City of Piedmont
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 6, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Rosanna Bayon Moore, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Resolution Approving an Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report and the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan; Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 784 N.S. Amending City Code Chapter 17, Divisions 17.22 and 17.21, and Conforming Revisions
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) approving an Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report and the draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (draft MCSP) in that the draft MCSP addresses the goals of Housing Element Program 1.L and the City Council’s March 18, 2024, direction to staff.
2. Approve the introduction and 1st reading of the attached Ordinance 784 N.S. amending City Code Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, division 17.22, Zone B: Public Facilities, and division 17.24, Zone C: Multi-Family Residential, and conforming revisions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This staff report provides information about the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) to assist the City Council in taking action with respect to: (1) the MCSP (inclusive of several Planning Commission-recommended and staff-recommended revisions); (2) the Addendum to the EIR; and (3) the conforming amendments to the Piedmont City Code as reflected in proposed Ordinance 784 N.S.
Piedmont’s 6th Cycle Housing Element is Program 1.L requires the preparation of a specific plan for City-owned parcels that total 19.74 acres in the Moraga Canyon area, plus the Moraga Avenue roadway that intersects them (“Study Area”). As provided in Attachment C, the Housing Element and Program 1.L provide for planning for the development of housing and the community infrastructure that supports the residents of new and existing homes. In a specific plan, the City is not committing to approving any specific project or to dedicating financial resources beyond the cost of MCSP preparation. Rather, the MCSP sets the framework (i.e., land use policies, development standards, processes) by which improvements to public facilities and development of housing would occur within the context of adjacent uses, the surrounding community, and Piedmont as a whole.
After a series of public engagement events and a series of study sessions commencing in Summer of 2023, the City Council directed staff and the City’s consultant team, JZMK Partners, to prepare a Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, which includes two options for the potential siting of multifamily housing contemplated by the Housing Element: on the south side of Moraga Avenue (Option A) and on the north side of Moraga Avenue (Option B).
On September 8, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum to the Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) , the draft MCSP, and the proposed conforming revisions to the City Code, and made a recommendation for the City Council to adopt the Addendum to the EIR, approve the draft MCSP, and approving amendments to the City Code.
The Planning Commission resolutions and meeting minutes are included as Attachment F.
BACKGROUND
The Piedmont Housing Element and Program 1.L call for the development of housing and the community infrastructure that supports and benefits the residents of new and existing homes. In the draft MCSP, the City is not committing to approving any specific project or to dedicating financial resources. Rather, the MCSP sets the framework (i.e., land use policies, development standards, processes) by which improvements to public facilities and the development of housing would occur within the context of adjacent uses and the surrounding community.
Work on the MCSP began in the Summer of 2023. On March 18, 2024 after a series of public engagement events and a series of study sessions (outlined in section 1.7, page 7 of the MCSP), the City Council directed staff and the City’s consultant team to prepare a draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan with two options for the siting of the multifamily housing: on the south side of Moraga Avenue (Option A); and on the north side of Moraga Avenue (Option B). The City Council also clarified priorities related to the number of housing units, recreation uses, and phasing, as well as other Specific Plan approaches. At the conclusion of the March 18, 2025 meeting, the City Council reached consensus and provided the following direction for the preparation of a Draft Moraga Specific Plan:
• Exclude site plan options determined to be infeasible on March 1, 2024; • Include site plan options 1 and 3 (MCSP options A and B) to provide flexibility to potential developers to choose a plan that optimizes the development of housing and community benefits, including improvements to the Moraga Avenue roadway; • Explore increasing the number of market-rate units, currently at 72, to up to 139 in order to better fund community amenities;
• Eliminate a skating facility as a goal of the plan, and instead seek the development of other community facilities, such as a dog park, a playground, or a pickleball court; and • Include the community benefits of an under-14 soccer field, youth baseball/softball field, batting cages, artificial field turf, and ballfield seating.
The Planning Commission held study sessions on the following chapters of the preliminary, administrative draft MCSP at public meetings held in August, September, and October 2024:
• Chapter 7, Architectural Styles (August 12, 2024);
Agenda Report Page 2
• Chapter 3, Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Circulation and Multi-Modal Complete Streets, Chapter 5, Site Design, and Chapter 6, Building Design (September 23, 2024); and
• Chapter 8, Landscape Design, and Chapter 9, Public Utilities (October 14, 2024).
The draft MCSP was completed and posted for public review on the City of Piedmont website and in the City Hall public lobby on April 18, 2025.
The City Council held study sessions on the draft MCSP on April 28, 2025, and April 30, 2025, to receive public comments and to facilitate an understanding of the content through a series of questions and responses. Study session materials are available on the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan webpage on the City website at the following link:
https://piedmont.ca.gov/services___departments/planning___building/general_plan___other_poli cy_documents/moraga_canyon_specific_plan
On June 4, 2025, the Park Commission considered the draft MCSP and recommended to the City Council approval of the park and right-of-way aspects of the MCSP. Meeting video is available on the City website at the following link:
https://piedmont.granicus.com/player/clip/3074?view_id=9&redirect=true On June 18, 2025, the Recreation Commission considered the draft MCSP and recommended to the City Council approval of the recreation-related aspects of the MCSP. Meeting video is available on the City website at the following link:
https://piedmont.granicus.com/player/clip/3078?view_id=9&redirect=true On August 11, 2024, the Planning Commission held a study session on the draft MCSP at a regular meeting of the Commission, received a report by staff and the consultant team led by JZMK Partners, and received public testimony. Members of the public addressed the Planning Commission and gave statements concerning the architectural design requirements, and impacts to the Moraga Avenue roadway and to emergency access and preparedness.
On August 21, 2025, the Planning & Building Department held an open house on the topics of the MCSP and other City initiatives.
On September 8, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft MCSP at a regular meeting of the Commission, received a report by staff and the consultant team led by JZMK Partners, and received public testimony including written correspondence and verbal remarks.
Members of the public addressed the Planning Commission and gave statements concerning the architectural design requirements, and impacts to the Moraga Avenue roadway and to emergency access and preparedness. At the conclusion of the agenda item, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the Addendum to the EIR, the draft MCSP with seven (7) changes (discussed below), and the proposed amendments to Chapter 17 of the City Code. Draft meeting minutes are included as Attachment F, and the meeting video is available on the City website at the following link: Video Written correspondence is provided as Attachment G.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
The MCSP is the result of robust engagement with the greater Piedmont community that began in Agenda Report Page 3
September 2023. Public engagement included:
• a community survey
• a neighborhood meeting
• two Park Commission meetings
• two Recreation Commission meetings
• a community workshop
• public engagement at the City’s Harvest Festival, Food Fest and a Planning & Building Department open house
• informational videos
• monthly Planning & Building enewsletters, and the citywide enewsletters • five study sessions and one regular meeting and public hearing of the Planning Commission, and
• four study sessions and one regular meeting of the City Council.
One result of this high level of public engagement and public participation is over 70 written comments, as well as verbal remarks provided by members of the public at study sessions and public meetings. Written correspondence is summarized as of the time of agenda publication and included in this staff report as Attachment G. Changes to the MCSP suggested by members of the public are discussed in the section of this staff report entitled Discussion, below.
DISCUSSION
The draft MCSP sets out goals and standards for land development on publicly owned land within the Study Area, including real property, subdivisions, lot building restrictions, planning and zoning matters, matters affecting the design and aesthetics of buildings, structures and other improvements, and methods of encouraging and promoting good design.
The City Council committed to the preparation of the MCSP as required by the City’s Housing Element, and directed staff to incorporate options to provide potential developers with flexibility to optimize housing production and community benefits on City-owned land in Moraga Canyon, including Moraga Avenue roadway improvements. The Planning Commission reviewed the provisions in the MCSP related to City property and land use planning and made a recommendation to the City Council. The attached Planning Commission resolution (included in Attachment F) provides a recommendation to the City Council related to the draft MCSP’s conformance with Housing Element Program 1.L and City Council direction.
The MCSP’s Consistency with Program 1.L of the Housing Element A key consideration before the Council is determining whether the MCSP conforms to the goals set forth in Program 1.L of the Housing Element. Draft resolution A includes findings that the proposed MCSP is consistent with the Piedmont General Plan and Housing Element. The table below provides the MCSP’s conformance with each of the Housing Element Program 1.L goals and references the chapter or section of the MCSP that addresses the particular goal.
Agenda Report Page 4
Program 1.L Goal How Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Achieves 1.L Goals
1. Prepare a specific plan using the specific plan
process outlined in Government Code §65450
et seq. This process requires the orderly
development of the area, including the
following: phasing; subdivision; adequate
infrastructure; identification of financing;
protection of amenities and City facilities; and
production of affordable housing.
The City drafted the MCSP in conformance with
Government Code §65450 and related sections.
Chapters 1 to 10 address phasing, subdivision,
adequate infrastructure, identification of funding
and financing, protection of amenities and City
facilities, and production of affordable housing.
City consulted with Native American tribes in
accordance with SB 18 during the MCSP
preparation.
2. Enable construction of housing at a minimum
of 132 units, on portions of the site, totaling
approximately 3.5 acres of land, yielding a
minimum of 60 units of housing affordable to
households earning less than 80 percent of the
area median income (AMI) and a minimum of
72 units affordable to households earning
more than 80 percent of the AMI.
The MCSP anticipates development of 132 to
199 new housing units, 60 of which will be
affordable to households earning low, very low,
and extremely low incomes, as well as the
improvements, utilities, infrastructure, and
funding necessary to achieve this goal.
3. In addition, specific plan goals include
improved safety. New habitable structures
shall be built to meet Fire Code requirements
for Wildland Urban Interface Areas.
MCSP Chapter 10, Section 10.5.7.7, outlines fire
safe design standards.
4. The specific plan must include replacement
and/or modernization of existing Public Works
Department facilities, offices, storage areas,
vehicle storage areas, etc., so that service
capacity is maintained or increased, and so
that the facilities meet current Building and
Fire Code requirements.
MCSP Chapters 2, 3, and 10 outline the process
for replacing and/or modernizing the Public
Works Corporation Yard.
5. The specific plan must include recreation
facilities, including but not limited to an
under-14 soccer field, youth baseball/softball
field, batting cages, artificial field turf,
ballfield seating, a skate spot, a picnic area,
and parking for these facilities.
MCSP Chapters 2, 4, 9, and 10 outline standards
for facilities for public recreation (MCSP
sections 2.3, 2.5, 3.11, 3.12.3, 4.6, 9.5 and 10.3)
6. The specific plan must provide all public
utilities to new housing and all City facilities
to be constructed within the specific plan area
in a manner consistent with public safety
standards and Piedmont Climate
Action Plan goals and programs.
