. Typically, costs of increased public services are covered through Impact Fees, which are adopted by the School District, City or Utility District and applied to development jurisdiction wide.
2. Confirm the Unit Count: Do a test fit to confirm that the site setback requirements will allow for the estimated number of housing units.
3. Streamlined Standards: Simplify design requirements to focus on essential community goals while reducing unnecessary complexity and cost. Specifically, we recommend the city:
Eliminate the requirement for massing stepbacks at upper levels.
Eliminate the requirement for deep window recesses.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 506
Eliminate the private open space requirement.
Moving Forward Constructively
Piedmont has an opportunity to be a model for how communities can thoughtfully plan for needed housing while maintaining community character. However, this requires balancing community goals with economic reality. The current plan, despite its thoroughness, may inadvertently prevent the very housing production it aims to enable. We are concerned that the MCSP, as written, will give developers the impression that the City has unrealistic expectations and hence discourage them from submitting proposals to a future RFP.
Similarly, we are concerned that the MCSP may give HCD the impression that the City is disingenuous or unserious about its intention to facilitate housing production in Moraga Canyon.
We encourage the Council to revisit the MCSP with an eye toward practical implementation. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. We look forward to working constructively with the city to ensure Piedmont meets its housing obligations while maintaining the community values residents cherish.
Respectfully submitted,
Members of the Piedmont Racial Equity Campaign (PREC) Housing Committee Irene Cheng
Elise Collins
Frances Fisher
Carol Galante
Sarah Karlinsky
Deborah Leland
Andy Madeira
Claire Parisa
Andrea Ruiz-Esquide
Alice Talcott
Randy Wu
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 507
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 508
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 509
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 510
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 511
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 512
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 513
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 514
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 515
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 516
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 517
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 518
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 519
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 520
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 521
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 522
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 523
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 524
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 525
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 526
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 527
From: Jeffrey Alpert
Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 1:27 PM
To: Lorrel Plimier; Kevin Jackson
Subject: Fwd: Who to send letters to on Piedmont Planning commission Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Presumably the Oakland residents will start harassing you directly pretty soon. The lawyer they hired told them to focus on safety, rather than what they actually care about, so you'll take them more seriously, I guess.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: jane pingatore
Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 1:17 PM
Subject: Who to send letters to on Piedmont Planning commission To: Harbord Google Group
[email protected] .gov
Lorrel Plimier is the staff liaison
With the planning commission. Ask her to please send your letter to all planning Commission members asap as the meeting is so soon (Mon). Remember: safety vs inconvenience. Dont want to sound like NIMBYS!
Thanks
Jane
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Harbord2020" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 528
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 529
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 530
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 531
From: Marjorie Blackwell
To: Kevin Jackson
Cc: Vincent Fisher; Julie Watters; Daphne Albert; Peggy Esposito Subject: Planning Commission Letter
Date: Thursday, August 07, 2025 3:23:33 PM
Attachments: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Traffic Analysis.rtfd.zip Brohard letter-4282025.pdf
R.Catalano- stopp.distance letter 022024.docx
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
This is regarding Item #4 of the Planning Commission agenda on Aug. 11, 2025:
Dear Planning Commission,
We are sending the attached letters again to remind you of the serious traffic safety problems that will result from the proposed development of 200 housing units in Moraga Canyon.
We urge you to pay close attention to this issue and appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marj Blackwell, President
Friends of Moraga Canyon Board of Directors
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 532
Statement of Ralph Catalano at the Piedmont City Council of October 7, 2024 Our City Council will soon choose either the north or south side of Moraga Avenue as the site for a new 200-household neighborhood required by State law. That choice will reflect how safely pedestrians and bicyclists can cross Moraga Avenue at Red Rock.
This is true because the south side option presumes that children residing in Blair Park will cross Moraga at the Red Rock intersection when leaving for, or returning from, either school or Coaches Field. As is now the case on the existing sidewalk west of Red Rock, a fence on the proposed sidewalk along Blair Park would likely be built to keep children from “dashing” across Moraga where about 2,200 of the 15,000 cars using the road each day will travel at speeds exceeding 40 MPH. The Blair Park fence would “funnel” pedestrians to the Red Rock intersection where they could activate a planned “stop light” presumably visible for a sufficient distance to allow motorists on Moraga to stop safely.
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, the city’s traffic consultant opined that stopping sight distances for drivers approaching the Red Rock intersection from either direction on Moraga Avenue would be safe. He reported basing his opinion on Caltrans guidelines.
Several of us who live in Moraga Canyon found the consultant’s report surprising because a 2010 EIR prepared for proposed playfields in Blair Park found that sight distances on the segment of Moraga that includes the intersection at Red Rock did not meet Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. Hoping to understand this important contradiction, I applied the Caltrans guidelines to the proposed Red Rock intersection.
Results were the same as reported in the earlier EIR -- stopping sight distances were less than Caltrans deems safe.
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual is very technical but includes two tables (attached) that succinctly provide the information regarding stopping sight distances.
The first table (i.e., 405.1B) lists the appropriate guidelines for various types of roads and intersections. For signalized intersections such as that proposed at Red Rock and Moraga, a footnote to the table refers the reader to a second table (i.e., 201.1) showing stopping sight distances for various “design speeds.”
Design speed for existing roads equals the “operational speed” adjusted for circumstances specific to the analyzed road segment. Operational speed equals the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds observed traveling on the road segment in question.
The September 25 Planning Commission staff report cited an operational speed of 39 MPH and a design speed of 40 MPH for Moraga Avenue at Red Rock and Blair Park.
Table 201.1 in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual shows a stopping sight distance of 300 feet for a signalized intersection on a roadway with a “design speed” of 40 MPH.
I have attached two Google maps showing my results. Each shows the segment of Moraga Avenue that includes the Red Rock intersection. Figure A shows about 190 ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 533
feet between the the point at which drivers traveling east on Moraga first see the Red Rock intersection and the intersection itself. Figure B shows about 380 feet between the point at which vehicles traveling west first see the intersection and the intersection itself. If correct, these graphs imply no safe location for a signalized intersection near the current Red Rock Road. Even if the city took private property on Moraga Avenue and moved the intersection 110 feet to the east to provide a 300 foot sight distance for vehicles traveling east, vehicles traveling west would encounter an unsafe 270-foot sight distance.
Also note that 200 households would likely generate over 1,200 vehicular entrances and exits from Blair Park each day. The guidelines described above imply no connecting road between Blair Park and Moraga Avenue could be safely located between the current Red Rock intersection and the “first sight” point shown on Figure B for vehicles traveling west. A connector in this segment would cause dangerous stacking of vehicles making left turns into Blair Park from a point within 300 feet of first sight by drivers traveling west on Moraga. All 1200 or so daily trips out of and into Blair Park would, therefore, occur on a single connector east of the first sight point on Figure B. AM stacking in Blair Park and PM stacking on Moraga at such a single connector would be considerable with the latter causing stacking on the Moraga/Thornhill exit of Route 13 which has a dangerously short stopping sight distance.
Assuming the above is correct, it would seem that any scheme to house 200 families in Moraga Canyon will be dangerous by Caltrans standards. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety, however, favors planning Piedmont’s new neighborhood for the north side of Moraga. This is true because residents would have no reason to cross Moraga where the only land use would be the relocated Corporation Yard.
As noted above, design speed can be modified to reflect local circumstances. Caltrans, for example, modifies design speed shown in Table 201.1 to reflect the grade of roads.
Downhill grades increase design speed whereas uphill grades decrease them. The staff report did not describe the grade of the road segment in question, but Moraga Avenue is not flat. The downhill, or westerly, grade decreases at Red Rock but for the purposes of this analysis, I assumed the grade was constant. If so, grade adjusting my analyses would not affect my conclusion that a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock would not be safe. Any shortening of the 300 foot stopping sight distance for drivers approaching Red Rock from the west (i.e., traveling east) would be canceled by lengthening of that for drivers approaching from the east (i.e., traveling west). There would be no safe location for a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock.
The above result assumes a design speed of 40 MPH. As noted above, however, about 2,200 vehicles a day will exceed 40 MPH when traveling on Moraga Avenue. Indeed, the Highway Design Manual recommends (Page 100-2) that the Design Speed for local roads connecting to a State highway like Route 13 be 45 MPH or higher. If we assume this design speed (i.e., 45 MPH), housing 200 families in Blair Park would appear even more dangerous than implied by my conservative analyses described above. The ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 534
argument entertained at the Planning Commission meeting, moreover, that narrowing Moraga Avenue could yield safer speeds assumes that the resulting “stacking” of vehicles on Route 13 at the Moraga/Thornhill exit during peak traffic hours would be safe. Stopping sight distance to that exit on Route 13 while traveling east is, however, far below safe levels given the speeds traveled on that highway.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 535
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 536
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 537
Figure A
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 538
Figure B
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 539
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 540
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 541
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 542
August 13, 2025
Dear Commissioners,
I tried to make the following points about the Blair Park Option A at the August 11 Planning Commission meeting
1. The graphic site plan and 3-D aerial view have not been updated since the maximum number of units increased from 130 to 197.
2. Using as a template the 4-story over 2-levels parking, Bond Apartments in Redmond, Washington, I created a view of what 197 units might look like on Blair Park. See attached images.
3. Piedmont requires 2 parking spaces for every 1-bedroom to 4-bedroom unit, or 394 spaces for 197 units. In addition, the project will need visitor and employee parking, which may total an additional 50 spaces for a total of 444 spaces. The Bond example shows that only around 270 spaces can be accommodated under the residential floors, leaving 176 spaces for surface parking which is not indicated in the Plan.
4. Creating such a large development on Moraga Avenue will create additional congestion and may preclude the enhancement and improvement of the avenue for pedestrians, cyclists and fire evacuation.
5. I pointed out that the concept of “buffering” pedestrian zones from the vehicular zones has already been tested at the Harbord intersection with the result being that the buffers are constantly demolished by angry motorists swerving around left turning cars.
6. I submitted the following to the Piedmont Post: ” The buildings could be 75% as large as The Baxter and Merrill Gardens on Broadway, combined. The surface parking could be 75% as much as stretches from the Rockridge Safeway to Pleasant Valley Road. Another option presented at the August 11 Planning Commission meeting could instead be to negotiate with the City of Oakland to build across Broadway from The Baxter, where residents could walk to Safeway instead of drive. Blair Park could instead be redeveloped as both a park and a world-class staging area to prevent the next firestorm. Moraga Avenue could be enhanced for walkers, bikers and fire evacuation.”
Sincerely,
David Petta
Harbord Drive, Oakland
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 543
COMPARATIVE SITE STUDY
AUGUST, 2025 197 UNITS + PARKING
MORAGA CANYON SPECIFIC PLANAUGUST, 2025 130 UNITS 2
3 11
28 13 44 66 UNITS 90 CARS
66 UNITS
90 CARS
66 UNITS
90 CARS
BLAIR PARK AUGUST, 2025
4 BLAIR PARK, 2028?19
7 UNITS + PARKING
5 MORAGA CANYON SPECIFIC PLANNOVEMBER, 2023 13
0 UNITS 1
August 23, 2025
To: Kevin Jackson
The Piedmont City Council
The Piedmont Planning Commission
Marj Blackwell did an excellent job summarizing the neighborhood concerns about the MCSP for the August 11, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. I’m adding my name to the list of residents who have signed her letter to you. I also am adding comments of my own below.
Points I would like to make:
Cars and Traffic.
• Like Marj, I’m very concerned about traffic safety on Moraga Ave. The City’s traffic consultant has provided an average 900 trips per day increase for 199 housing units. This is not the relevant concern. The issue is the increase in the number of ingresses/egresses during peak commute times, when everyone is heading to work, taking their kids to school, and then coming home in the evening. Moraga Ave will come to a standstill. Nor does it make sense that the multiple driveways proposed by the traffic consultant will help. As noted by the resident on Harbord Drive at the Aug 11th meeting, it is already a long wait to turn left down (west) onto Moraga Ave when there is traffic during commute hours; more points of interruption from multiple driveways will only make things worse.
• As was shown in a drawing from a new architect in the neighborhood at the Planning Commission meeting on Aug 11th, the parking under the apartment buildings is woefully inadequate and does not compute out for the increase to 197 units over the original 132 units. There will need to be another parking lot somewhere. • The employment of driveway standards instead of CalTrans standards for line of sight will make the light dangerous for drivers and crossing to the sidewalk on the North side at the Red Rock light dangerous for people and children, if construction is in Blair Park. • As was pointed out at the Planning Commission meeting, the traffic planning for Moraga Ave stops at the boundaries of the Plan, and does not include the continuing curve heading west to Pala Ave. Nor has the City taken into consideration Oakland residents that use Moraga Ave. Moraga Ave does not just stop at the edges of the MCSP map.
Evacuation Safety.
This is my major concern. In no way do I believe that people will be able to “hike up the trail and go out the gate to the cemetery” behind the skate park in the event of a fire storm, as suggested by Drew at the City Council meeting earlier this summer. I have documented 55 – 64 mph gusts in Moraga Canyon. Firestorms driven by those winds cannot be outwalked or outdriven, as amply demonstrated in this state. People will die.
Nor do I believe the city fire department can adequately evacuate the canyon in advance.
Moraga Ave will already be at a standstill. We just had an evacuation drill conducted by the ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 545
Piedmont Fire Dept on Scenic Ave in June, in which we were asked to practice an evacuation for a Blair Park fire. We were told we would pretty much be on our own because between the Police and the Fire departments and the number of neighborhoods involved, there would only be one police or fire car available to spread the warning and help people leave. Nor will the Fire dept somehow be able to get a fire truck up Moraga Ave as proposed by our fire captain at the City Council meeting. Again, people will die.
I have heard of no effort to approach the Mountain View Cemetery for an easement to build an emergency road to Pleasant Valley for residents of Moraga Canyon, offering an alternate route out of the canyon.
For me, the last year has been about determining the feasibility of building 199 units in Moraga Canyon by exploring all the various issues that needed to be addressed in more detail, from traffic, to building designs and to which side of the canyon would work better. As the issues have compounded, it does not seem that anyone has taken a step back to say, “Is this truly feasible? Is this really a good idea? Will it be safe for the residents?” Instead MCSP has just plowed forward. I know a considerable investment has been made in MCSP by the City. However, I strongly urge you to reconsider. Reduce the density to a safe level in the Canyon. Spread the load to other sites such as the now available Linda Ave Dog Park. Talk to Oakland about a trade. The people who will live in Moraga Canyon will be part of our community. Please care about them.
Sincerely,
Pam Hirtzer
Scenic Ave
p.s. Please stop trying to rebrand Blair Park as “Open Space”. It’s a park.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 546
August 25, 2025
Re. Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Dear Council and Commissioners,
Please consider the following:
1. The Plan contains illustrations and text that are not in agreement: The illustrations still show only 130 units and the text allows for 197 units.
2. The text requires that parking meet City of Piedmont requirements of 2 cars per unit and that all parking shall be contained in two floors below the buildings.
3. The 394 parking spaces do not fit below the buildings, and do not even fit as surface parking on the entirety of Blair Park. See attached.
4. A development of this magnitude will put further pressure on Moraga Avenue, making it unsafe both on a daily basis and in an evacuation emergency.
5. The Plan should be amended to correct these inconsistencies before being offered to developers so that citizens can see what is being proposed, and/or to reduce the scope of the project.
Sincerely,
David Petta
Harbord Drive, Oakland
attachment
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 547
24 32 32 25 27 24 24
ROCKRIDGE SAFEWAY
174 CARS
11 28
13 44
66 UNITS
90 CARS
66 UNITS
90 CARS
66 UNITS
90 CARS
3 buildings x 66 units + 90 podium cars = 197 units + 270 podium cars Required parking = 394 resident cars + 50 visitor/employee = 444 cars Podium parking deficit = 444 - 270 = 174 cars 174 surface parking spaces do not fit on Blair Park
1 By email to: [email protected]
Comment to Planning Commission for 9/8/25 meeting on Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP)
9/1/2025
Introduction: The MCSP articulates principles and objectives with respect to the “Multimodal transportation network” in the MCSP area and vicinity. I have questions and concerns (see 8/9/25 comments on page 3) that have not yet been addressed.
Specifically, at the 8/11/25 meeting, at about 34 minutes on the video, the consultant states that a bike lane, which is critical for bike safety, will be created on the uphill section of Moraga Ave. The consultant was referring to Section A-A (see page 40 of the MCSP).
Section A-A depicts a separate bike lane for uphill (east bound) cyclists. However, cyclists will share the lane with vehicles (and possibly buses) on the section of Moraga Ave to the west of Section A-A. I am attaching a copy of page 37 of the MCSP with the section of concern indicated with blue markings. Here, the plan depicts a Class III bike lane in green on the eastbound section of Moraga Ave.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 549
2 After the August 11, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, I spoke with Kevin Jackson. Mr.
Jackson stated that there are no improvements planned for the narrow section of Moraga Avenue west of Coaches Field near Pala Avenue.
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission again consider the issues raised in my 8/9/25 comments. Access to the proposed new housing is NOT safe for most bicyclists.
The planning document would appear to over-generalize and potentially mislead decisionmakers on this particular topic. Do other parts of this planning document gloss over or miss critical details?
The City recently took the Linda Beach Dog Park out of service. During the council meeting discussion, it was stated that the site was not suitable for use as a dog park and should never have been designated for this use because of the topography. Now is the time to carefully consider all the issues regarding a new housing development in Moraga Canyon to avoid making choices that will be regretted in the future.
Thank you for your consideration. Winifred Walters (Piedmont resident) Attachments: 8/9/25 comments; excerpt from MCSP (page 37) Current conditions: Moraga Avenue, west of Pala
Avenue. The eastbound (uphill) lane is to be
designated as a Class III, shared, bike lane. Note
limited visibility due to the curve in the road.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 550
3 Prior Comment:
Sent to '[email protected]' for the Planning Commission on 8/9/25 There are problems with this plan with regard to sidewalks and bike access for new and existing Piedmont residents, specifically in the section of street and sidewalk on Moraga Avenue just west of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan area. Moraga Avenue is the only direct route between the proposed new housing development and schools in Piedmont, City Hall, etc. The narrow, curved section from Coaches Field, going west, to below Pala Avenue creates a bottleneck for realistic multi-modal access to the MCSP area.
The video summary refers to “sidewalks on both sides” of Moraga Canyon. However, the main access from the rest of the City of Piedmont has a sidewalk on only one side, as it is today. See page 34, the section west of Coaches Field.
The plan includes a “buffered bike lane uphill.” This is misleading because the buffered bike lane does not exist in the approach from the west (near Pala Ave) to the MCSP area. What is shown in the plan (page 37) is a Class III Bike Lane.
A “Class III Bikeway” simply means that bikes and vehicles need to share the road. This particular section of road is both narrow and curved, with very limited visibility. I can’t imagine how this section, as proposed, can be safe for children and families travelling to and from Piedmont for school and recreation.
The plan does not adequately address this issue with respect to the various considerations for Class III Bikeways. See:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp1000-a11y.pdf P. 38 discusses adding bus transit along Moraga Ave. This would make bicycling along that route even more dangerous. Bikes and buses along the very narrow section of this route will not be safe. I don’t believe the plan adequately addresses the possible combination of all of these modes of transportation.
Winifred Walters
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 551
4 Attachment to comments submitted by Winifred Walters 9/1/25 – indicating narrow section of Moraga Ave with a shared lane for bicycles and vehicles (Class III bike lane depicted in green)
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 552
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 553
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 554
60389930.1/059821.0004
Todd A. Williams
Director
[email protected]
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
PH (510) 622-7630 | FX (510) 834-1928
fennemorelaw.com
September 3, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Kevin Jackson
Planning and Building Director
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
[email protected]
Re: Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2025
re Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Coaches Field Property Transferred by Mountain View Cemetery to City of Piedmont
Dear Director Jackson and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of my client, Mountain View Cemetery (“Cemetery”), I am writing to inform the City of Piedmont (“City”) Planning Commission about a restriction contained in the Real Estate Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) for the property, consisting of APN Nos. 048-7002-003 and 050-4579-0 (the “Property”), sold by the Cemetery to the City in 1993. The Property is immediately adjacent to the existing Cemetery. The Property’s current uses include Coaches Field, a skatepark and the City’s corporation yard, and is included within the proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (“MCSP”) for potential residential development.
I previously raised the concerns contained in this letter to the City Administrator in a correspondence dated May 1, 2025. (See attached letter including a copy of the Agreement and Grant Deed. We incorporate the May 1 letter and its attachments with this letter.). To date, I have received no response to that letter.
Per Section 2.4 of the Agreement, the purpose of the transfer was as follows:
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 555
Kevin Jackson / City of Piedmont Planning Commission
September 3, 2025
60389930.1/059821.0004
Moreover, Section 7.1(a) (Buyer’s Covenants, Deed Covenants) of the Agreement states that “[t]he Property shall be exclusively used for municipal purposes as reasonably determined from time to time by the Buyer….”
The grant deed for the Property (included in the attachments to my May 1 letter) includes this covenant and states as follows:
The grant deed also contains the following provision:
Thus, the transfer included a clear restriction on future use of the Property, i.e., that it could only be used for a “municipal use” or “municipal activity,” and that such restriction applies not only to the City, but any successors and assigns (e.g., a residential developer) who must also use the Property “exclusively for municipal purposes.”
The Cemetery believes that the City’s current use of the Property is in compliance with this provision in that the Property has been used as a public park (Coaches Field), a skate park, as well as a corporation yard for the City.
However, the City now intends, through the adoption of the MCSP, to potentially sell the Property to a private developer for the construction of housing. Such use of the Property would not qualify as a “municipal activity” and would be in violation of the restriction and covenant.