MCSP Chapters 9 and 10 outline the process of
how utilities will be provided to housing and
other development in the MCSP area.
7. The specific plan must include improvements
to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, as
determined necessary by the City Engineer, to
provide safe pedestrian, bicycle, and motor
vehicle movements, ensure safe evacuation
routes, and provide optimal emergency
response.
MCSP Chapters 4 and 10 outline the process for
improving the safety of Moraga Avenue and the
steps for implementing the improvements,
including pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle,
evacuation, and emergency access
improvements.
Agenda Report Page 5
8. The goals of the specific plan include a
comprehensive landscape plan for areas
planned for development. The landscape plan
shall prioritize to the extent practicable: fire
safety and the preservation of significant open
space, scenic views, and native and heritage
trees.
MCSP Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 8 outline the
standards for preservation of open space, scenic
views, native and heritage trees, and fire safety.
• Preservation of significant open space
(MCSP sections 2.3, 2.5, 3.11 and
3.12.3) Right-of-way landscape facilities
(MCSP section 4.14)
• Native and heritage trees (MCSP section
3.9)
• Landscaping on multifamily
development and general development
(MCSP Chapter 8)
9. Density in the plan area will be determined at
the time of plan development and could range
from 40 to 60 dwelling units per acre,
including housing for seniors, disabled
persons, single-parents, low-income families,
and/or people requiring supportive services. If
it is determined that it is infeasible to develop
this site during the planning process, the City
will consider utilizing other City-owned
properties as alternative sites.
MCSP Chapter 3, Section 3.4 and 3.11, states
that the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan area is
located withing zoning district Zone B. Zone B
permits density of 10 units per acre for singlefamily development and a density of 60 dwelling units per acre for multifamily development.
Zone B multifamily development standards
include 70 percent maximum lot coverage,
minimum 15 percent landscape coverage, 15-
foot street yard setback, 4-foot side and rear yard
setback, and 8-foot stepback after 3 stories or 35
feet, whichever is less.
10. The City will apply for grants and other
funding sources to help fund the planning and
development of affordable housing in this
area. The City could also leverage local, State,
and federal affordable housing funding
sources.
MCSP Chapter 10 provides that the City may
pursue grant funding and other funding for
planning and development. The City has
obtained ABAG-MTC Priority Sites Grant
Technical Assistance to evaluate funding
opportunities and eligibility. The MCSP
anticipates that the City will pursue $2M in
Alameda County Measure A-1 (2016) funding.
Thus, in staff’s analysis, the MCSP meets the goals provided in Program 1.L of the Housing Element.
Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Changes to the Draft MCSP On September 8, 2025, based on public comments received from residents and members of the Piedmont community (included as Attachment G) and staff recommendationsto provide additional clarity, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the following changes to the Draft MCSP:
1. Sight Stopping Distance and Signage. MCSP Chapter 4, Section 4.9 on page 35 provides an example of the type of traffic signage and flashing beacon that alerts drivers to be aware of pedestrian crossings. In response to public comments and on the advice of the City’s consultant traffic engineers, staff recommend changing Chapter 4, including the image and caption for Figure 4.8 to show the typical traffic caution signage and flashing beacon for the approach to a signalized intersections (and the stopped cars waiting at the signalized intersection), as Agenda Report Page 6
provided by the City’s consultant traffic engineers. The Planning Commission recommends revisions to the text of pages 35 and 46 as follows (changes shown in bold and underlined text):
a. Page 35, change the second to last sentence in the first paragraph of Section 4.9 to read “Figure 4.8 is an example of the flashing beacons placed prior to the intersection to warn motorists of upcoming signal and pedestrian crossings.” In addition, replace the existing image with the one to the right with the following caption “Figure 4.8 Signal Ahead Signage with Flashing Beacon Imagery”:
b. Page 35, change Section 4.9 to include a requirement for stopping sight distance analysis at the time of development agreement to determine appropriate locations for traffic signal, signage, beacons, to read as follows “Stopping sight distance analysis shall be conducted for the design and engineering of the intersection to include but not limited to appropriate design and location(s) of signal, roadway signage, and beacons. See Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.2, Development Agreement.”
c. Page 46, change the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 4.17 to read “According to the HDM (Table 201.1), the minimum required SSD for vehicles for a design speed of 40 mph (rounding up the measured 85th percentile speed of 38- 39 mph) is 300 feet. HDM Section 201.3 requires increasing the SSD by 20 percent for roadway segments with sustained downhill slope of 5 percent or more over one mile long. Thus, the SSD for the downhill (westbound) Moraga Avenue is 360 feet, compared to 300 feet for the uphill (eastbound) direction.
Stopping sight distance analysis shall be conducted for the design and engineering of each proposed driveway. See Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.4.A, Initial Design Review.”
2. Transit Stops. MCSP Chapter 4, Section 4.12 Public Transit, on page 38 includes direction regarding the placement of new transit stops along Moraga Avenue to serve new and existing residents in the MCSP area and neighboring areas. The Planning Commission recommends a change to increase the flexibility of the location of new bus stops as part of development under the MCSP. For example, upon further research, new bus stops on Moraga Avenue near Highland Avenue may achieve the goals of expanding public transit as a permanent or interim measure. The proposed change to Section 4.12 is shown below in bold and underlined text.
“The following actions should be pursued to improve bus service during development of the MCSP area:
1. Coordinate with AC Transit to introduce bus service along the Moraga Avenue corridor.
2. Provide bus stops in both directions of Moraga Avenue near the proposed signal at Red Rock Road to better accommodate bus riders needing to cross the street.
Carefully consider the space requirements and safety of alternative locations for bus stops, including interim bus stops, to be located ½ mile or less walking distance from the entrance or entrances of all housing units affordable to lower income residents.
3. Provide amenities, such as a shelter with bench and trash receptacle at the bus stops.”
Agenda Report Page 7
3. Common Useable Open Space. MCSP Chapter 5, Section 5.7.1, Common Useable Open Space, on page 51 includes a requirement that a minimum of 15 percent of the land used for multifamily development shall be designated as Common Useable Open Space (e.g. a development of 60 units on a 1 acre lot used for affordable multifamily development must provide 6,534 square feet of space that is accessible to all tenants and meets certain standards). Comments received from the public recommend aligning the MCSP standards for common useable open space with the minimum requirements for affordable housing from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). The TCAC would require the following minimum common space for low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) developments and large family LIHTC developments, which require less land dedicated to common useable open space:
LIHTC: “Common areas shall meet the following size requirement: projects comprised of 30 or less total units, at least 600 square feet; projects from 31 to 60 total units, at least 1000 square feet; projects from 61 to 100 total units, at least 1400 square feet; projects over 100 total units, at least 1800 square feet. Small developments of 20 units or fewer are exempt from this requirement.” Staff notes that 1,000 s.f. for a development of 60 lower income housing units would equal just over 2 percent of a 1 acre lot.
Large Family LIHTC: “The project shall provide play/recreational facilities suitable and available to all tenants, including children of all ages, except for small developments of 20 units or fewer. Play/recreational area for children ages 2-12 years shall be outdoors, and the minimum square footage is 600 square feet and must include an accessible entrance point. For projects with more than 100 total units this square footage shall be increased by 5 square feet for each additional unit. Outdoor play/recreational space must be equipped with reasonable play equipment for the size of the project, and the surface must be natural or synthetic protective material.” Staff notes that 1,600 s.f. for a development of 60 large family housing units would equal 3.7 percent of a 1 acre lot.
The Planning Commission recommends reducing the total amount of land dedicated to common useable open space in MCSP Chapter 5, Section 5.7.1 from 15 percent to 10 percent.
This change would continue to provide space for tenants to interact, children to play, and landscape amenities. The MCSP standard should not be reduced to the minimum TCAC requirements, which would significantly decrease the amount of common useable open space to as low as 2.3 percent. The minimum TCAC common useable open space would not result in the features and amenities characteristic of homes in Piedmont and could create a disparity between the amenities available to the residents of affordable housing and those of the market-rate housing.
4. Private Useable Open Space. MCSP Chapter 5, Section 5.7.2, Private Useable Open Space, on page 53 requires the developer of multifamily units in the MCSP area to provide a minimum of 80 square feet of private useable open space accessible to the tenant(s) and guests of each unit. A larger area of 100 square feet is the required standard for residences located on the ground floor. Private useable open space typically takes the form of a balcony or patio accessed from the individual housing unit. Comments received from the public request that the City change the standard for private useable open space by removing this requirement entirely.
Agenda Report Page 8
The Planning Commission recommends reducing the private useable open space area to 80 square feet for both ground floor units and units located on upper floor levels, a reduction of 20 square feet for ground level units. In addition, the Commission recommended allowing development to satisfy the private useable open space standard by transferring the same area to the development’s common useable open space (in addition to the required 10 percent of the lot standard, described above). If the private useable open space standard in MCSP section 5.7.2 makes construction too expensive for developers, Chapter 10 of the MCSP notes that the City Council has the authority to process revisions to allow construction to occur without private useable open space.
Since the September 8, 2025 public hearing, staff has continued to discuss the MCSP development standards with local developers and architects. Staff notes that 80 square feet of private useable open space, either accessible to the residents and guests of each unit or combined with common useable open space and accessible to all residents, may be as much as two times the amount that multifamily development typically provides. Staff recommends that the requirement for private useable open space standard be reduced to 40 square feet and that the MCSP permit the private useable open space area to be transferred to common useable open space, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Lastly, staff notes that the City Council will have final decision-making authority over the development of City-owned land. If the private useable open space standard makes construction infeasible for developers, Chapter 10 of the MCSP notes that the City Council has the authority to process revisions to allow construction to occur with less private useable open space or without it entirely.
5. Affordability Levels. Section 10.5.6.2, Development Agreement, on Page 120 of the Draft MCSP includes as required term #3, the provision of the following affordable housing units.
The Planning Commission recommends changing the affordability levels of the units to provide additional flexibility while continuing to meet Housing Element goals. The Planning Commission recommends the following change in bold and underlined font. “3. The provision of affordable housing, with a minimum of 60 units affordable to households earning low and very low incomes, including a minimum of 40 units affordable to those with very low and extremely low incomes, as well as units affordable to households earning moderate incomes, or less, as a minimum of 10% of any proposed market-rate units, and housing units shall include a minimum of 50% of units with two bedrooms or more to serve families.”