We understand that the current draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan includes two development options, labelled as Option A and B. Option A clusters multifamily development south of Moraga Avenue, while Option B clusters multifamily development on the Property. Of ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 556
Kevin Jackson / City of Piedmont Planning Commission
September 3, 2025
60389930.1/059821.0004
the two options, Option B clearly conflicts with the stated purpose of the Agreement and should not be approved in conflict with the Agreement.
The Cemetery appreciates the City’s need to plan for and approve housing. That said, it is notifying and reminding the City of the restriction and covenant regarding the Property, and that the Cemetery intends to enforce it rights under the Agreement were a non-municipal activity use be approved for the Property.
Sincerely,
FENNEMORE LLP
Todd A. Williams
/taw
Attachments: May 1, 2025 letter to City with attachments cc: Client
Pierce MacDonald, Senior Planner ([email protected]) Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 557
51780565.1/059821.0004
Todd A. Williams
Director
[email protected]
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
PH (510) 622-7630 | FX (510) 834-1928
fennemorelaw.com
May 1, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Rosanna Bayon Moore
City Administrator
City of Piedmont
401 Highland Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
[email protected]
Re: Coaches Field Property Transferred by
Mountain View Cemetery to City of Piedmont
Dear City Administrator Moore:
On behalf of my client, Mountain View Cemetery (“Cemetery”), I am writing to inform the City of Piedmont (“City”) about a restriction contained in the Real Estate Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) for the property, consisting of APN Nos. 048-7002-003 and 050-4579-0 (the “Property”), sold by the Cemetery to the City in 1993. The Property is immediately adjacent to the existing Cemetery. The Property’s current uses include Coaches Field, a skatepark and the City’s corporation yard.
Per Section 2.4 of the Agreement (see attached), the purpose of the transfer was as follows:
Moreover, Section 7.1(a) (Buyer’s Covenants, Deed Covenants) of the Agreement states that “[t]he Property shall be exclusively used for municipal purposes as reasonably determined from time to time by the Buyer….”
The grant deed for the Property (attached) includes this covenant and states as follows:
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 558
Rosanna Bayon Moore / City of Piedmont
May 2, 2025
51780565.1/059821.0004
The grant deed also contains the following provision:
Thus, the transfer included a clear restriction on the use of the Property, i.e., that it could only be used for a “municipal use” or “municipal activity,” and that such restriction applies not only to the City, but any successors and assigns who must also use the Property “exclusively for municipal purposes.”
The Cemetery believes that the City’s past use of the Property was in compliance with this provision in that the Property was used as a public park (Coaches Field), a skate park, as well as a corporation yard for the City.
However, the City now intends to potentially sell the Property to a private developer for the construction of housing. We do not believe that such use of the Property qualifies as a “municipal activity” and would be in violation of the restriction and covenant.
We understand that the current draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan includes two development options, labelled as Option A and B. Option A clusters multifamily development south of Moraga Avenue, while Option B clusters multifamily development on the Property. Of the two options, Option B clearly conflicts with the stated purpose of the Agreement.
The Cemetery appreciates the City’s need to plan for and approve housing. That said, it wanted to notify the City of the restriction and covenant regarding the Property, and that the Cemetery intends to enforce it rights under the Agreement were a non-municipal activity use be approved for the Property.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 559
Rosanna Bayon Moore / City of Piedmont
May 2, 2025
51780565.1/059821.0004
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue further, please let me know.
Sincerely,
FENNEMORE LLP
Todd A. Williams
/taw
cc: Client
Pierce MacDonald, Senior Planner ([email protected]) ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 560
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 561
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 562
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 563
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 564
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 565
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 566
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 567
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 568
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 569
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 570
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 571
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 572
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 573
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 574
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 575
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 576
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 577
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 578
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 579
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 580
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 581
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 582
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 583
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 584
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 585
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 586
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 587
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 588
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 589
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 590
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 591
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 592
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 593
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 594
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 595
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 596
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 597
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 598
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 599
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 600
Jeff Hoffman
Echo Lane
Piedmont, CA 94618
September 4, 2025
Kevin Jackson
Planning & Building Director
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
Re: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan – Opposition to Blair Park (South-Side) Housing Option Dear Planning Commissioners,
I’m writing as a Piedmont resident and homeowner in the Moraga Canyon area to express my overall support for adding housing in our city. However, while I have serious reservations about concentrating so much of this housing in Moraga Canyon, I want to state my strong opposition to the option that places the housing on the south side of Moraga Avenue in Blair Park.
This location is the wrong place for dense new housing, for several reasons:
Traffic and Safety Risks. Moraga Avenue is already a fast, narrow corridor with blind curves, limited sidewalks, and almost no safe pedestrian crossings. Forcing hundreds of new residents to enter and exit directly onto this stretch would multiply the hazards. South-side housing would require constant left turns across speeding traffic, new driveways at the most constrained part of the canyon, and far more people crossing Moraga Avenue on foot or bike just to reach the rest of Piedmont. This is not just an inconvenience — it’s a recipe for collisions. And in a wildfire or other emergency, I’d imagine that south-side housing could magnify the challenges of evacuation when every second matters.
The City has proposed installing a traffic light at Red Rock Road. At least with north-side housing, residents would enter and exit through this controlled intersection, allowing safer vehicle and pedestrian movements. Traffic and safety will remain serious challenges under any scenario, but south-side housing compounds those challenges.
Isolation from the Community. Housing in Blair Park would be physically cut off from the rest of Piedmont. Families would be separated from schools, parks, and town by a busy arterial. While not perfect — it still crams hundreds of new residents into a remote canyon at the city’s edge — north-side housing would at least be somewhat more connected, with a shorter, safer walk or ride into town and direct access to Coaches Field and the new hiking trail. It also carries additional advantages such as Bay views that improve the market viability of new units.
Destruction of Open Space and Neighborhood Character. Blair Park is a cherished canyon landscape. While moving the Corporation Yard there would be damaging, building a massive housing complex would more fully erase one of Piedmont’s few remaining natural open spaces, replacing greenery and quiet with traffic, noise, and light spill into the canyon. As someone whose home directly overlooks Blair Park, I would experience these impacts personally — but they extend far beyond me.
They would meaningfully diminish livability for many residents in the area. These harms would be lessened with north-side housing.
Taken together, these impacts show why Blair Park is the wrong choice for Piedmont. The City has alternatives that achieve its housing goals without unduly sacrificing safety, community integration, ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 601
open space, and neighborhood livability. Choosing Blair Park would mean taking on the greatest harms when less damaging options are available.
Thank you for considering my comments and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Jeff Hoffman
Echo Lane
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 602
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 603
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 604
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 605
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 606
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 607
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 608
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 609
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 610
DWG DH-189-1-A
PROP 146
DWG DH-189-1-A
DWG DH-189-1A & 2587-B
PROP 146
PROP 146
DWG MB-315
DWG MA-689
DWG MB-315
DWG C-436
20' R/W 1222
10' R/W 910
10' R/W 905
S-365
DWG MA-687
10' R/W 904 DWG MB-314
5' R/W 909
DWG MB-316
R/W 1223
10' R/W 904 10' R/W 906
DWG MB-315
15' R/W 1237
DWG 136-C
10' R/W 908
DWG 3281-G
20' R/W 1221
R/W 1224
R/W 905
DWG MA-686 5' R/W 293
DWG MA-688
R/W 910
DWG MB-313 5' R/W 319
10' R/W 907 DWG C-436
R/W 909 DWG MA-689
4' R/W 62
AVE
MONTE
60'
10' PATH
MORAGA
40'
40'
ALTA
ECHO
HILLTOP
HILLTOP
A WE O
50'
M T
LANE
10' PATH
MARR
45'
HARDWICK
AVE
BLAIR
AVE
60'
AVE
20'
110'
SPRING PATH
BLAIR
AVE
20'
40'
WAY
40'
BELL AVE
AVE
M
AVE
BLAIR
HARBORD
R
AVE
10' PATH
DR
50'
20'
SCENIC
RED ROCK
AVE
AVE
20'
40'
AVE
10' PATH
BLAIR
LN
AVE
40'
AVE
BELL
40'
50'
N
41'
L P
40'
BLAIR
6' PATH
PL AVE
10' PATH
BLAIR
AVE
AVE
PARK WAY
50'
AVE
40'
60'
TON
NELLIE
AMY
AVE
L T
BLAIR
RD
40'
40'
PATH
110'
HARBORD
AVE
AVE
PALA
60'
66'
SCENIC
BLAIR
40'
40'
WEL
40'
RD
AVE
MORAGA
50'
96'
MONTE
WAY
AVE
60'
AVE
40'
20'
STA
AVE
6' PATH
BLAIR
MAX
AVE
40'
SCENIC
E 50'
10' PATH
10' PATH
RD
40'
40'
40'
CREST
PL
MORAGA AVE
45'
35' LANGDON CT
PALA
AVE
ALTA
10' PATH
20'
AVE
AVE
SCENIC
ABBOTT
AVE
40'
MAXWELTON
50'
BLAIR
40'
RD
10' PATH
40'
50'
50'
X
40'
BLAIR
A
60'
41'
50'
AVE
HARBORD
50'
¥ ÊË
¥ ÊË
¥ ÊË
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
a
,&R
G¥
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅàÅ àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ
àÅ àÅ
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"±
"±
"±
"±
B5A
B5A
B3A
B3A
B7A
B3A
B5A
B5A
PIETU
PIET
PIETD
484 ESTATES PP
PIEDMONT REG NO 2
(TEMPORARY)
PIEDMONT REG NO 2
(TEMPORARY)
HYDRO ELECTRIC
SYSTEM PILOT
DWG 164-R, 987-R
DWG 3947-G
733
DWG 3947-G
PIEDMONT RES
484 ESTATES PP
152648
43178
27542
70207
75829
23854
38496
34370
12 10
610
37 31
527
46707
215098
8 38
38114
618
639
104
125096
2011
-
116
117235
1"
39078
61478
1"
93003
93019
61964
120677
B08865 249
228
2055
161496
1"
572
89057
1"
125104
121
206757
290
161497
48079
2067
136
252675
129263
89930
92594
110761
350
B09600
10 103
82646
9 15
A43696
1"
50 23
127695
A33839
12 1"
416
40 162460 88524
162177
433
143361
A33369
8 660
74741
448
218355
270446
6 129116
106
112535
665
120 318016
95436
146
218357
160
218358
110721
5601
1"
5454
A27351
92499
161
158438
147085
570
315978
C23563
560
157147
5662
133411
5445
5453
5527
83 918
5456
204869
54 204872
131186
5501
97 99
A30008
1"
5630 130228
5635
5511
219592
147337
844
B04130
6170
B00050
5651
294299
1"
121131
58 5777
164626
98895
5535
51 162333
157776
5578
106881
29223
11 218
27 71625
104
38853
117232
93025
427
35193
125095
419
423
539
120
407
434
48899
541
89255
69631
76964
18 1"
119753
125098
542
93021
93023
317
121050
301
245
79618
229
125100
83880
61179
553
75225
217
1"
111825
270
1"
210
141
280
261
2065
578
125105
125106
312
164775
297879
114966
320
2083
113067
319A83022
121
85301
16 153800
99653
151633
605
2"
301295
1"
16 301293
A33921
400
407
251439
933
16 48
301291
3 233653
A40266
5541
5389 133648
A33355
203065
654
233682
60 1"
203064
5372
5364
664
A51236
657
233500
71 96
A27360
452
102
5431
122374
145118
90 A26411
A20285
140
1.5"DS
A30137
141
111853
5621
114844
157110
1"
87056
550
EBMUD
253781
122480
25 17
906
1.5"
16 84
5506
5600
1"
5501
214083
B11062
5720
295702
5544
252577
51 83
5607
5617
134418
5523
6161
820
143378
5561
86568
5609
1"
50 15
286490
61 A67337
40 120950
270487
68069
24263
506
259200
90522
79042
23 65646
510
107235
124
42229
111
109
252728
115
124435
533
116
117239
230742
51027
23839
203744
1"
430
2019
269997
69607
237
2035
550
549
326
551
29644
244
560
86878
1"
84877
53025
169
561
112474
165
200
303535
52747
288
286
590
161493
291
2079
89746
130
A83436
128
314784
115
92596
314791
M00038
12 A00554
228222
158005
148310
301294
162037
A00673
54 20
5 12
301292
1"
157714
5 85346
1"
646
A53191
131283
5371
5365
A30120
428
A51244
A04915
30 649
269394
5540
113299
109350
120
1"
A53025
5435
1"
110
457
218356
285071
5422
1"
170
256436
5465
115
11 135236
506
1"
5466
133623
151560
1"
A32752
1.5"DS
111962
204875
126147
A21490
135054
159884
35 159883
228209
5444
113064
93 5
72 5487
808
5601
133622
52002
135306
70991
A33825
5707
217873
33 224590
119861
5573
111932
1"
259186
259183
93752
629
509
15 31 37681
516
515
33874
33976
30363
228316
516
112
25953
43854
81085
522
23789
117234
528
50775
162403
125097
36778
1"
67022
547
53892
330
222
215471
94694
1"
84860
251 B05281
A32703
266
255
46594
125103
2063
112585
161
206
39860
158
79212
273
120
88319
46051
110329
601
A26551
233479
604
217536
230665
112800
27 110
911
98711
104
921
215069
315773
611
125431
214129
44 415
1"
91519
269961
24 424
A27318
941
140
92460
653
143384
295732
A47591
672
87067
148620
5609
661
128
267051
7 5445
89 5455
129333
5639
150
C19943
121 5575
106782
152067
524
505
960
163594
251358
711
A21488
5461
166451
67 55
5466
60 216986
8644
5710
5526
1"
5605
124412
134558
89 5728
5517
1"
5545
297961 99281
64 35
233748
256452
131876
5601
5725
505
1"
16 106
519
22 29399
67439
19 38640
39242
43110
49363
93026
43640
123
431
451
40 30
120
70685 415
2015
30690
208
53863
53060
426
2023
545
416
420
214
51733
400
241
322
233
2043
227
223
308
87563
130571
224
43184
A67297
A67298
93015
110785
108601
286720
A74949
269
101
150
300
270366
161494
48841
332
219876
270522
1"
111
315800
92598
264601
86939
607
251445
21 261046
618
621
51 9
42 630
294470
289098
190
12 641
150
121638
51 B15009
160807
61 A00707
A31623
151
6 200194
150098
4 669
5550
111882
219498
D47572
207450
105
5612
307983
122737
122991
A31424
701
262454
1"
109340
1"
5505
286382
77238
A21489
125689
121880
73 204814
125379
1 204874
910
159882
5555
24 113596
5 90593
295974
294673
295973
4" EBMUD
A33866
134342
5529
215519
124601
5659
5555
162271
144649
5785
124971
133767 129056
A33826
133394
253764
161095
129495
5570
307685
203664
5701
259184
12 9
23856
23828
19 2
633
67438
256466
106
18 637
35942
26476 4"
24 8
117233
93024
411
20 428
154278
538
321
277392
424
212
309
311
301
268616
200504
218
33568
224
316 23829
250
262
214
220
252844
A08555
216737
575
168
584
161495
115057
125107
324
265326
307
316017
92597
150510
898
114
9 11
1"
114811
401
7 162457
230765
165340
270419
34 A19044
A33837
634
638
412
A53009
50 301296
180
5383
5377
274351
132907
1" 91816
432
91909
115061
2 B01271
A27324
252806
10 5571
A00750
162492
114910
158593
461
1"
307815
218354
233584
5430
72483
111
122992
512
1"
5660
5653
980
4"
1"
5654
5665
5686
113291
5467
122495
74439
5535
128744
315862
5545
87 5463
68 120310
53980
252913
5565
116336
76 117427
92 96
10 271980 5521
79067
228375
157947
65 1"
5537
150930
115261
5742
5701
156868 5560
6155
5765
5757
119859
5711
259185
210
208
503
295704
65061
106882
110
631
39579
116
39329
114656
43352
22 37810
33233
26 054635
10 117238
110
294309
55355
80404
117237
204
122
615
14 217275
546
147752
125099
29848
23779
93018
304
211
236
2045
175
93017
-
110763
257
566
1"
75905
111544
140
308
304
93013
316
277
594
295
45291
333
120
20 603
349
148149
614
610
75998
252780
25 A33836
301275
214130
16 A08688
95125
1 98262
14 309861
211498
112705
425
238103
10 142358
650
113746
1.5"
107230
440
A33862
668
162446
5421
A16467
5603
676
295971
680
501
5444
107666
5 1.5"DS
297160
89775
273053
1"
518
-
5643
129390
5630
148992
260745
705
277404
5646
A08645
4"
5530
1.5"
79 45
133680
A67257
912
132637
34 159881
131187
5500
5477
900
906
1"
204871
204870
134168
134478
5575
238160
20 856
30 838
144940
294674
268571
154998
5809
5801
215067 271902
5811
119860
268618
214
65654
119
220
259187
23778
15 27
635
79332
228427
119
063484
124
81406
75957
117236
616
53864
54138
89655
A33333
93020
316043
250809
26768
212059
554
125101
215470
52713
555
40535
125102
93016
265
102476
93014
112528
273068
161492
2071
130
328
214114
1" 11
110
A04905
340
7 100
113
92595 354
345
116
14 112534 358
1.5"DS
A60326
55 256528
622
230764
113428
30 A06576
268583
22 92656
198
642
165341
15 86463
5537
127039
645
5530
449
79266
5392
453
113741
110795
110
147343
89520
206913
81 5623
85855
115062
5626
165 113598
153
133
91705
16 5642
1"
12 5622
129720
5650
3 114849
5685
909
5515
5554
204867
204815
5430
204868
123879
800
219480
95 76601
105971
126730
A20331
131188
5507
114951
295975
116389
5515
5704
162367
816
233427
6173
233419
5649
134619
145185
A43761
6150
217874
5750
286558
45 5771
108166
5737
5758
5766
111827
5757
5776
133
105
15167
H-17069
206
3182
FH-14229
5476
3785
117
65 102
3794
118
5419
199
100
H-10344
5016
116
147
191
209
103
162
FH-14017
H-19680
10918
114
107
108
15441
H-19679
115
104
218
19794
6C35
6C26
E-10964
E-20877
39984
E-10960
E-14832
6C28
8C40
4C25
45751
32802-A
47216-A
E-9784
8N87
20SMM56
45751
6CM56
E-31593
47216
6A75
6CM45
E-9791
E-25869
E-25111
32802-F
8A72
32802-F
16SMM59 34444 8CM59
16SMM71
GO-11414 16CM42
E-25108
E-23927
24SMMB015
6C26
6A66
6C28
8A66
E-14778
16CM39
P42529-A
16SMB02
6C26
47216 6N87
4C25
E-10286
E-9778
6C24
E-9776
44046
34716-A
43913
33034-B
E-10281
6N87
E-25870
E-25110
47216
43169
33034-A 6A56
20SMM56
20405
30SMM71
E-1272
41045
E-29043
12CM44
E-27392-A
12C49
6CM53
E-21744
6SMM64
24SMMB015
P44426-B
E-10964
E-10960
E-10960
6A66
E-10960 6C26
8C25
E-10611
E-10364
12C30
E-15983
6CM50
E-10286
E-10286
38029
6SMM62
20SMM56
20SMM56
32802-D
4C24
32802-B
E-9777
4C24
E-9779
6CM55
2S24
44046
6C25
6A56
E-28878
6CM58
E-26434
47216
E-25109-B
8CM42
E-25108
25415
25415
20991
25415
6CM51
E-27391
E-23927
P44677
E-27961-A
16CM42
E-30837
6SMM64
E-30397
E-19207-A
40091
40091
8A66
8C25
4C25
16SMB02
12C30
32802-B
20SMM56
4C24
6C24 E-25776
6C26
E-10282
20SMM76
20SMM56
4CM45
8D
30SMM71
E-28245
6CM51
37075
36845
16CM49
46754
39191-A
E-21744
20CM39
6A60
E-10961
40091-A
6C28
39983
6C26
6CM50
E-22253
E-15984
32802-C
E-9781
E-9776
E-10282
6SMM58
6C26
8CM44
E-25109
6C25
32802-F
12SMB
12CM44
20SMM71
6SMM67
6CM51
6CM48
GO-15510
16CM42
16CM49
E-27961-A
E-27961
6A85
39191-B
6C31
6A66
40091
E-14778
E-22030
E-28324
E-10689
E-10964
4C25
4C24
6C24
6A56
E-30782
6A56
32802-E
E-30782
6C26
47216
6C37
8N87
8N87
16C44
12SMM56
25415
20991 25415 16SMM71
4CM528C44
E-23927
43169 8A72
6A61
E-16648
6C24
6CM66
6C26
39983
8C26
E-10959
E-10611
E-10364
E-10964
4C25
E-28324
6CM39
6N81
6SMB81
32678
6C24
6C24
8N87
E-9780
6A75
4CM55
34131
6C36
E-19843
E-10281
6CM45
10CM44
E-20449
16C44
6CM47
6C44
E-25109-A
20S56
34444
E-25107
6C29
6A61
6SMB015
6SMB015
6A66
6A66
39984
E-14778
4C37
4C28
6C26
E-22030-A
8C25
20SMM56
E-9783
6CM54
E-9779
6C24
33034-B
6SMM58
34716
33034-B
6CM55
44065 6A75
E-31850
4CM50
20SMM56
E-10285
12SMB 12SMB
GO-11511
6C11
16C68
12SMM68
E-28245
P44426-B
4CM48
6CM42
20C39
36205
P44677
1497B4901500B490
1503B490
1497B490
1497B488
1497B486
1503B486
1500B486
1500B488
1500B490
1500B488
1500B4881503B488
1497B4881500B488
B5A
B3A
B5A
B5A
B3A
B3A
B5A
B3A
B5A
B5A
B3A
B5A
B5A
B3A
B3A
B5A
B3A
B5A
B3A
B5A
B3A
B5A
B5A
B5A
B3A
B5A
B7A
B3A
B5A
B5A
B5A
B7A
B7A
B3A
B7A
B7A
B7A
B5A
B5A
Potable Distribution System
Potable Pipeline
Service Lateral
àÅ System Valve (OL = Opens Left)
I
3 Check Valve
"±
Zone Valve
Change of Pipe ID
,&C
Rate Control Station
,&R
Regulator
",P
Pressure Reducing Station
G¥ Flow Meter
+ Manhole
Service Connection
! Hydrant
Facility
a Pumping Plant
Landbase
EBMUD Right of Way
EBMUD Property
±
0 125 250 500
Feet
Date Printed: 7/8/2025
This information is furnished as a public service by East Bay Municipal Utility District (District). The District makes every reasonable effort to produce and publish the most current and accurate information possible.