Since the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, City staff and consultants have continued to evaluate statewide incentive programs, including the Surplus Lands Act exemption for affordable housing development. Please see additional revisions to MCSP section 10.5.6.2 sub-section 3, below, under the heading “Modification to Anticipated Unit Count.”
6. Implementation. To address public concerns regarding roadway safety, emergency access, and evacuation, the Planning Commission recommends changes to the text of Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.2, Development Agreement, to incorporate recommended changes to Chapter Agenda Report Page 9
4, described above, and to incorporate revisions recommended by the Piedmont Fire Department, as follows:
a. Section 10.5.6.2.A, Application Requirements, change the list of application requirements to include the addition of a new item 11. as follows: “11. Stopping Sight Distance Analysis for the design and engineering of the traffic signal and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Moraga Avenue and Red Rock Road, showing design and location(s) of signal, traffic signage, and beacons and including analysis of current traffic speeds.”
b. Section 10.5.6.2.B, Terms, change the required terms of the future development agreement to include additional details about the future development proposal’s compliance with Fire Code regulations, as follows (changed text is shown in bold and underlined font): “Fire protection for new development meeting Environmental Hazards Element policy 19.9 and Fire Code requirements, including but not limited to fire sprinkler plan, evacuation improvements, fire access roads and points of access off of Moraga Avenue, turnarounds, and one or more new fire hydrants to serve the development, as well as required water pressure and flow.” c. Section 10.5.6.4, Design Review, subsection A, change the requirements for initial design review permit to include design and engineering for each driveway for the future development, including but not limited to stopping sight distance analysis, as follows (changed text is shown in bold and underlined font): “An Initial Design Review Permit shall be administered pursuant to Division 17.66 of the Piedmont City Code, except as set forth below. An Initial Design Review Permit application shall include the following: conceptual site plan, access and circulation plan, including design and engineering of each driveway, including but not limited to current traffic speeds and stopping sight distance analysis, frontage improvements, landscape plan, building massing, and architectural style…”
7. Sound Study. Piedmont General Plan policies and programs address the noise of construction, including the noise from future construction related to the MCSP. These General Plan provisions would continue to apply to development pursuant to the MCSP. The Planning Commission recommends that noise related to the use of City facilities, which may be expanded or relocated, be addressed in the environmental measures section of the MCSP. The Planning Commission recommends the following revision to Chapter 10, Section 10.5.7, Environmental Measures, to incorporate the new sound study measure (new text shown in bold and underlined font):
“10.5.7.8 SOUND STUDY
To ensure consistency with Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, if new or relocated recreational uses that produce amplified or equipment-related noise are proposed within 500 feet of residences, a noise study shall be conducted to determine the noise levels from the proposed recreational use to residences within 500 feet. If noise levels are found to exceed the standards within Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, or other noise limit if appropriate and supported by the findings of the noise study, noise reduction measures shall be implemented such that noise levels would be below the applicable standard. The noise study shall be provided to the City as part of the Initial Design Review Permit process.
Agenda Report Page 10
If the City's Corporation Yard is relocated to within 500 feet of residences, a noise study shall be conducted to determine the noise levels from Corporation Yard to residences within 500 feet. If noise levels are found to exceed the standards within Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, or other noise limit if appropriate and supported by the findings of the noise study, noise reduction measures shall be implemented such that noise levels would be below the applicable standard. The noise study shall be provided to the City as part of the Initial Design Review Permit process.” In addition to the foregoing changes recommended by the Planning Commission, staff also recommends the following changes:
8. Modification to Anticipated Unit Count. Since the September 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, City staff have continued to research and work with development experts about eligibility for certain State and countywide incentives and financing opportunities. City staff recommend that the City Council consider revisions to the draft MCSP to be consistent with the overall unit count envisioned in Housing Element Program
1.L., namely a minimum of 132 units with 60 units affordable to individuals and families with lower incomes. Program 1.L envisioned 45.4 percent of the housing units (60 units of the anticipated 132 units) in the MCSP Area would be deed-restricted affordable to households earning lower incomes. Among other things, this anticipated unit mix could qualify for an exemption under the California Surplus Lands Act (SLA), which requires a minimum of 40 percent of the housing units to be affordable to lower and very-low households at a certain maximum income. The proposed revisions are provided in the table below (changes in bold and underlined text).
MCSP
Section
Existing Language Proposed Language
1. 3.11 “The Multifamily Residential
development is anticipated to
provide up to 197 market rate
and affordable units. There shall
be a minimum of 60 affordable
units provided within the
Specific Plan area. These units
shall be affordable to Lower
Income earners (80 percent of
the Area Median Income or
lower), including households
with extremely low incomes,
and are envisioned as a separate
building from the market rate
residential units with an
integrated design.”
The Multifamily Residential development
shall provide at least 130 up to 197
market rate and affordable units. There
shall be a minimum of 60 affordable units
or 40 percent provided within the
Specific Plan area.. These units shall be
affordable to Lower Income earners (80
percent of the Area Median Income or
lower), including households with
extremely low incomes, and are
envisioned as a separate building from the
market rate residential units with an
integrated design or may be provided
within the market-rate building(s).
2. 3.12.2(A) “Uses within the Multifamily
Residential Specific Plan
Designation shall consist of the
following: …
Uses within the Multifamily Residential
Specific Plan Designation shall consist of
the following:
a. At least an anticipated 130 197 total
dwelling units, not to exceed 60 DU/AC
Agenda Report Page 11
a. An anticipated 197 total
dwelling units, not to exceed
60 DU/AC in the defined land
use area, with a minimum of
60 units identified as
affordable units.”
in the defined land use area, with a
minimum of 60 units identified as
affordable units.
3. 10.3(4) “The following is a list of
development items/goals
applicable to either design
option within the MCSP area: …
4. Development of 130-197
multifamily residential
units, a minimum 60 of
which are to be affordable.”
The following is a list of development
items/goals applicable to either design
option within the MCSP area:
4. Development of at least 130-197
multifamily residential units, a
minimum 60 of which are to be
affordable.
4. 10.4.4.6(A)(8) “Examples of grants or grant
sources are: …
8. Measure A-1”
Examples of grants, grant sources, and
financing opportunities are:
8. Measure A-1
5. 10.5.6.2(B)(3) “The DA shall include the
following terms and conditions,
unless waived by the City
Council:…
3. The provision of affordable
housing, with a minimum of 60
units affordable to households
earning very low and extremely
low incomes, as well as units
affordable to households
earning moderate incomes, or
less, as a minimum of 10% of
any proposed market-rate units,
and housing units shall include
a minimum of 50% of units
with two bedrooms or more to
serve families.”
The DA shall include the following terms
and conditions, unless waived by the City
Council:…
3.The provision of affordable housing,
with a minimum of 60 units affordable
to households earning low and very
low incomes, including a minimum
of 40 units affordable to those with
very low and extremely low incomes.,
as well as In addition, the provision
of housing units affordable to
households earning moderate
incomes, or less, as a minimum of
10% of other any proposed marketrate units, and housing units in the development, and the provision of
shall include a minimum of 50% of
units with two bedrooms or more to
serve families.
9. Comments Relating to MCSP Development Standards and Procedures. On September 8, 2025, some public commenters addressed the Commission and requested that the City reduce stepback and window recess standards in Chapters 6 and 7 of the MCSP and clarify the initial design review procedures because these standards and procedures could increase development costs. The speakers recommended changes to reduce uncertainty in the design review procedures, to waive any stepback standard, and to reduce the window recess standard to 2 inches. At the September 8 public hearing, Director Jackson stated staff’s agreement that the Chapter 7 window recess standard of 3 to 12 inches is not the standard desired by the Agenda Report Page 12
community and that this dimension was mistakenly added to the draft document. The attached resolution (Attachment A) includes a recommended change to a 2-inch window recess standard in sections 7.4.3 (Mediterranean), 7.5.3 (Canyon Contemporary), and 7.6.3 (Suburban Traditional).
In regards to the design review procedure, Chapter 10 of the MCSP anticipates a discretionary initial design review procedure (section 10.5.6.4) requiring Planning Commission consideration and recommendation to City Council, and then future subsequent or precise design review permit which would be ministerial permits. Section 10.5.6.4, page 121, notes “Review of the Initial Design Review Permit may be concurrent with, or before, review of a development agreement and/or disposition agreement.” It is likely that the initial design review process would occur before or concurrently with the development agreement process, also outlined in Chapter 10 (section 10.5.6.2). This approach would give the City Council certainty about the form and design of development at the same time as the Council considers the terms of the development agreement. Staff does not recommend changes to MCSP section
10.5.6.4. In regards to stepbacks, the Planning Commission did not recommend that the City Council change the stepback standard in Chapter 6, section 6.5. Section 6.5 of the MCSP requires a stepback of 10 feet for multifamily buildings greater than four stories. The stepback must be applied to 50% of the building façade. A “stepback” works in conjunction with the “setback” zoning parameter of Zone B of Chapter 17 of the City Code.
The MCSP area is located within the Zone B designation. Zone B requires a setback of 15 feet from the front property line adjacent to the public street (street yard setback) for 100% of the building façade and, for properties greater than 4,000 square feet, a minimum setback of 4 feet and an additional setback of 4 feet of 100% of the building façade measured from the side and/or rear property line abutting a single-family residential property after 3 stories or 35 ft, whichever is less. Under the MCSP, future development would not follow the zoning ordinance Zone B setback at the 3rd story or 35 feet, whichever is lower. Instead, development would step back at the 5th story.
Staff recommends the following clarifications to Chapter 6 section 6.5 (changes are shown in bold and underlined text):
“6.5 STEPBACKS
A building stepback is an architectural design element that is typically applied to an upper-story of a development. Typically, a stepback requires that any portion of a building above a certain height is further pushed-in towards the center of the property.
1. Stepbacks shall be required to reduce the scale of the building while exposing and emphasizing the ground-level elements of the structure as set forth in the table below.
Agenda Report Page 13
STEPBACKS
Height above which requires stepback (B) Above 4 stories of residential units, provided that no stepback
or additional setback is
required at the 3rd or 4th stories
or between 35 and 48 feet above
grade, whichever is less.
Required depth (min)1 (A) 10 feet
Minimum façade to be stepped back 50%
Table 6.2: Stepbacks Table
1. Measured from the minimum 4-foot setback line
Staff does not recommend waiving the stepback standard entirely. The intent of the stepback standard is to decrease the appearance building scale and to emphasize the ground-level building elements by attenuating the top floors. This design approach could be valuable as the City Council considers future development proposals anticipated in the MCSP. If the stepback standard in MCSP section 6.5 makes construction too expensive for developers, Chapter 10 of the MCSP notes that the City Council has the authority to process revisions to allow construction to occur without stepbacks.
In summary, in staff’s assessment, with these changes the MCSP meets the goals of Program 1.L of the Housing Element, and sets up a framework for the City to anticipate housing within the MCSP Area in the future. As previously noted, the MCSP does not approve a specific development project, and accordingly, the Council’s approval the MCSP would effectively impose development regulations on a future project.
Considerations for Approval of City Code Amendments
On September 8, 2025, the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending amendments to City Code Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, which are needed in order to make the City Code consistent with the MCSP and to implement development pursuant to the MCSP standards. The draft Ordinance 784 N.S. (Attachment B) includes amendments to Division 17.22, Zone B: Public Facilities, and Division 17.24, Zone C: Multi-family Residential. Proposed amendments are described below.
Agenda Report Page 14
Pursuant to Section 17.22.040.C, development of multifamily housing in Zone B must follow the development standards for multifamily housing in Zone C (Section 17.24.040.A). As provided in the proposed ordinance (Attachment B) City staff and the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of an Ordinance amending Section 17.22.040.C to clarify that multifamily development in specific plan areas in Zone B, such as in the MCSP area, are subject to standards in the specific plan, which would include the height limit and lot frontage standards established in the specific plan. The proposed amendment is shown below in bold and underlined text. “C. In Zone B, the development standards for the following uses are set forth below, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:
a. Wireless communications facility as provided in division 17.46. b. Multi-family residential as provided in section 17.24.040.A. c. Cemetery, public utility – no standards.
d. Building occupied by a public agency or other nonprofit entity – no standards, except as set forth in section 17.22.040.A.
e. Parks and open space, including recreational uses and facilities – no standards.” Division 17.24, Zone C: Multi-family Residential. City Code Section 17.24.040 also provides standards that must be made consistent with the MCSP. See proposed changes in bold underline below:
“17.24.040 Regulations.
A. In Zone C, for multi-family residential use, licensed residential care facility for 7 or more residents, co-housing and single room occupancy dwellings, the standards are as follows, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:
…
B. In Zone C, for uses other than those listed above, the development standards are as follows, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:”
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse no. 2022020362), certified by City Council on February 20, 2024, evaluated potential environmental impacts of proposed development of housing citywide, including development of up to 199 housing units on City-owned land in Moraga Canyon.
An Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report (Housing Element EIR) has been prepared by the City’s team of staff and consultants pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which studied and disclosed the potential environmental impacts of development and operation pursuant to the MCSP. The Addendum is included as Attachment D.
Agenda Report Page 15
The Addendum (Attachment D) evaluated the potential environmental effects that may be generated as compared to the MCSP (Housing Element Program 1.L) analyzed under the Housing Element EIR. The Addendum concluded that substantial changes are not proposed to the MCSP as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR nor have substantial changes occurred within the MCSP geographic area or regulatory environment that would require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. Impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would not be expected to occur as a result of the proposed MCSP.
Overall, the proposed MCSP would not result in new impacts or information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified for the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As such, the proposed MCSP would not result in conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required for the proposed MCSP. Development and operation pursuant to the proposed MCSP would be subject to all previously required mitigation measures from the Housing Element EIR, as applicable. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted for the Housing Element Implementation Project would continue to be applicable to the proposed MCSP.
In addition, the Addendum prepared for the MCSP concluded that the MCSP would not introduce new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the MCSP.
The concerns raised in public correspondence and comments have also been considered and do not impact the analysis in the Addendum. Responses to specific public comments related to improvements to Moraga Avenue and MCSP Chapter 4 are provided as Attachment E.
On September 8, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended City Council adoption of the MCSP, including a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Addendum to the Housing Element EIR.
COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CHARTER
All City actions must comply with the City Charter. The draft MCSP is a supporting policy document of the General Plan for a specific geographical area governed by Section 9.01, General Plan, of the City Charter. Section 9.01 reads as follows:
“The City Council shall adopt, and may from time to time, modify a general plan setting forth policies to govern the development of the City. Such plan may cover the entire City and all of its functions and services or may consist of a combination of plans governing specific functions and services or specific geographic areas which together cover the entire City and all of its functions and services. The plan shall also serve as a guide to Council action concerning such City planning matters as land use, development regulations and capital improvements.” The draft MCSP is not a zoning change governed by Section 9.02, Zoning system. Sections of Chapter 17, Planning and land use (zoning ordinance) are proposed to be amended to implement the Draft MCSP and these changes have been evaluated for compliance with Section 9.02, which reads, as follows:
Agenda Report Page 16
“The City of Piedmont is primarily a residential city, and the City Council shall have the power to establish a zoning system within the City as may in its judgment be most beneficial. The Council may classify and reclassify the zones established, but no existing zones shall be reduced or enlarged with respect to size or area, and no zones shall be reclassified without submitting the question to a vote at a general or special election. No zone shall be reduced or enlarged and no zones reclassified unless a majority of the voters voting upon the same shall vote in favor thereof; provided that any property which is zoned for uses other than or in addition to a single-family dwelling maybe voluntarily rezoned by the owners thereof filing a written document executed by all of the owners thereof under penalty of perjury stating that the only use on such property shall be a single-family dwelling, and such rezoning shall not require a vote of the electors as set forth above.”
In Section 9.02 of the City Charter, the prohibition not to reduce, enlarge, or reclassify a zone without a vote is understood to mean the city may not change the zone boundaries, or change (reclassify) a property from one zone to another. The land within the MCSP Study Area is proposed to remain within the Zone B zoning district. The draft MCSP and the proposed zoning ordinance changes do not change the Zone B boundaries nor change any property from one zone to another in Piedmont.
Lastly, the draft MCSP and proposed zoning ordinance changes were prepared pursuant to State law in conformance with Section 9.04, General laws applicable, of the City Charter, which reads as follows:
“All general laws of the State applicable to municipal corporations, now or hereafter enacted, and which are not in conflict with the provisions of this Charter or with ordinances hereafter enacted, shall be applicable to the City. The City Council may adopt and enforce ordinances that, in relation to municipal affairs, shall control as against the general laws of the State.” On September 8, 2025, the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending City Council approval of the MCSP with a finding that the MCSP is consistent with the Piedmont City Charter.
FISCAL IMPACT
The MCSP is a policy document in support of the City’s General Plan. Adoption of the MCSP does not obligate the City to approve any specific project or to allocate funding beyond the costs incurred for preparation of the plan. Future public facility improvements or private development within the plan area will be subject to separate project-level review and approval, including analysis of fiscal impacts and funding sources at that time.
CONCLUSION
The Moraga Canyon Specific Plan implements, in part, General Plan Housing Element Program
1.L and is in compliance with State housing laws. The MCSP prepared by City staff and consultants sufficiently addresses the goals of Program 1.L. Accordingly, staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the MCSP, the associated Addendum to the EIR, and Ordinance 784 N.S. amending Chapter 17 of the City Code. Should the MCSP be adopted, it would be an important step in meeting Piedmont’s Housing Element goals. Written public Agenda Report Page 17
comments on the Specific Plan can be submitted by email to [email protected], or by mail to Kevin Jackson, Planning & Building Director, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611.
Report prepared by: Kevin Jackson, Director of Planning & Building Pierce Macdonald, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
A Resolution Approving an Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation EIR and Approving the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
B 28-32 Ordinance 784 N.S. Amending Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, Section 17.22.040.C and Section 17.24.040
C 33-34 Program 1.L Specific Plan, from City of Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element D 35-306 Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report E 307-319 Fehr & Peers Response to Comments Related to Moraga Avenue and Chapter 4 F 320-335
__
Draft Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting and video available at https://piedmont.granicus.com/player/clip/3096?view_id=9&redirect=true G 336-639 Public Comment
Related Documents
Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
City of Piedmont 6th Cycle Housing Element, Adopted March 2023, Revised August 2023 City Council Staff Report, dated March 18, 2024, titled: Consideration of a Resolution Directing Staff to Refine the approach to Preparation of a Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Meeting Minutes for April 28, 2025 City Council Meeting Meeting Minutes for April 30, 2025 City Council Meeting Meeting Video for June 4, 2025 Park Commission Meeting
Meeting Video for June 18, 2025 Recreation Commission Meeting 19-27
Agenda Report Page 18
MCSP Appendix A General Plan Consistency Analysis
Attachment A
RESOLUTION No.____
A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PIEDMONT
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION EIR AND APPROVING THE MORAGA CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, State of California housing element law, as set forth in Government Code §§ 65302 and 65580, et seq., requires the City of Piedmont to periodically prepare and update its Housing Element in its General Plan, and to establish goals, policies, and programs to accommodate the maintenance, diversification, and expansion of the City’s housing supply to accommodate the City of Piedmont’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 587 housing units, comprised of 238 above moderate income units, 92 moderate income units, 94 low income units, and 163 extremely and very low income units; and
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RHNA, affirmatively further fair housing, and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and
WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element includes a diligent ongoing effort to include all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, to comply with State housing element law, the City Council of the City of Piedmont has prepared and adopted, on March 20, 2023, the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Housing Element (the 6th Cycle Housing Element); and
WHEREAS, Piedmont’s 6th Cycle Housing Element includes Program 1.L, which calls for the drafting of a specific plan, as provided in Government Code §65450 et seq., for a study area consisting of 18.25 acres of City-owned land and the Moraga Avenue roadway near the northern boundary of the City. The intent is to facilitate the development of below-market-rate housing to help meet the demand for affordable housing in the City. In order for the City to meet its RHNA requirements, the Specific Plan needs to accommodate at least 132 housing units at all income levels. Housing Element Program 1.L sets forth several goals for the specific plan as follows:
• To enable construction of housing at a minimum of 132 units, on portions of the site, totaling approximately 3.5 acres of land, yielding a minimum of 60 units of housing affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) and a minimum of 72 units affordable to households earning more than 80 percent of the AMI;
• Improved safety. New habitable structures shall be built to meet fire code requirements for Wildland Urban Interface Areas;
• Replacement and/or modernization of existing Public Works Department facilities, offices, storage areas, vehicle storage areas, etc., so that service capacity is maintained or increased, and so that the facilities meet current building and fire code requirements.
ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 19
• The inclusion of recreation facilities, including but not limited to an under14 soccer field, youth baseball/softball field, batting cages, artificial field turf, ballfield seating, a skate spot, a picnic area, and parking for these facilities; and • The provision of all public utilities to new housing and all City facilities to be constructed within the specific plan area in a manner consistent with public safety standards and Piedmont Climate Action Plan goals and programs;
• The inclusion of improvements to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, to provide safe pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle movements, ensure safe evacuation routes, and provide optimal emergency response; and • The inclusion of a comprehensive landscape plan for areas planned for development. The landscape plan shall prioritize to the extent practicable: fire safety and the preservation of significant open space, scenic views, and native and heritage trees; and WHEREAS, beginning in August 2023, the City has conducted extensive community outreach in support of the preparation of a Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan including neighborhood and stakeholder engagement; an online survey; a November 30, 2023, community workshop; study sessions held by the Planning Commission, Park Commission and Recreation Commission in 2023, 2024, and 2025; and a second online survey regarding the four plan options presented at the community workshop that was available in December 2023 and January 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Council held study sessions on January 22 and March 1, 2024, to receive information from staff and JZMK Partners on the results of the community engagement and discussions by the various commissions, and four preliminary site plan options; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of March 18, 2024, the City Council received a report from staff and a presentation from JZMK, at the conclusion of which the Council reached consensus on providing the following direction for the preparation of a Draft Moraga Specific Plan:
• Exclude site plan options 2 and 4 as presented to the City Council on March 1, 2024; • Include site plan options 1 and 3 to provide flexibility to potential developers to choose a plan that optimizes the development of housing and community benefits, including improvements to the Moraga Avenue roadway;
• Explore increasing the number of market-rate units, originally at 72, to up to 139 in order to better fund community amenities;
• Eliminate a skating facility as a goal of the plan, and instead seek the development of other community facilities, such as a dog park, a playground, or a pickleball court; and • Include the community benefits of an under-14 soccer field, youth baseball/softball field, batting cages, artificial field turf, and ballfield seating.
WHEREAS, Planning Commission held three study sessions in 2024 that introduced preliminary drafts of several chapters of the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan to facilitate discussions to inform the draft content of the Specific Plan and received written reports and presentations from staff and JZMK Partners, as follows:
• On August 12th the Planning Commission received a report introducing the type of content in each chapter and more in-depth information to facilitate a discussion of the architectural design approaches and draft design standards for new multifamily housing construction in the MCSP study area (chapter 7), as well as information on the City Council study sessions, ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 20
the community workshop held on November 30th, and a summary of public comments received during the City Council study sessions and afterwards; • On September 23rd the Planning Commission received a report to facilitate a discussion of the development requirements for new multifamily housing, City facilities and infrastructure in the MCSP study area, contained in draft chapters covering general development regulations (chapter 3), circulation (chapter 4), site design (chapter 5), and building design (chapter 6); and
• On October 14th the Planning Commission received a report to facilitate a discussion regarding the landscape design requirements for new multifamily housing, as well as requirements for public services, utilities, and infrastructure in the MCSP study area, contained in draft chapters cover landscaping standards (chapter 8) and public services, infrastructure, and utilities (chapter 9); and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2025, the City of Piedmont made available a Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, on April 28 and 30, 2025, the City Council held study sessions to receive copies of the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan and a presentation from City staff and JZMK Partners on the content of the Specific Plan to facilitate an understanding of the content through a series of questions and responses and took public comment; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65352 – 65352.5, the City of Piedmont referred the Specific Plan to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed, and consulted with Native American Tribes that requested consultation, resulting in new policies in Chapter 10 of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2025, the Piedmont Park Commission held a duly noticed public meeting at which time it reviewed the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, the staff report and all attachments, a presentation on the Specific Plan by JZMK Partners, and oral and written public comments, and recommended to the Piedmont City Council that the Council adopt provisions in the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan related to landscaping on City-owned land and within the public right-of-way in that they address the landscaping goals of Housing Element Program 1.L; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025, the Piedmont Recreation Commission held a duly noticed public meeting at which time it reviewed the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, the staff report and all attachments, a presentation on the Specific Plan by JZMK Partners, and oral and written public comments, and recommended to the Piedmont City Council that the Council adopt provisions in the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan related to facilities and public property under the control of the City for the purpose of public recreation; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025, the Piedmont Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time it reviewed the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, the staff report and all attachments, a presentation on the Specific Plan by JZMK Partners, and oral and written public comments, and recommended to the Piedmont City Council that the Council approve the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan with seven (7) changes to the text and images and approve the Addendum ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 21
to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation EIR, as described in the Planning Commission staff report; and
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2022020362, has been prepared by the City’s team of staff and consultants pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which studied and disclosed the potential environmental impacts from changes to the project associated with development and operation pursuant to the proposed MCSP and concluded that there would be no new impacts nor increased impacts beyond those studied in the EIR, and the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the Council approve the Addendum on September 8, 2025; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Piedmont does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order, based on substantial evidence in the record, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
B. That an addendum has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which studied the potential environmental impacts of changes to the project, and determined that the potential environmental impacts of development and operation pursuant to the MCSP would be no greater than, nor introduce new impacts not studied and disclosed in, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation EIR and that only minor changes or additions are required. Overall, the proposed MCSP and amendments to Chapter 17 of the City Code to implement the MCSP would not result in new impacts or information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified for the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As such, the proposed MCSP and action to amend the City Code to implement the MCSP would not result in conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required for the proposed MCSP. Development and operation pursuant to the proposed MCSP would be subject to all previously required mitigation measures from the Housing Element EIR, as applicable. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted for the Housing Element Implementation Project would continue to be applicable to the proposed MCSP. In addition, the MCSP would not introduce new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR.
Therefore, no new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the MCSP.
C. That the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan addresses the goals of Program 1.L of the City of Piedmont’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, in that the Specific Plan plans for and/or envisions the development of: residential housing for at least an anticipated 132 households, public infrastructure and utilities to support the development, an enhanced Public Works Department corporation yard, a multi-sport field with natural or synthetic ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 22
turf the size of a U14 soccer field with baseball/softball field overlay with spectator bleachers, restrooms, and batting cages; other community facilities, such as a dog park, playground or picnic area; and roadway improvements.
D. The City Council finds that the MCSP complies with the Piedmont General Plan and City Charter and protects public health, safety, and welfare, because the City of Piedmont and the region are burdened by an affordable housing crisis and the MCSP plans for a mixedincome, multifamily neighborhood in close proximity to job centers, transit, and community services, in accordance with Piedmont Housing Element Program 1.L, because the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan is a supporting policy document of General Plan pursuant to City Charter Section 9.01, and because proposed City Code Chapter 17 amendments to implement the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan do not change the boundaries of any zoning district nor change any property from one zoning district to another.
SECTION 2. Approval of Addendum.
The City Council hereby approves the Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the Draft Moraga Canyon Specific Plan with the revisions described below, as the revised MCSP chapters, programs, and actions address the goals Housing Element Program 1.L and the City Council’s March 18, 2024, direction to staff.
1. Sight Stopping Distance and Signage. The text and graphics of pages 35 and 46, including Figure 4.8, are revised as follows (changes shown in bold and underlined text):
a. Page 35, change the second to last sentence in the first paragraph of Section 4.9 to read “Figure 4.8 is an example of the flashing beacons placed prior to the intersection to warn motorists of upcoming signal and pedestrian crossings.” In addition, replace the existing image with the one shown in Exhibit 1 and change the caption to read “Signal Ahead Signage with Flashing Beacon Imagery.” b. Page 35, change MCSP Section 4.9 to include a requirement for stopping sight distance analysis at the time of development agreement to determine appropriate locations for traffic signal, signage, and beacons, to read as follows “Stopping sight distance analysis shall be conducted for the design and engineering of the intersection to include but not limited to appropriate design and location(s) of signal, roadway signage, and beacons. See Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.2, Development Agreement.”
c. Page 46, change the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 4.17 to read “According to the HDM (Table 201.1), the minimum required SSD for vehicles for a design speed of 40 mph (rounding up the measured 85th percentile speed of 38- 39 mph) is 300 feet. HDM Section 201.3 requires increasing the SSD by 20 percent for roadway segments with sustained downhill slope of 5 percent or more over one mile long. Thus, the SSD for the downhill (westbound) Moraga Avenue is 360 feet, compared to 300 feet for the uphill (eastbound) direction.
Stopping sight distance analysis shall be conducted for the design and engineering of each proposed driveway. See Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.4.A, ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 23
Initial Design Review.”
2. Transit Stops. Section 4.12 is revised as shown below in bold and underlined text. “The following actions should be pursued to improve bus service during development of the MCSP area:
1. Coordinate with AC Transit to introduce bus service along the Moraga Avenue corridor.
2. Provide bus stops in both directions of Moraga Avenue near the proposed signal at Red Rock Road to better accommodate bus riders needing to cross the street.
Carefully consider the space requirements and safety of alternative locations for bus stops, including interim bus stops, to be located ½ mile or less walking distance from the entrance or entrances of all housing units affordable to lower income residents.
3. Provide amenities, such as a shelter with bench and trash receptacle at the bus stops.”
3. Common Useable Open Space. The total amount of land dedicated to common useable open space in MCSP Chapter 5, Section 5.7.1, is revised from 15 percent to 10 percent.
4. Private Useable Open Space. Private useable open space area is reduced to 40 square feet for both ground floor units and units located on upper floor levels. In additiondevelopment may satisfy the private useable open space standard by transferring the same area to the development’s common useable open space (in addition to the required 10 percent of the lot standard).
5. Implementation. The text of Chapter 10, Section 10.5.6.2, Development Agreement, is revised as follows:
a. Section 10.5.6.2.A, Application Requirements, the list of application requirements is amended to include the addition of a new item 11. as follows: “11. Stopping Sight Distance Analysis for the design and engineering of the traffic signal and pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Moraga Avenue and Red Rock Road, showing design and location(s) of signal, traffic signage, and beacons and including analysis of current traffic speeds.”
b. Section 10.5.6.2.B is amended as follows (changed text is shown in bold and underlined font): “Fire protection for new development meeting Environmental Hazards Element policy 19.9 and Fire Code requirements, including but not limited to fire sprinkler plan, evacuation improvements, fire access roads and points of access off of Moraga Avenue, turnarounds, and one or more new fire hydrants to serve the development, as well as required water pressure and flow.” c. Section 10.5.6.4, Design Review, subsection A, is amended as follows (changed text is shown in bold and underlined font): “An Initial Design Review Permit shall be administered pursuant to Division 17.66 of the Piedmont City Code, except as set forth below. An Initial Design Review Permit application shall include the following: conceptual site plan, access and circulation plan, including design and ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 24
engineering of each driveway, including but not limited to current traffic speeds and stopping sight distance analysis, frontage improvements, landscape plan, building massing, and architectural style…”
6. Sound Study. Chapter 10, Section 10.5.7, Environmental Measures, is amended to incorporate the following new measure to manage potential noise resulting from MCSP development and operations (new text shown in bold and underlined font):
“10.5.7.8 SOUND STUDY
To ensure consistency with Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, if new or relocated recreational uses that produce amplified or equipment-related noise are proposed within 500 feet of residences, a noise study shall be conducted to determine the noise levels from the proposed recreational use to residences within 500 feet. If noise levels are found to exceed the standards within Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, or other noise limit if appropriate and supported by the findings of the noise study, noise reduction measures shall be implemented such that noise levels would be below the applicable standard. The noise study shall be provided to the City as part of the Initial Design Review Permit process.