However, the District makes no warranty express or implied, concerning this information’s accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability for the recipient’s intended use. Furthermore, the District assumes no liability associated with the use or misuse of this information. If you do not accept these terms, you must refrain from using the information and immediately return it. Please notify the District if discrepancies in the provided information are found.
By receiving the requested information, you agree that you, and any of your representatives authorized by the District to possess the information, will use the information only for the authorized purpose for which you requested it. If you obtained the information to prepare construction documents, you may make the information publicly available only to the extent necessary for safe construction. In all other circumstances, you may not provide any of the information, or any copy of it, to any other person or entity without the District’s prior written approval. When you no longer require the information for your use, you must return or destroy all copies of the information. If you do not accept these terms, you must refrain from using the information and immediately return it.
1500B488
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE – NOT INTENDED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES – REQUEST AS-BUILT DRAWINGS IF NEEDED FOR DESIGN WORK Attachment B
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 611
Position Paper: Housing Allocation and Open Space
Constraints in the City of Piedmont
Introduction
The City of Piedmont fully recognizes California’s critical housing shortage and supports the state’s efforts to expand housing opportunities across income levels. However, Piedmont faces unique geographic and land-use constraints that make it impractical, and in many cases impossible, to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations without sacrificing essential community assets such as parks and recreational fields. This paper outlines why applying a uniform housing allocation formula to Piedmont is inequitable and counterproductive, and proposes alternative strategies for meaningful compliance.
1. Built-Out Character and Geographic Constraints
• Piedmont is a fully incorporated, landlocked city surrounded entirely by Oakland, with no opportunity for annexation or outward expansion.
• Nearly all land within city limits is already developed as residential neighborhoods, schools, or civic facilities.
• Unlike larger municipalities, Piedmont has no commercial corridors, underutilized industrial zones, or vacant parcels that could reasonably be redeveloped for multifamily housing.
2. Preservation of Parks and Recreational Space
• The city’s limited public land consists primarily of parks, athletic fields, and open space that serve both Piedmont residents and the broader East Bay community.
• These spaces provide critical recreational, environmental, and public health benefits, including opportunities for youth sports, senior recreation, and climate resilience. • Requiring Piedmont to rezone these areas for housing would directly undermine state goals of maintaining livable, healthy, and environmentally sustainable communities.
3. Disproportionate Burden of RHNA Allocation
• The RHNA process applies uniform housing growth expectations without sufficient adjustment for size, density, or physical capacity.
• Piedmont’s small size and unique land-use profile create disproportionate challenges compared to larger cities with vacant land and redevelopment corridors. • A “one-size-fits-all” allocation unfairly forces Piedmont into a false choice: eliminate essential open space or risk noncompliance.
4. Alternative Compliance Strategies
Piedmont is committed to contributing to regional housing solutions and proposes that the state recognize alternative pathways to compliance, including:
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Piedmont has experienced significant growth in ADU development ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 612
within existing housing stock. Expanding this trend can meaningfully contribute to housing supply without eliminating parks.
• Regional Partnerships: Piedmont is willing to collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions, particularly Oakland and Alameda County, to invest in affordable housing projects on more feasible sites. • Financial Contributions: The city can provide funding or subsidies to regional affordable housing initiatives as a means of meeting its fair share.
• Small-Scale Infill: Opportunities exist for limited infill development (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) within existing neighborhoods, consistent with state law and community character.
5. Policy and Legal Consistency
• California law requires balancing housing production with environmental protection, climate resilience, and community health.
• Forcing a city like Piedmont to eliminate recreational facilities for housing production creates policy conflicts with CEQA, state climate adaptation goals, and public health priorities. • Adjustments to Piedmont’s RHNA obligations would better align state housing policy with broader state objectives.
Conclusion
Piedmont is not resisting its responsibility to help address California’s housing crisis. Rather, it seeks a practical, equitable, and regionally coordinated approach that respects the city’s built-out character and preserves essential open space. By recognizing alternative compliance measures, the state can achieve its housing goals without requiring Piedmont to sacrifice the very community assets that make it livable.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 613
TO: City Council
RE: MCSP Public Hearing, Oct. 6, 2025
FROM: Friends of Moraga Canyon Board of Directors
DATE: Sept. 29, 2025
Those of us who have followed the Moraga Canyon development plan for the past 2 years have questions and serious concerns for Piedmont’s future if this plan becomes reality. Here are a few.
Disaster Evacuation: Piedmont Fire Dept. cites Moraga Canyon as a “high risk wildfire” area and predicts a wildfire is “highly likely.” The Canyon is also less than 1 mile from the Hayward Fault.
Moraga Ave. is a designated emergency evacuation route and the only way out for the estimated 400 to 1,000 new Canyon residents, as well as for many existing nearby Oakland and Piedmont residents. The Plan expects people to walk or bicycle in a disaster. How likely is that? How will emergency crews reach the Canyon if Moraga Ave. is gridlocked as residents desperately try to leave? Despite assurances from the Fire Chief, does Piedmont want to risk its residents’ lives? Traffic/Pedestrian Safety: Moraga Ave. is a busy, 24-hour traffic arterial, with 11,000 cars per day traveling an average 40 mph. The MCSP proposes a traffic light with a pedestrian crossing at Red Rock Rd. The City’s traffic consultants say the “safe stopping distance” required for cars traveling 40-mph meets Caltrans regulations for a traffic light. But a CA licensed civil & traffic engineer retained by Friends of Moraga Canyon says the safe stopping distance should be calculated for cars traveling 50 mph, meaning Moraga Ave. likely does not have the required stopping distance for a traffic light. If housing is built in Blair Park, the Plan specifies several driveways off of Moraga, creating even more risk and chaos for cars making left turns to enter or exit the project. Children would be tempted to dash across Moraga without waiting for a green light. Is Piedmont willing to risk serious accidents and children’s lives? Financial Risks: The MCSP requires the market-rate developer to pay all infrastructure costs, including widening Moraga Ave., adding sidewalks and bike lanes, new stormwater drains and sewer lines, undergrounding all utilities – and expanding Coaches Field. What if the developer declines or defaults partway through development? Does this cost fall on the City and Piedmont taxpayers? Will new residents be able to get fire insurance? Developing the Coaches Field side also requires moving the Corporation Yard to Blair Park at the City’s expense! Community Connection: The MCSP creates an “ island community” with no improvements on Moraga Ave. beyond the plan boundaries. No consideration of traffic backups to Hwy 13 or to the sharp curves on Moraga adjacent to Pala Ave., which are already dangerous for bicyclists.
The Plan makes no mention of what happens to daily traffic on Moraga Ave. during years of construction? How will Piedmont residents get to Hwy 13 and Montclair and to Highland Ave. and Pleasant Valley?
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 614
Public Transit: The MCSP calls for a bus line on Moraga Ave to serve MCSP residents. How likely is AC Transit to add new bus service when it has cut nearly all service in Piedmont? Where exactly would the bus go? State law requires affordable housing to be within .5 mile of public transit. It’s .7 mile from Red Rock Rd. to the closest bus stop on Highland Ave.
School Children: Rather than let their young children walk .7 mile to Havens School on busy Moraga Ave,. isn’t it likely parents will drive them, creating more congestion during school dropoff and pick-up times? Known Obstacles: The Plan, itself, acknowledges constraints to the development, stating that hydrology “could cause dangerous road conditions on Moraga Ave. during significant rain and cause local flooding.” Stormwater storage basins at both site options may have to be replaced.
AND “due to the presence of steep slopes (above Coaches Field), much of this land is not conducive to development.”
The City wants to declare Blair Park -- a designated Piedmont City park -- “surplus land” in order to develop it. But CA State law says that declaring a city park surplus land can only be done for specific reasons. The law does not mention for market rate housing.
What is Plan B? State housing law requires cities to look at alternate sites. What other sites is Piedmont examining? City planners say developers want at least 1/2 acre, which narrows the choices. But the law does allow smaller sites under certain conditions. Wouldn’t it be better for current and future Piedmont residents to spread new housing to existing neighborhoods, closer to schools and transit? Newcomers would be more integrated into the community and need fewer cars.
Other potential sites: The City’s original plan was to build housing on the Corey Reich tennis courts and rebuild the courts on top. The Council rejected this plan, and the City switched to building 132 units Moraga Canyon. With no analysis of the capacity, the Council increased the number to 199, mainly to entice a developer to pay for expanding Coaches Field. Other potential smaller, neighborhood sites: Linda Beach Park; the two tennis courts adjacent to the Community Center; the flat canyon area of Dracena Park; the long unused and empty EBMUD reservoir at the top of Blair Ave.
Bottom Line: Adding State mandated 587 new housing units in Piedmont is a massive challenge, and you have a monumental task in deciding what to do. You must weigh carefully how you think Piedmont should grow. Should new housing be on the outskirts of town or integrated into neighborhoods? Is Moraga Canyon actually a safe, buildable site for 197 housing units? Is the MCSP a financially viable choice for Piedmont? There is still time to change course and consider alternatives. We urge you to do so!
Signed: Friends of Moraga Canyon Board of Directors
Marj Blackwell, Vincent Fisher, Julie Watters, Daphne Albert, Peggy Esposito ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 615
Alta Avenue Piedmont
California, 94611
September 30, 2025
Dear Councilperson,
Staff has finally acknowledged, in a video released by the city, that the “blind curves” of Moraga Avenue create safety hazards unique to the Blair Park option described in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan. The presentation implies that Blair Park driveways would not be located to maximize vehicular flow in and out of the site but rather to meet Caltrans standards for safe stopping distances on Moraga Avenue. Otherwise, the more than 2,500 drivers daily exceeding 38 MPH on Moraga Avenue’s would not be able to stop safely after seeing vehicles entering or exiting Blair Park.
While the video describes hazards arising from autos accessing and leaving Blair Park on blind curves, it fails to acknowledge the hazard these curves pose for pedestrians in general and children in particular. Unlike autos, pedestrians need not use carefully located driveways to cross Moraga Avenue. Children, for example, will cross wherever impulse dictates to reach Coaches Field or to walk to school. Indeed, concern over impulse crossing caused your predecessors to build the existing fence on the north side of the Moraga right of way between Monte and Red Rock. That fence keeps children from central Piedmont from wandering onto “blind curves” on Moraga Avenue while walking to and from Coaches Field. But the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan shows no barrier to keep Blair Park children from dashing across Moraga Avenue to and from Coaches Field or to and from the fence-protected sidewalk on the north side of Moraga Avenue. Indeed, the plan assumes they will cross at Red Rock – an intersection that 2,500 or more drivers a day on Moraga will not see in time to stop safely.
The video alludes to signage and other warning mechanisms that would supposedly reduce the risk of accidents by alerting drivers to upcoming blind curves. The speaker, however, doesn’t mention that the best engineering research on such mechanisms reports that they reduce fatal accidents by only 10% (see https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08044/#Toc193873755). Indeed, Caltrans does not reduce its estimates of safe stopping sight distances when such mechanisms are added to blind curves.
The video misleads viewers as to how many autos will daily speed on Moraga Avenue.
It may be that, as the video claims, the 199 new homes built in Moraga Canyon will add only 900 trips to 12,000 or so now using Moraga. But the more than 550 new homes anticipated by the revised Housing Element will raise the volume of traffic on Moraga Avenue by much more than 900 trips. I believe analyses prepared for the Housing Element predicted that trips on Moraga Avenue would increase to about 14,000 per day and that 20% of these would be at speeds greater than 38 MPH.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 616
Blair Park has stood empty for over a century for good reasons. Impassable terrain on 3 sides and Moraga Avenue on the 4th isolate it visually and functionally from the remainder of the community. It’s steep “bowl” shape, open only to Moraga Avenue, makes it dark year-round and “captures” noise and particulate pollution from trucks, motorcycles, and automobiles. And, most importantly, the blind curves of Moraga Avenue make accessing the site so dangerous that Blair Park has never been improved for recreational uses. In fact, the founders of Piedmont concluded over a century ago that the best use of the site was as the municipal corporation yard! A bond measure to build city facilities failed so what is now Blair Park was used for decades as an unregulated landfill with now unknown contents. In short, Blair Park remains inferior, on every measure of good land use planning, to the area above and around Coaches Field as a place to house families.
The public record includes the argument that Blair Park should be offered to developers because building there will take less time and incur fewer costs than building above and around Coaches Field. I assume no Piedmonter would put children at risk of injury or death just to lower costs incurred by land developers. I also suggest that Alameda County Measure A1 funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and essentially free land in Piedmont should be sufficient inducement for developers.
Please do not accept the argument that the Coaches Field option would cost the city too much because the corporation yard would have to be shrunk or moved. As many reports to the Council have documented over the last several years, the century-old corporation yard is one of several essential facilities that the city will soon have to replace or upgrade. The city will incur the cost of rebuilding the corporation whether or not an additional home is ever built in Moraga Canyon.
In closing, I return to an issue your constituents have raised in public hearings but that staff has not addressed. Intentionally housing Piedmont’s only lower income families in the city’s most isolated, polluted, and dangerous location will surely stigmatize them in local culture. Regardless of your true intentions in housing low-income families in Blair Park, history will view the scheme as consistent with Piedmont’s well-documented record of exclusionary practices. Do the “right thing” and approve only the safe, clearly more livable neighborhood envisioned by the Coaches Field option. You can always revisit your decision if no developer chooses to partner with the city in building the better neighborhood. But please do not “settle” for a clearly inferior, implicitly exclusionary plan just to please developers.
Respectfully,
Ralph Catalano
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 617
To the Piedmont Planning Commission
Re: Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Date: October 1, 2025
Dear Committee Members,
My name is Lisa Kaplan and I live at _____ Harbord Dr. in Oakland, eight houses in from Moraga Avenue on the Piedmont side of Harbord Drive.
Our formerly quiet street has been inundated by Piedmont traffic—residents, contractors, delivery vans, and moving trucks and more--ever since the advent of Google maps and Waze, directing upper Piedmont household and rush-hour traffic into our neighborhood and making our street unsafe with speeding vehicles and oversize trucks, every day all day long.
Now we learn that the city of Piedmont plans to impact the safety and sanctity of our Oakland neighborhoods by planning to add almost 200 apartment units in a narrow canyon with only one access road (Moraga Avenue) that is a designated emergency evacuation route for both Piedmont and Oakland. As anyone who has been on Moraga Avenue in the morning or evening during rush hours, this route is already heavily congested and literally stopped dead at times when Highway 13 is backed up. The idea of funneling hundreds of additional residents through this corridor during an emergency—especially in a fire-prone canyon—is reckless, negligent and irresponsible.
In addition, there is no public transportation available on Moraga Avenue. Everyone living in those units will need a car to get to work, to take their children to Piedmont schools, to go the grocery store, to run errands, to go out to dinner— in sum, to go anywhere safely. There are no sidewalks.
If two adults live in the units, there is distinct possibility there will need to be two cars for each unit. That’s almost 400 additional cars making their way each day, morning and evening down or up Moraga Avenue: into Piedmont or up into Oakland on the only street that they can access from their apartment complex. How can this be considered “safe” when considered the only access is on a designated emergency evacuation route for fires and earthquakes? Even now, our Harbord/Moraga intersection struggles daily with capacity—traffic on Moraga frequently backs up to Masonic Avenue. Adding hundreds of new units without a clear and effective traffic mitigation plan, including a dedicated left-turn lane and proper traffic flow management, will only worsen the safety situation. There are currently no safe pedestrian crossings and no continuous sidewalks into Piedmont or into Montclair Village, making Moraga Avenue unsafe for current residents, let alone future ones.
Finally, Moraga Canyon is officially designated a high fire-risk zone. Insurance companies already limit coverage or significantly raise premiums for homeowners in this area. Adding hundreds of units in this fire-prone canyon will not only increase risk but could also further jeopardize homeowners' access to affordable and comprehensive fire insurance coverage. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for homeowners to get insurance coverage once they have been dropped? What hubris to not think about the current residents and what damage this development may cause them.
There must be other options in the greater Piedmont city limits that are more conducive to development than the Blair Park site on Moraga Ave, a site that lacks the basic safety, traffic infrastructure, and environmental latitude needed for a large development such as this. I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider this plan and explore more appropriate alternatives. At the very least, I implore them to consider the size of the development and reduce the number of planned units to a much more modest and manageable size.
Thank you for your attention and for taking the time to listen to residents who will be directly impacted by these decisions.
Sincerely,
Lisa Kaplan
____ Harbord Drive, Oakland
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 618
To: Mayor Anderson and City Council
From: Liz Lummis O’Neil, ___Maxwelton Road
Mary and Arnie Levine, ___ Maxwelton Road
Laura and Keith Dierx, ___ Maxwelton Road
Subject: Request for Further Study and Community Engagement Regarding Moraga Canyon Housing Plans
Dear Mayor Anderson and Councilmembers,
We all have the shared goal of ensuring low- and mid-income housing. We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the proposed housing development in Moraga Canyon and to respectfully urge you not to approve the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan in its current form. The City must first conduct thorough and updated studies to assess the full impact of this project before any decisions are made, and consider other locations in Piedmont.
At the most recent Planning Commission meeting, the Chair remarked that their role was limited to confirming whether the consultants had completed their work—not to evaluate the substance or broader implications of the plan itself. This struck me as an alarmingly low bar for a decision of such significance. It gave the impression of a procedural rubber stamp rather than a meaningful review. It seems the priority is meeting deadlines and checking boxes to show that meetings were held and comments were collected, rather than genuinely engaging with community concerns or fully understanding the potential impacts of the plan. From the beginning of this process, there has been a clear determination to push the Specific Plan through.
1. Insufficient Community Notification
From the beginning, the Housing Element process has not included adequate outreach to those most affected. While Highland Avenue had signage promoting the Housing Element, no signs were placed in the Moraga Canyon area.
Though information may have been shared via the Piedmont Post, residents of Maxwelton, Echo, Abbott, and Nellie do not receive the monthly free city-wide distributions. As a result, many of us were unaware until meetings were well underway; by then, other neighborhoods were well ahead of us in organizing and ensuring building near them was off the table. By the time we learned of the Housing Element, the conversation had already shifted away from other possible locations.
2. Lack of Equity in Site Selection
Piedmont had opportunities to distribute low- and mid-income housing throughout the city—along Grand Avenue, at church-owned properties, within the Civic Center area, and even as part of a very necessary fire station upgrade. This would have allowed for authentic integration of new low- and mid-income residents. Yet, these locations were quickly removed from consideration early in the Housing Element process.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 619
At one public meeting, for example, then-Mayor Teddy King dismissed the idea of housing at the tennis court location by remarking, “I’ve never seen tennis courts on top of a building. Has anyone else?” Further study of building there was immediately dropped.
From there, very quickly the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan was underway.
3. Steep Slopes & Landslide Risk
The two proposed single-family homes off Abbott and Maxwelton are situated on steep slopes. As residents of Maxwelton Road, we drive past two areas that have undergone extensive landslide repairs and stabilization efforts. From my window, I can see additional properties currently undergoing similar work.
We ask that the City conduct a thorough geological and engineering study, including:
• Drainage patterns
• Erosion potential
• Landslide risk modeling
• Impacts to adjacent properties
It is perplexing that these two lots are being considered when other, less geologically challenging parcels must exist elsewhere in Piedmont. We request other lots are considered.
4. Traffic and Evacuation Safety
We ask that the City provide a corrected and updated traffic study. A resident remarked in the last meeting that the Moraga Avenue vehicle counts used in the study were outdated and pulled from a period when traffic was still low due Covid impacts.
Please also reference the comments made by resident Todd Kaiser at the last planning meeting, which highlighted discrepancies in proposed housing vehicle estimates. It is clear that the number of cars assumed per household is far too low, which calls into question the accuracy of the entire traffic impact analysis.
Most importantly, the City must:
• Conduct updated traffic modeling based on current usage • Include worst-case scenario wildfire evacuation modeling • Account for how 199 new housing units will impact evacuation timelines • Detail how evacuation would proceed during proposed Moraga Road construction
• Specify what safety measures will be in place during construction ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 620
5. Night Sky and noise
Past assurances about meeting lighting standards does not take into account the cumulative glow from hundreds of homes and vehicles. Since field lights for Coach’s were previously ruled out to protect the Night Sky, the true impacts of adding 199 units deserves a similar level of review.
Sounds from Coaches Field already travel clearly. With the scale of this development, the added activity and traffic could turn the area into a significant source of noise. This should also be carefully assessed.
6. Concerns About Integration and Accessibility
The idea that this development is being referred to as “integrated” simply because it includes a mix of low- and mid-income levels in one location is troubling. All of these units are being placed together on the outskirts of town, away from walkable access to schools, amenities, and transit.
If housing were more evenly distributed throughout Piedmont, we would not be facing the logistical and safety challenges associated with widening Moraga Avenue or dealing with high-density housing in a geologically risky zone.