If the City's Corporation Yard is relocated to within 500 feet of residences, a noise study shall be conducted to determine the noise levels from Corporation Yard to residences within 500 feet. If noise levels are found to exceed the standards within Chapter 8 of the Piedmont City Code, or other noise limit if appropriate and supported by the findings of the noise study, noise reduction measures shall be implemented such that noise levels would be below the applicable standard. The noise study shall be provided to the City as part of the Initial Design Review Permit process.”
7. Change to Number of Residential Units
a. Section 3.11 is amended as follows: “The Multifamily Residential development is anticipated to provide at least 130 up to 197 market rate and affordable units. There shall be a minimum of 60 affordable units or 40 percent provided within the Specific Plan area. These units shall be affordable to Lower Income earners (80 percent of the Area Median Income or lower), including households with extremely low incomes, and are envisioned as a separate building from the market rate residential units with an integrated design or may be provided within the market-rate building(s).” b. Section 3.12.2(A) is amended as follows: “Uses within the Multifamily Residential Specific Plan Designation shall consist of the following:
a. At least an anticipated 130 197 total dwelling units, not to exceed 60 DU/AC in the defined land use area, with a minimum of 60 units identified as affordable units.” c. Section 10.3(4) is amended as follows: “The following is a list of development items/goals applicable to either design option within the MCSP area:…
4. Development of at least 130-197 multifamily residential units, a minimum 60 of which are to be affordable.”
ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 25
d. Section 10.4.4.6(A)(8) is amended as follows: “Examples of grants, grant sources, and financing opportunities are: …
Measure A-1…”
e. Section 10.5.6.2(B)(3) is amended as follows: “The DA shall include the following terms and conditions, unless waived by the City Council:…
3. The provision of affordable housing, with a minimum of 60 units affordable to households earning low and very low incomes, including a minimum of 40 units affordable to those with very low and extremely low incomes., as well as In addition, the provision of housing units affordable to households earning moderate incomes, or less, as a minimum of 10% of other any proposed market-rate units, and housing units in the development, and the provision of shall include a minimum of 50% of units with two bedrooms or more to serve families.”
8. Development Standards and Procedures Changes
a. The proposed “3 inches to 12 inches” window recess standard in MCSP Chapter 7 section 7.4.3 is deleted and replaced with a 2-inch minimum window recess standard in Chapter 7 sections 7.4.3 (Mediterranean), 7.5.3 (Canyon Contemporary), and 7.6.3 (Suburban Traditional).
b. Table 6.2 of section 6.5, Stepbacks, is amended as follows:
STEPBACKS
Height above which requires stepback (B) Above 4 stories of residential units and no stepback or additional setback is
required at the 3rd or 4th stories nor
between 35 and 48 feet above grade,
whichever is less.
Required depth (min)1 (A) 10 feet
Minimum façade to be stepped back 50%
Table 6.2: Stepbacks Table
1. Measured from the minimum 4-foot
setback line
SECTION 4. All portions of this resolution are severable. If an individual component of this Resolution is adjudged by a court to be invalid and unenforceable, then the remaining portions will continue in effect.
[END OF RESOLUTION]
ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 26
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A
Figure 4.8
ATTACHMENT A Agenda Report Page 27
Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO.784 N.S.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 17.22, ZONE B,
AND DIVISION 17.24, ZONE C, OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE PIEDMONT CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Piedmont hereby ordains, as follows:
SECTION 1 – BACKGROUND AND INTENT
State of California housing element law, as set forth in Government Code §§ 65302 and 65580, et seq., requires the City of Piedmont to periodically prepare and update its Housing Element in its General Plan, and to establish goals, policies, and programs to accommodate the maintenance, diversification, and expansion of the City’s housing supply to accommodate the City of Piedmont’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 587 housing units, comprised of 238 above moderate income units, 92 moderate income units, 94 low income units, and 163 extremely and very low income units. The City Council approved the Piedmont Housing Element on March 20, 2023 and adopted a resolution approving the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP) on October 6, 2025 to implement Housing Element Program 1.L, Specific Plan.
Further it is the intent of the City Council to implement the MCSP development standards which require amending Division 17.22, Zone B, and Division 17.24, Zone C, of Chapter 17, Planning and Land Use, of the Piedmont City Code for conformance with the MCSP development standards.
SECTION 2 – CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the Piedmont City Code Chapter 17 are consistent with the 2024 Housing Element Implementation EIR for the following reasons. On October 6, 2025, the City Council approved an Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Environmental Impact Report (Housing Element EIR) prepared by the City’s team of staff and consultants pursuant to CEQA. The Addendum evaluated the potential environmental effects that may be generated as compared to the MCSP (Housing Element Program
1.L) analyzed under the Housing Element EIR. The Addendum concluded that substantial changes are not proposed to the MCSP as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR nor have substantial changes occurred within the MCSP geographic area or regulatory environment that would require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. Impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would not be expected to occur as a result of the proposed MCSP. Overall, the proposed MCSP would not result in new impacts or information of substantial importance that would generate new, more severe impacts or require new mitigation measures compared to those identified for the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR.
As such, the proposed MCSP and actions to amend the City Code to implement the MCSP would not result in conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required for the proposed MCSP. Development and operation pursuant to the proposed MCSP would be subject to all previously required mitigation measures from the ATTACHMENT B Agenda Report Page 28
Housing Element EIR, as applicable. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted for the Housing Element EIR would continue to be applicable to the proposed MCSP. In addition, the Addendum prepared for the MCSP concluded that the MCSP and actions to amend the City Code to implement the MCSP would not introduce new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the MCSP or proposed Chapter 17 amendments. The concerns raised in public correspondence and comments were considered in the Addendum and do not impact the analysis in the Addendum. On September 8, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended City Council adoption of the MCSP including a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Addendum to the Housing Element EIR.
SECTION 3 – AMENDING SECTION 17.22.040.C
Section 17.22.040.C is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“C. In Zone B, the development standards for the following uses are set forth below, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:
a. Wireless communications facility as provided in division 17.46. b. Multi-family residential as provided in section 17.24.040.A. c. Cemetery, public utility – no standards.
d. Building occupied by a public agency or other nonprofit entity – no standards, except as set forth in section 17.22.040.A.
e. Parks and open space, including recreational uses and facilities – no standards.” SECTION 4 – AMENDING SECTION 17.24.040.A
Section 17.24.040.A is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“17.24.040 Regulations.
A. In Zone C, for multi-family residential use, licensed residential care facility for 7 or more residents, co-housing and single room occupancy dwellings, the standards are as follows, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:
Zone C requirements
Lot area Minimum 10,000 square feet, subject to exception for accessory dwelling unit construction set forth in division 17.38.
Frontage, on
public or
private street
Minimum 90 feet
ATTACHMENT B Agenda Report Page 29
Lot coverage;
Landscaping
Maximum 70% lot coverage for primary and accessory structures, subject to exception for accessory dwelling unit construction set forth in division 17.38.
Minimum 15% landscaping, or 10% by landscaping for a project in which at least 20% of the units are affordable, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, subject to exception for accessory dwelling unit construction set forth in division 17.38.
Structure height Maximum 45 feet for buildings on lots with lot area 4,000 sq.ft. or more, except accessory dwelling units shall be subject to restrictions set forth in division 17.38.
Maximum 35 feet for buildings on lots with lot area less than 4,000 sq.ft., except accessory dwelling units shall be subject to restrictions set forth in division 17.38.
Street yard
setback
Minimum 15 feet for primary or accessory structure, subject to exception for accessory dwelling unit construction set forth in division
17.38. If adjacent lots abutting the side lot lines of the subject lot both contain principal single family residential buildings that have front setbacks with a depth of less than ten (10) feet, the minimum front setback may be reduced for buildings and other structures on the subject lot up to a line parallel to the front lot line and extended from the most forward projection of the principal single family residential buildings on the adjacent lots having the deeper front setback depth, provided such projection is enclosed, has a wall height of at least eight (8) feet, and has a width of at least five (5) feet. In the case of a corner lot or lot that has a vacant parcel next to it, this same principal may apply if the two (2) lots adjacent to the corner lot or lot along its front lot line have less than a fifteen (15) foot front setback. See illustration below:
Site feature of any height may require a design review permit under division 17.66.
Side yard and
rear yard
setback
Minimum 4 feet for primary or accessory structure, except as provided below. If adjacent lots abutting the side and rear lot lines of the subject property are single family residential, the proposed building shall further step back depending on the lot area:
• If lot area is less than 4,000 sq.ft., the building shall step back 8 ft. from the side and/or rear property line abutting the single family residential after 2 stories or 22 ft., whichever is less.
ATTACHMENT B Agenda Report Page 30
• If lot area is 4,000 sq.ft. or more, the building shall step back 8 ft. from the side and/or rear property line abutting the single family residential after 3 stories or 35 ft, whichever is less.
However, an accessory structure may be located anywhere within the side and rear setback areas except that it: (a) must be located within 35 feet of the rear lot line; (b) must be located at least 5 feet from a habitable structure on an abutting property, and, for a corner lot, at least 5 feet from a side lot line of an abutting property to the rear; (c) may not exceed 15 feet in height; and (d) may not be habitable.
A site feature proposed within these distances may require a design review permit under division 17.66.
Density Minimum density of 20 dwelling units/acre, and maximum density of 60 dwelling units/acre, unless otherwise required by State Law.
Unit type mix 50% of the units in a multi-family housing development, including cohousing (but excluding senior housing, licensed residential care facilities of 7 or more residents, and disabled housing), shall have a minimum of two bedrooms, unless 100% of the units are affordable to households earning 50% or less of the area median income (AMI) established by California Health and Safety Code 5105 that are deedrestricted for a period of 55 years or more.