In Conclusion
We respectfully urge the City Council and Planning Commission to:
• Reconsider other locations initially discussed for low- and mid-income housing • Require updated traffic and wildfire evacuation modeling • Propose safer lots for the two single family homes
• Commission a thorough geological, drainage, and slope stability study • Require a study of night sky and noise that includes what the actual impact would be with 199 units
• Improve outreach to all Moraga Canyon residents
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Liz Lummis O’Neil, ___Maxwelton Road
Mary and Arnie Levine, ___Maxwelton Road
Laura and Keith Dierx, ___ Maxwelton Road
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 621
Date: October 1, 2025
To: City of Piedmont City Council
120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Subject: Comments on Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) Dear Councilmembers,
I am a resident of ___ Scenic Ave living directly adjacent to the proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) development area.
I am writing to oppose the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) regarding the following aspects:
1. Building a 5-story housing MCSP area
2. Increasing housing units from 133 to 199 in MCSP area
3. Retaining Corp Yard in MCSP area while simultaneously increasing housing units
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 622
4. Option A outlined below
We support thoughtful housing solutions, but the MCSP fails to adequately evaluate or mitigate significant impacts to our safety, environment, and property.
I request the city to address the following comments as the rationale of these recommendations/decisions were not sufficiently documented
1. Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for Monday, August 1, 2022 stated that affordable housing in the civic center can be feasible, particularly with a half-acre or greater parcel. However, the Council failed to explain,or document, how the decision was made to remove Civic Center parcels (120 Vista, 801 Magnolia) and shift capacity to Grand Ave/Moraga. Please explain how this recommendation was made despite analysis showed that the civic center ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 623
can be feasible for development and if the assumptions made still hold true given the learnings obtained from the increased evaluation of the MCSP.
2. In the COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT dated 11/15/2022, “Removal of the Corey Reich Tennis Center, Highland Strip, City Hall and Veterans Hall, and 801 Magnolia Avenue, and redistribute the housing units” was recommended. Please justify this recommendation to remove the Corey Reich Tennis Center from its inventory for potential housing development and release study documents
3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54220-54232, land designated for parks is not “surplus and excess public land. What is the reason why the Council added Blair Park to the Sites Inventory but not Piedmont Park, Dracena Park or Linda Park?
4. The proposed development within MCSP area creates a dramatic change in flow and intensity in traffic on Moraga Canyon traffic. This road begins and ends in Oakland, with development occurring hundreds of yards from Oakland.
This will likely require supporting infrastructure to be constructed in Oakland. I request the city properly engage in discussions with Oakland to prevent legal action from Oakland’s local government or citizens.
Last, attempting to fulfill nearly the entirety of the state mandated affordable housing via this single parcel, effectively tucking away low income individuals in a difficult-to-access corner of our city without true consideration of alternative sites contradicts claims of equity and inclusion. It is difficult to imagine this proposal is in the best interest of Piedmont as a whole, and better reflects the interests of a handful of those in our community and arrived at without appropriate evaluation.
By no means do I propose to eliminate development, but rather that the quantity is unreasonable, unjustified, and arrived at through a flawed and poorly undocumented process with only token attempts at taking community feedback.
Sincerely,
Shengyi Chang & Steven Edgar
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 624
4. Option A outlined below
I support adding homes in Piedmont and meeting State requirements, but I ask the Council to modify the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan before adoption to address safety concerns and negative impact to property owners around the area.
Summary of requested actions
I request the city to address the following comments as the rationale of these recommendations/decisions were not sufficiently documented
1. Direct staff to present alternatives that either (a) relocate or reconfigure the Corp Yard or (b) reduce the maximum residential intensity if the Yard remains in place, with a side‑by‑side cost, timing, and safety comparison ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 625
2. Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for Monday, August 1, 2022 stated that affordable housing in the civic center can be feasible, particularly with a half-acre or greater parcel. However, the Council failed to explain,or document, how the decision was made to remove Civic Center parcels (120 Vista, 801 Magnolia) and shift capacity to Grand Ave/Moraga. Please explain how this recommendation was made despite analysis showed that the civic center can be feasible for development and if the assumptions made still hold true given the learnings obtained from the increased evaluation of the MCSP.
3. In the COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT dated 11/15/2022, “Removal of the Corey Reich Tennis Center, Highland Strip, City Hall and Veterans Hall, and 801 Magnolia Avenue, and redistribute the housing units” was recommended. Please justify this recommendation to remove the Corey Reich Tennis Center from its inventory for potential housing development and release study documents
4. Phase any MCSP entitlements on a clear, funded package of traffic and evacuation improvements (signal at Red Rock Rd, sight‑distance fixes, pedestrian refuges, and emergency egress protocols) verified through independent evacuation modeling and formal coordination with Oakland.
5. The proposed development within MCSP area creates a dramatic change in flow and intensity in traffic on Moraga Canyon traffic. This road begins and ends in Oakland, with development occurring hundreds of yards from Oakland. This will likely require supporting infrastructure to be constructed in Oakland. I request the city properly engage in discussions with Oakland to prevent legal action from Oakland’s local government or citizens.
6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54220-54232, land designated for parks is not “surplus and excess public land. What is the reason why the Council added Blair Park to the Sites Inventory but not Piedmont Park, Dracena Park or Linda Park?
Last, attempting to fulfill nearly the entirety of the state mandated affordable housing via this single parcel, effectively tucking away low income individuals in a difficult-to-access corner of our city without true consideration of alternative sites contradicts claims of equity and inclusion. It is difficult to imagine this proposal is in the best interest of Piedmont as a whole, and better reflects the interests of a handful of those in our community and arrived at without appropriate evaluation.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 626
By no means do I propose to eliminate development, but rather that the quantity is unreasonable, unjustified, and arrived at through a flawed and poorly undocumented process with only token attempts at taking community feedback.
Sincerely,
Shengyi Chang & Steven Edgar
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 627
Statement to City Council Re: Moraga
To: Mayor Anderson and City Council
From: Patty Siskind, ___ Maxwelton Road, Piedmont
Subject: Request for Further Study and Community Engagement The purpose of this memo is to persuade you to reconsider passing the proposed housing development plan for Moraga Canyon. There are several points that I would like to make for your reconsideration.
1. Safety - Everyone should know by now that safety is a major issue. There has been a great deal of discussion about sight lines and speed of traffic on Moraga, making it unsafe for additional traffic or installation of traffic lights or signs. I think the easiest way I can illustrate the dangers of traffic on Moraga is to let you know that my car was totaled on Moraga and my son-in-law and daughter were injured when another driver plowed into them on Moraga Avenue. The second driver was not only speeding but also didn’t have the sight line to see they were turning left with enough advance notice to avoid them. I think there should be greater study done on the sight lines.
We were told by the previous Fire Chief that the evacuation plan for Maxwelton in the next emergency is to walk down our street (because Maxwelton is too narrow and would immediately be blocked by cars if we attempted to drive) and continue down Moraga to the Corporate Yard. Moraga is the major egress out of town with one lane and pedestrians walking to the Corporate Yard. To this situation, you want to add another 200 homes. I think emergency evacuation plans should be studied in greater detail… perhaps for the existing residents impacted by this development.
2. Night Sky - In previous meetings I have expressed my concern about the impact of Night Sky with this large development. I was assured that this was accounted for and would meet the required standards. It’s my understanding that those standards refer to street lights and don't include light emitted from the additional 200 cars in the neighborhood or any light emanating from the 200 residences. Lights for Coaches Fields were never installed because of the impact on the Night Sky. I feel this development should be studied to see if it would have the equivalent impact as the game lights.
3. Noise Abatement - Currently we are able to hear batting practice on Coaches Field. With the addition of 200 residences, and at least 300 inhabitants, cars etc. the natural amphitheater qualities of the site would make this a cacophony of sound flooding the air. If you think you are getting lots of complaints about the pickleball courts at Linda, with this location and this size of development the Bachman-Turner Overdrive song of “You Ain’t Seen Nothin Yet” might apply. Seriously, this is another topic that needs to be addressed.
I wish to be reasonable. I feel some development here is a good idea. Many Piedmont residents might consider downsizing and freeing up their larger homes and lots for development with some alternative housing available. Also, our city, school and private employees working in Piedmont ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 628
should be given an opportunity for less expensive housing to continue in their jobs. Young families should be able to find starter homes in Piedmont, and this would give them a chance. However, fewer than 100 homes in this location instead of 200 would reduce a portion of the safety, night and sound issues I’ve mentioned. Therefore, I recommend these issues be addressed with much more study before moving forward with the development.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 629
Date: October 2, 2025
To: City of Piedmont City Council
120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Subject: Comments on Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) Dear Mayor Andersen and Councilmembers:
I am a resident of __ Abbott Way living directly adjacent to the proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) development area. We support thoughtful housing solutions, but the environmental review fails to adequately evaluate or mitigate significant impacts to our safety, environment, and property. As mentioned numerous times, it is the aggregation and density of this housing that creates, exacerbates and raises alarm about the impacts of this required housing.
Overview: There is a failure to include the following:
Slope stability factors of safety for cut/fill slopes adjacent to parcels. Drainage modeling ensuring no increase in off-site runoff. Clear performance standards for all deferred mitigation. Quantified evacuation clearance times for all routes.
Detailed inadequacy:
The Moraga Canyon Specific Plan proposes up to 199 new units on city-owned land and purportedly aims to improve wildlife, wildfire, and transportation safety. The density of housing, along with the defererred mitigations efforts (which will largely be driven by developers as opposed to standards that will protect the existing interests of residents) require additional scrutiny and planning.
The following are not adequate
• Wildfire & Safety Deficiency: the plan inadequately addresses wildfire risk, evacuation routes, defensible space, emergency access, and fire department capacity.
• Slope / Geology / Drainage Risks: there has been an inadequate review of slope stability, landslide risk, erosion, drainage impacts, and downstream effects onto adjacent parcels.
• Traffic / Circulation / Parking Impacts: increased traffic and limited parking will burden adjacent streets, affecting ingress/egress, safety, (also noise, and air quality).
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 630
• Consistency with Surrounding Zoning / Density: Since this neighborhood has parcels that are comparatively lower-density and all single-family units, this proposal is inconsistent in scale and character with the neighborhood. 1) Inadequate wildfire evacuation & public-safety analysis We do not see realistic, evidence-based evacuation modeling and disclosure of constraints (e.g., choke points, concurrent incidents, weather, ignition scenarios). The EIR relies on generic statements and consists of informational failure. The City highlights wildfire safety/evacuation as a core plan goal; yet the EIR doesn’t show quantifiable evacuation performance for neighbors on canyon roads (time to clear, VMT during egress, lane losses, disabled populations).
2) Weak tiering from the Housing Element EIR
The Public Review Draft says the City will rely on a previously certified Housing Element EIR (SCH #2022020362). Yet that programmatic EIR didn’t study site-specific Moraga Canyon hazards (slope stability, drainage onto adjacent parcels, evacuation, fire weather). There is also a failure of project-level analysis.
An EIR must meaningfully connect data to concrete local effects; “programmatic” documents can’t skip site-specific impacts where they’re reasonably foreseeable. 3) Geology, drainage, and potential downstream flooding onto adjacent parcels There is substantial evidence, also known as a “fair-argument” claim, that cuts/fills, retaining systems, or stormwater changes will increase slide/erosion or flood risk onto existing property in this zone of proposed development. 4) Traffic safety
Traffic safety remains an issue (e.g., evacuation conflicts, pedestrian/bike conflicts on constrained canyon roads). This plan treats safety as a secondary measure and punts to later design.
5) General Plan consistency
There is an internal inconsistency in the City’s approach. These approvals frustrate wildfire-safety, evacuation, and hillside-stability policies. 6) Spot zoning / specific-plan zoning
The rezoning here is a disingenuous effort to aggregate the required housing on the edge of Piedmont as opposed to serving the interests of new residents and preserving ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 631
the interests of existing residents. By placing all the housing in an area where there are no public amenities, access to city center or public transportation, a high wildfire risk zone, an area with unique terrain that is prone to landslides and instability, there is a justifiable question as to the motivations that underlie this site as a location for the vast majority of new, required housing. By placing the majority housing load in Moraga Canyon with an adjacent plan for recreation, the City is effectively creating a city within a city. This further entrenches the classist characteristics that are used to shut down housing and reveals the supporters of this plan to be the actual “NIMBYs” of Piedmont.
The neighbors who are directly impacted have an issue with the density and the strategic viability of building here. The considerable issues with traffic, evacuation, terrain, lack of infrastructure and difficulty managing noise and pollution offsets in this area are vast. There are no residents who have stated that zero housing should occur here. The argument is that the density is ridiculous given the terrain and evacuation routs and this plan disproportionately impacts one area of Piedmont not in a net neutral manner but in an objectively unsafe and negative manner. 7) Procedural issues: There are also procedural issues with this plan: inadequate notice to directly affected neighbors; non-responsive replies to evacuation/drainage comments; and a failure to recirculate any late changes which added new significant impacts (the increase in housing density after public comments highlighting that the high density was a significant issue).
I have outlined the issues above but will provide a more granular analysis below:
Analysis of the issues with legal citations:
For your reference. As you know, the impact of the 2025 reforms on CEQA litigation is not yet fully understood.
1. Inadequate Wildfire and Evacuation Analysis
Section 10.5.7.6 (Evacuation Planning) of the MCSP states the City will “implement all recommendations” of the Fehr & Peers 2023 Emergency Evacuation Time Assessment, including signal timing plans, lane reversals, and parking restrictions Problem: No quantitative results (clearance times, worst-case modeling) are presented.
There is no disclosure of evidence-based evacuation performance (Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado, 2022). Adjacent residents cannot meaningfully comment on whether these measures are adequate without data.
Request:
• Publish the full evacuation model and disclose clearance time results under build-out conditions.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 632
• Provide zone-by-zone evacuation timing, identify bottleneck locations, and analyze concurrent fire/weather events.
• Include enforceable mitigation performance standards (e.g., target clearance times, minimum roadway capacity).
2. Deferred Mitigation for Slope Stability
Section 10.5.7.5 (Hillside Stability) defers geotechnical assessment to the gradingpermit stage, requiring only that design “incorporate all recommendations” of future reports
Section 5.12.7 (Slope Setbacks) allows adjustments by the City Engineer but does not specify numeric factors of safety or mandatory mitigation triggers.
Problem: CEQA prohibits deferring mitigation without performance criteria (Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange, 2005). Adjacent property owners cannot know if future designs will prevent slope failure or lateral loading onto their parcels.
Request:
• Include numeric factor-of-safety requirements (e.g., 1.5 static, 1.1 seismic). • Commit to no net increase in slide probability or erosion affecting neighboring parcels.
• Require peer review of geotechnical reports with public disclosure before grading permits are issued.
3. Drainage and Stormwater Impacts
Section 5.12.10 (Drainage and Retaining Walls) allows drainage easements “if runoff…across adjacent property is unavoidable” but does not quantify runoff increases.
Problem: CEQA requires modeling of peak flows and mitigation to avoid increasing offsite flooding or erosion.
Request:
• Provide hydrology modeling for 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events with postproject impervious surfaces. • Commit to detention/retention design ensuring no increase in peak discharge onto adjacent parcels.
• Require energy-dissipating devices sized per hydraulic calculations and publish results.
4. Grading and Retaining Wall Realignment
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 633
Section 9.5.1 (Site Grading) proposes significant regrading, wall realignments, and new retaining walls on both Coaches Field and Blair Park Open Space Problem: These mass-grading activities may destabilize slopes, concentrate runoff, or change subsurface water flows impacting neighboring foundations.
Request:
• Disclose cut/fill volumes, wall heights, and soil nail/anchor designs. • Model construction-phase erosion and specify BMPs with measurable effectiveness.
5. Traffic Safety
While the plan proposes ROW expansion and traffic signals, it does not present a quantitative safety analysis (pedestrian/vehicle conflict modeling, evacuation traffic simulation).
Request:
• Provide a traffic safety analysis focusing on evacuation scenarios, intersection performance, and pedestrian conflicts.
• Include design alternatives (e.g., additional egress routes, roundabouts) with comparative safety outcomes.
6. General Plan Consistency
Without quantified wildfire clearance times or slope stability metrics, the MCSP is inconsistent with General Plan Safety Element policies calling for risk reduction in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Courts require “reasonable consistency” that does not ignore core safety objectives (San Francisco Tomorrow v. CCSF, 2014).
Chart of evidence gaps and legal weakness:
Evidence Gaps & Deferred Analysis in MCSP
Topic Plan
Citation What It Says Evidence Gap / Legal Weakness
Evacuation
& Wildfire
Risk
§10.5.7.6,
p.125
Lists general measures
(signal timing, lane reversals,
parking restrictions,
education) based on Fehr &
Peers Emergency
No publication of actual
clearance time results or
traffic simulation. No worstcase fire/weather modeling or zone-specific bottleneck
analysis. CEQA requires
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 634
Topic Plan
Citation What It Says Evidence Gap / Legal Weakness
Evacuation Time
Assessment.
substantial evidence for
public-safety conclusions
2025-04-18_MCSP-PUBLIC
REVIEW D…
.
Slope
Stability
§10.5.7.5,
p.124
Requires geotechnical report
before grading permit; design
must incorporate
recommendations.
Deferred mitigation: No
factor-of-safety standards
(1.5/1.1), no commitment to
peer review, no public
disclosure prior to grading.
Violates CEQA rule against
deferring mitigation without
performance criteria
2025-04-18_MCSP-PUBLIC
REVIEW D…
.
Cut & Fill
Standards
§5.12.5–
5.12.6,
p.55–57
States cut slopes ≤ 2:1, fill
slopes ≤ 2:1 unless stability
shown by soil engineer.
No disclosure of total cut/fill
volumes, no modeling of
adjacent load effects, no
analysis of slope creep or
groundwater impacts on
neighbors
2025-04-18_MCSP-PUBLIC
REVIEW D…
.
Retaining
Walls
§9.5.1,
p.107;
§8.7.1.5,
p.92
Requires retaining wall
upgrades at Coaches Field,
new walls at Blair Park and
Moraga Ave; wall
height/size/location “TBD.”
Heights, anchors, surcharges
not specified. No finite
element modeling of wall
stability adjacent to private
parcels. Realignment could
alter slope loadings
2025-04-18_MCSP-PUBLIC
REVIEW D…
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 635
Topic Plan
Citation What It Says Evidence Gap / Legal Weakness
2025-04-18_MCSP-PUBLIC
REVIEW D…
.
Drainage &
Stormwater
§5.12.9,
p.58
Requires LID BMPs and
drainage to nearest facility.
No hydrology model
quantifying post-project peak
flow. No guarantee of zero
increase in runoff to
neighbors. Easements
allowed “if runoff across
adjacent property is
unavoidable” — indicates
potential off-site impacts
2025-04-18_MCSP-PUBLIC
REVIEW D…
.
Erosion
Control
§5.12.11,
p.60
Calls for terrace drains, riprap, etc.
No performance standards
(e.g., maximum allowable soil
loss rate). No cumulative
construction-phase sediment
modeling.
Traffic
Safety
Narrative
throughout
Ch.9
Proposes ROW widening,
new signals.
No quantitative safety
performance analysis
(conflict points, pedestrian
LOS, emergency egress
capacity). CEQA still treats
safety as a valid impact.
In conclusion, I respectfully request the City:
1. Prepare a project-level or recirculated EIR with the analyses described above.
2. Include enforceable performance standards for slope stability, drainage, and evacuation.
3. Provide public disclosure of technical studies before final adoption.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 636
Please ensure that ANY housing uses the highest standards of wildfire mitigation landscaping and construction to effectively retard wildfire spread. Look at the impact of this density on the evacuation routes in a meaningful way.
Failure to address these issues exposes the City to legal challenge and undermines public safety.
Thank you for your attention to this submission.
Deepti Sethi
__ Abbott Way
Piedmont, CA 94618
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 637
[email protected],
16 people have signed a petition on Action Network telling you to Approve 930 Moraga Ave in October: Bring 132–199 Homes to Piedmont’s High-Opportunity Area.
Here is the petition they signed:
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I’m writing to urge you to approve the 930 Moraga Ave infill project and the associated actions recommended by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2025, including the Addendum to the 2023–2031 Housing Element Implementation EIR and the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan with amendments to Chapter 17 (Divisions 17.22 & 17.24).
This proposal would add 132–199 new homes in a high-resource part of Piedmont....exactly where homes do the most good! It’s infill, uses existing infrastructure, and expands Missing Middle options that serve teachers, healthcare workers, seniors, and families. Approving this project helps Piedmont meet its state-mandated RHNA commitments and reduces displacement pressure on neighboring Oakland.
Please vote YES to keep Piedmont on track, build more homes near opportunity, and do our fair share.
Thank you for your leadership.
You can view each petition signer and the comments they left you below.
Thank you,
East Bay YIMBY
1. RAUL MALDONADO (ZIP code: 94606)
2. Vivek Rangaswamy (ZIP code: 94610)
3. Alfred Twu (ZIP code: 94704)
4. Andrea Horbinski (ZIP code: 94708)
5. Nitin Rao (ZIP code: 94611)
Live on Estates Dr. Very supportive of more housing.
6. Jeffrey Alpert (ZIP code: 94611)
Oakland neighbors support building more housing
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 638
7. John Krzywicki (ZIP code: 94611)
8. barbara wilson (ZIP code: 94611)
As my mother used to say, people have to live somewhere. Would you like your children's and grandchildren's teachers to arrive exhausted from 50 mile commutes. Our children and families deserve their teachers, healthcare workers and first responders to live and work nearby.
9. Clara Valenstein (ZIP code: 94611)
10. Thomas Hayes (ZIP code: 94611)
I’m supportive of this development and applaud efforts to consider traffic engineering updates to encourage safe driving and multimodal travel along Moraga Road.
11. Clare Trimbur (ZIP code: 94611)
Fingers crossed that this can move forward!
12. Bob Meade (ZIP code: 94611)
13. Kristen Burrall (ZIP code: 94611)
14. Jay Sholl (ZIP code: 94611)
Yes to housing at 930 Moraga, we need more workforce housing in all of our communities.
ATTACHMENT G Agenda Report Page 639