SECTION 5 – AMENDING SECTION 17.24.040.B
Section 17.24.040.B is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
B. In Zone C, for uses other than those listed above, the development standards are as follows, except to the extent such standards are not consistent with an adopted specific plan, in which case the adopted specific plan shall prevail:
1. Wireless communications facility as provided in division 17.46.
2. Single-family residence as provided in section 17.20.040.A.
3. Manufactured and mobile homes as provided in section 17.20.040.A.
4. Large day care home as provided in section 17.20.040.A.
5. Licensed residential care facility or group home for up to 6 residents and unlicensed residential care facility or group home as provided in section
17.20.040.A.
6. Low barrier navigation centers as provided in section 17.20.040.A.
7. Transitional and supportive housing as provided in section 17.20.040.A.
8. Employee Housing for up to six employees as provided in section 17.20.40.A
9. Small day care home as provided in section 17.20.40.A” SECTION 6 – SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the Ordinance or ATTACHMENT B Agenda Report Page 31
their applicability to other persons or circumstances.
SECTION 7 – CODIFICATION
The City Clerk is directed to codify this ordinance in a manner which reflects the legislative intent of the City Council
SECTION 8 – POSTING, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND SUBMISSION
The City Clerk is directed to post this Ordinance at City Hall after its second reading by the City Council for at least 30 days and shall become effective 30 days after the second reading. The City Clerk is directed to submit a copy of this ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development in the manner required by law.
[END OF ORDINANCE]
ATTACHMENT B Agenda Report Page 32
Attachment C
“Housing Element Program 1.L: Specific Plan
As described in Appendix B, Section B.3.1, the City owns four sites (comprised of APN 050457901900, 050457908000, 048A700200303, and 050457906100) totaling about 18.25 acres on both the north and south sides of Moraga Avenue near Red Rock Road. The City of Piedmont has the ability to subdivide the parcels and declare them to be surplus under the Surplus Land Act (SLACalifornia Government Code §54222 et seq.). The intent of this process would be to facilitate the development of below-market-rate housing to help meet the demand for affordable housing in the City. In order for the City to meet its RHNA requirements, these sites need to accommodate at least 132 housing units at all income levels. Given the size of the site, existing constraints, and the desire to preserve the existing public uses (open space, recreation, and City Corporation Yard), the area will be planned using the specific plan process outlined in Government Code §65450 et seq. This process requires the orderly development of the area, including the following: phasing; subdivision; adequate infrastructure; identification of financing; protection of amenities and City facilities; and production of affordable housing. The goals of the specific plan are as follows.
The first goal is to enable construction of housing at a minimum of 132 units, on portions of the site, totaling approximately 3.5 acres of land, yielding a minimum of 60 units of housing affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) and a minimum of 72 units affordable to households earning more than 80 percent of the AMI.
In addition, specific plan goals include improved safety. New habitable structures shall be built to meet fire code requirements for Wildland Urban Interface Areas.
The specific plan must include replacement and/or modernization of existing Public Works Department facilities, offices, storage areas, vehicle storage areas, etc., so that service capacity is maintained or increased, and so that the facilities meet current building and fire code requirements.
The specific plan must include recreation facilities, including but not limited to an under-14 soccer field, youth baseball/softball field, batting cages, artificial field turf, ballfield seating, a skate spot, a picnic area, and parking for these facilities.
The specific plan must provide all public utilities to new housing and all City facilities to be constructed within the specific plan area in a manner consistent with public safety standards and Piedmont Climate Action Plan goals and programs.
The specific plan must include improvements to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, as determined necessary by the City Engineer, to provide safe pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle movements, ensure safe evacuation routes, and provide optimal emergency response.
The goals of the specific plan include a comprehensive landscape plan for areas planned for development. The landscape plan shall prioritize to the extent practicable: fire safety and the preservation of significant open space, scenic views, and native and heritage trees.
Density in the plan area will be determined at the time of plan development and could range from 40 to 60 dwelling units per acre, including housing for seniors, disabled persons, single-parents, lowincome families, and/or people requiring supportive services. This program requires an amendment to the City’s General Plan and the preparation of a specific plan to accommodate the density and create development standards for the unique site conditions. The required amendments would be reviewed by the City Attorney for conformance with the City Charter and other legal requirements. If it is determined that it is infeasible to develop this site during the planning process, the City will consider utilizing other City-owned properties as alternative sites (See Appendix B).
ATTACHMENT C Agenda Report Page 33
The City will apply for grants and other funding sources to help fund the planning and development of affordable housing in this area. The City could also leverage local, State, and federal affordable housing funding sources.
The City issued a request for proposals (RFP) seeing professional services for the preparation of a Moraga Canyon Specific Plan on January 23, 2023. Proposals were received on March 13, 2023 and contract execution and project kick-off are expected to occur by the end of July 2023. There are no known impediments to the development of housing within the study area. The scope of services detailed in the RFP include but are not limited to the following:
• Detailed guidance on phasing and subdivision that accommodates the 60 units of lowerincome housing and 72 units of above moderate-income housing identified for the study area in Housing Element program 1.L and the Sites Inventory (Housing Element Appendix B), and that prioritizes and expedites the identification of a site for the development of affordable housing that meets the criteria and timelines to secure Alameda County Measure A-1 funding. (The due date for the City to gain County approval of a project using Measure A-1 funding is December 31, 2024.);
• The preparation of a surplus land declaration;
• A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, infrastructure projects, and financing measures necessary to implement the Specific Plan; and • An evaluation of the economic feasibility of the Specific Plan.
Necessary entitlements and the issuance of building permits will occur during the planning period and will be specified through the Specific Plan process. As noted in Appendix F, any new housing in Piedmont represents increased access to opportunity and housing mobility, as the City is considered to be “highest resource” throughout. The Specific Plan will promote housing choice and affordability, given that it includes measures to provide housing for below-market rate households, which will help overcome existing patterns of income segregation within the Bay Area and East Bay region.
The City will also determine appropriate partnership opportunities in order to ensure successful implementation of this program and adequate funding for the development of affordable housing.
Proposals would be reviewed and approved by the City Council. • Objective: Develop a specific plan to accommodate at least 132 dwelling units at a density of 40 to 60 dwelling units per acre affordable to a variety of households, including seniors, disabled persons, single-parents, low-income families, and people requiring supportive services.
• Timeframe:
o Award contract for professional services for the preparation of the specific plan and kick off project by July 2023.
o Apply for available grant funding by December 2024.
o Begin subdivision of site and Surplus Land declaration timed to be completed concurrent with Specific Plan adoption.
o Prepare specific plan with the goal of completion by the end of 2025. o Adopt specific plan, General Plan amendments (See Program 1.P), and associated development standards by 2025.
o Pursue goal of entering into exclusive negotiating agreement with development partners by the end of 2026.
o Issue building permits by the end of 2027 (if an agreement is finalized with developers by 2026).
o Identify alternative site(s) by June 2027 (if no agreement is finalized by the end of 2026). • Responsible Agency: Planning & Building Department, with direction of City Council and Planning Commission.”
ATTACHMENT C Agenda Report Page 34
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
Addendum to the 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Project Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022020362
prepared by
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, California 94611
Contact: Kevin Jackson, AICP, Director of Planning & Building prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
66 Franklin Street, Suite 300
Oakland, California 94607
August 2025
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 35
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................. iii 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the EIR Addendum...................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Housing Element Implementation Project Background ..................................... 1
1.1.2 Housing Element EIR Background....................................................................... 2
1.2 Basis for the Addendum...................................................................................................... 2 2 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Project Title......................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Lead Agency and Project Proponent Name, Address, and Contact.................................... 5
2.3 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Regional Location ............................................................................................... 5
2.3.2 Project Site Location and Setting........................................................................ 5
2.4 General Plan Designation.................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Zoning.................................................................................................................................. 8
2.6 Description of Project ......................................................................................................... 8
2.6.1 Specific Plan Chapters......................................................................................... 9
2.6.2 Components and Framework ...........................................................................10
2.6.3 Development Regulations ................................................................................12
2.6.4 Circulation and Access......................................................................................15
2.6.5 Development Requirements.............................................................................17
2.6.6 Public Services and Utilities..............................................................................17
2.6.7 Comparison to Housing Element Implementation EIR – CEQA Baseline and Buildout Assumptions.......................................................................................18
2.7 Project Objectives.............................................................................................................18
2.8 Required Approvals...........................................................................................................20 3 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................................21
3.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................23
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................27
3.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................29
3.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................35
3.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................41
3.6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................45
3.7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................47
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................53 ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 36
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................55
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................61
3.11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................67
3.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................69
3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 71
3.14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................75
3.15 Public Services...................................................................................................................77
3.16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................81
3.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................83
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................89
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................93
3.20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................97 4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................................105 5 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................107 6 References..................................................................................................................................109 Tables
Table 1 Land Use Summary and Buildout Development Option A (Multi-Family South of Moraga Avenue)................................................................................................................14 Table 2 Land Use Summary and Buildout Development Option B (Multi-Family North of Moraga Avenue)................................................................................................................14 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2 Specific Plan Location.......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Urban Design Framework Diagram...................................................................................11 Figure 4 Proposed Development and Land Use Plan......................................................................13 Figure 5 Vehicular Circulation Plan................................................................................................. 16 Figure 6 Housing Element Implementation EIR and Proposed Project MCSP area Boundary .......19 Appendices
Appendix A Cultural Resources Technical Report
Appendix B Transportation Analysis Memorandums
Appendix C Sewer Analysis
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 37
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ARMR Archaeological Resource Management Reports
BAAD Bay Area Air District
BMP Best Management Practice
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CTP California Transportation Plan
CAP 2.0 Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dBA Decibels A
DOT Department of Transportation
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utilities District
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESL Environmental Screening Levels
EP Environmental Professional
EV Electric Vehicle
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FTA Federal Transit Authority
HABS Historic American Building Survey
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HRE Historical Resources Evaluation
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
LID Low Impact Development
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 38
mgd million gallons per day
MCSP Moraga Canyon Specific Plan
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MWELO Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance
N/A Not Applicable
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
PCC Piedmont City Code
PE Professional Engineer
PFD Piedmont Fire Department
PG Professional Geologist
PPD Piedmont Police Department
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PQS Professionally Qualified Staff
PSS Piedmont’s Safer Streets
PUSD Piedmont Unified School District
SFRWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board SLF Sacred Land Files
SMP Soil Management Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TCP Transportation Construction Plan
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 39
1 Introduction
This document is an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2022020362) certified in 2024 (“Housing Element EIR”) for the City of Piedmont 2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Project (“Housing Element”), which is incorporated into this Addendum to the EIR by reference. The City of Piedmont was the lead agency for the certified EIR and is the lead agency for this addendum. The Addendum analyzes the environmental effects of proposed revisions to the previously approved project analyzed in the Housing Element EIR and has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the CEQA Guidelines.
This Addendum addresses proposed project modifications in relation to the previous environmental review documents prepared for the original project and the proposed project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to a previously certified EIR or negative declaration is the appropriate environmental document in instances when “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary” and when the new information does not involve new significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the previous EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that:
a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred [these are listed below in Section 1.2].
b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
c) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
d) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record.
1.1 Background of the EIR Addendum
1.1.1 Housing Element Implementation Project Background Piedmont’s 2023-2031 Housing Element was adopted by the City Council in March 2023.
Implementation Program 1.L of the Housing Element calls for development of a Specific Plan for five City-owned parcels in Moraga Canyon. These five sites were identified to provide a viable development opportunity for mixed-income residential uses in a variety of housing forms, including single-family, duplex, and multi-family residences. Therefore, the Housing Element directs City officials and staff to prepare a specific plan (pursuant to Government Code Section 5450 et. seq) for the area to accommodate housing, incorporate and improve existing amenities and recreation facilities, modernize current city functions for efficiency, and minimize potential impacts.
Implementation of Housing Element Program 1.L requires amendments to the General Plan, also completed in 2024, and the preparation of a specific plan to accommodate a density of 40 to 60 dwelling housing units per acre and create development standards for the unique site conditions to produce at least 60 housing units of low and very low-income housing and 72 housing units of above ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 40
moderate-income housing. In February 2024, the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance were amended to make these changes in accordance with Housing Element Program 1.L. The General Plan and General Plan land use map were amended to create the “Moraga Canyon Specific Plan” land use designation and apply it to the MCSP area.
1.1.2 Housing Element EIR Background
In February 2024, the City of Piedmont certified an EIR that analyzed the environmental effects of implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element (2023-2031 Housing Element Implementation Project EIR or “Housing Element Implementation EIR”; State Clearinghouse #2022020362). The City also adopted a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Housing Element Implementation EIR presented a programmatic analysis of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update and evaluated a buildout of approximately 1,048 new residential housing units, of which up to 199 housing units are within the MCSP area (132 housing units plus 67 additional housing units from possible SB 9, accessory dwelling housing units (ADU), and/or density bonus development in the area).
The certified Housing Element Implementation Project EIR consists of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, together. For each impact analysis in the Draft EIR, the analysis is divided into two analyses sections.
First, there is an analysis of the implementation of the proposed project throughout the city, titled “Citywide Housing Element Implementation.” These sections address all actions under the proposed project, including the General Plan amendments, Zoning Ordinance amendments, and adoption and implementation of the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan (MCSP). However, as there are potential sitespecific issues with respect to the MCSP area, a second analysis section, titled “Moraga Canyon Specific Plan,” discusses impacts only associated with the MCSP area.
1.2 Basis for the Addendum
As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, between the date an environmental document for a project is completed and the date that project is implemented fully, one or more of the following changes may occur: 1) the project may change; 2) the environmental setting of the project may change; or 3) previously unknown information can arise. Before proceeding with a project, CEQA requires the lead agency to evaluate these changes to determine whether they affect the conclusions in the prior environmental document. When an EIR has been adopted and a project is modified or otherwise changed after adoption, additional CEQA review may be necessary. The key considerations in determining the need for the appropriate type of additional CEQA review are outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21166 (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) provides that a Subsequent EIR is not required unless the following occurs:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of identified significant effects; or
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 41
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred that require preparation of a Subsequent EIR. An addendum must include a brief explanation of the agency’s decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole (Section 15164[e]). The decision-making body must consider the addendum prior to approving the project (Section 15164[d]).
An addendum to the Housing Element EIR is appropriate to address the proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan project (proposed project or proposed MCSP), because the proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan, and any required corresponding modifications to the Piedmont Zoning Ordinance, do not meet the conditions of Section 15162(a) for preparation of a Subsequent EIR as described herein.
The Housing Element EIR and this Addendum serve as documents to inform decision-makers and the public of the potential environmental consequences of approving the proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan project. This Addendum neither controls nor determines the ultimate decision for approval of the proposed MCSP. The information presented in this Addendum to the certified EIR will be considered by the City of Piedmont alongside the certified EIR prior to deciding whether to approve the proposed MCSP.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 42
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 43
2 Project Description
2.1 Project Title
Moraga Canyon Specific Plan and Housing Element Program 1.L Implementation
2.2 Lead Agency and Project Proponent Name,
Address, and Contact
City of Piedmont
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, California 94611
Contact: Kevin Jackson, AICP, Director of Planning & Building [email protected], (510) 420-3039
2.3 Project Location and Setting
2.3.1 Regional Location
The Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area (“MCSP area”) is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Piedmont in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area in northern Alameda County.
Piedmont is completely surrounded by the City of Oakland, bordering the Oakland neighborhoods of Montclair District to the east and Crocker Highlands, Lakeshore, and Grand Lake districts to the south and west. The Mountain View Cemetery borders the MCSP area directly to the north. The MCSP area is generally adjacent to the Piedmont Avenue District neighborhood to the northwest, Rockridge to the north, and Glen Highlands to the northeast. Regional access is provided by Interstate 580, State Route (SR) 24, and SR 13. Figure 1 shows the regional location.
2.3.2 Project Site Location and Setting
The MCSP area encompasses approximately 22.78 acres located in the northeastern portion of Piedmont in Moraga Canyon along Moraga Avenue, which bisects the site. The MCSP area includes five city-owned parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 050457901900, 050457908000, 048A700200303, 050457902100, and 050457906100) and the Moraga Avenue right-of-way. The MCSP area and its surrounding context are shown on Figure 2.
Approximately 13 acres of the MCSP area are located on two parcels north of Moraga Avenue and this area is currently utilized for a combination of uses including the City of Piedmont Corporation Yard and vehicle storage, Coaches Field (soccer/softball fields), Kennelly Skatepark, restroom facilities, recreational parking, and temporary sales including a holiday tree lot. Nearly 9 acres of this site is undeveloped, with a significant portion comprising steep grades extending north to the city limits. The site is accessed from Moraga Avenue at Red Rock Road.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 44
Figure 1 Regional Location
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 45
Figure 2 Specific Plan Location
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 46
On the south side of Moraga Avenue are three parcels that together total approximately 6 acres comprising an open space area known as the Blair Park Open Space. This linear-shaped portion of the MCSP area is undeveloped and currently used as an informal park by residents as an off-leash dog walking area.
The MCSP area includes the Moraga Avenue right-of-way totaling approximately 3.5 acres of paved roadway, curb and gutter, intermittent sidewalks, as well as undeveloped land.
Part of the MCSP area north of Moraga Avenue was historically used as a quarry, and later filled in with artificial, non-engineered fill partially deposited in the 1950s during the grading for the Warren Freeway (State Route 13). These activities resulted in an area generally characterized by relatively flat areas comprised of fill situated directly adjacent to steep, sometimes almost vertical, slopes to the west, north, and south of, and within, the MCSP area. The area south of Moraga Avenue also received fill deposited in the 1950s during the grading for State Route 13. Landcover within the MCSP area includes oak woodland, paved/developed and landscaped areas, and annual and perennial grasslands.
2.4 General Plan Designation
The MCSP area has a General Plan land use designation of “Moraga Canyon Specific Plan.” The General Plan describes this land use designation as an area for new housing and to maintain, replace, and improve existing City facilities, open space, and recreational amenities including Blair Park Open Space, Coaches Field, Kennelly Skate Park, and the City’s Corporation Yard.
2.5 Zoning
The MCSP area is zoned as Public Facilities (Zone B). This zone allows for single-family and multi-family residential development along with other uses such as municipal uses and parks and open space.
2.6 Description of Project
The proposed project involves adoption of the MCSP consistent with Implementation Program 1.L of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, along with corresponding amendments to the Piedmont City Code (PCC). The MCSP includes land use, infrastructure, and implementation requirements for the future development in the MCSP area. The MCSP also includes design standards, site specific objective development standards, and general development criteria as well as regulations for permitted uses. The MCSP has a vision for a new mixed-income multifamily community integrated into existing Piedmont residential areas and open space areas in Moraga Canyon, where parks and outdoor spaces would be blended with the residential community. The target market for these residences would be for families, the growing number of professionals working in the general neighborhood, remote workers, public employees, service providers, special needs populations, and seniors. The design of the community fosters social interaction and wellness with inclusion of increased bicycle and pedestrian safety and access routes and abundant improved indoor and outdoor amenities, including landscaped open space areas, play fields, trails, and walking paths.
Overall, the MCSP envisions the following:
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 47
A variety of housing choices including an anticipated 197 multifamily dwelling housing units (of which at least 60 would be affordable) and two single-family dwellings. It is anticipated that the multifamily dwellings would be in four- to six-story buildings on partial underground podium parking structures. It is anticipated that the single-family residential would be one to four stories on sloping lots.
Up to 1.5 acres of civic uses intended for the City maintenance facilities. Approximately 5 acres of roadway improvements including realignment, retaining walls, undergrounding of utilities, sidewalks, streetlights, fire hydrants, and lane widening and reconfiguration. Approximately five acres devoted to improved recreational uses, including a multi-sport field with natural or synthetic turf the size of a U14 soccer field with baseball/softball overlay with spectator bleachers, restroom facilities and batting cages, and a skateboard facility (either the existing skate park or a skate spot if residential development occurs north of Moraga Avenue). Amenities such as one or more dog parks, playgrounds, and/or community gardens. Other improvements such as landscaped hillsides and other planted areas, sidewalks, terraces and courtyards, trails, driveways, bus public transit, and public access improvements.
2.6.1 Specific Plan Chapters
The MCSP includes the following chapters:
Chapter 1, Introduction. The Introduction chapter describes the MCSP area conditions and context, the purpose and objectives of the document, and the community engagement and plan development process. This chapter defines terms used throughout the Specific Plan. Chapter 2, Vision and Urban Design Framework. The Vision and Urban Design Framework chapter provides the long-term vision and guiding principles for the MCSP area. Chapter 3, Development Regulations. The Development Regulations chapter outlines the Specific Plan’s relationship to existing City policy, including the General Plan and existing Piedmont City Code regulations, and establishes the Specific Plan’s land use requirements, zoning requirements, and other regulations to ensure the MCSP’s compatibility with its surrounding natural and built environment.
Chapter 4, Circulation and Multi-Modal/Complete Streets Improvements. This chapter presents a strategy to improve the multi-modal transportation network, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, in the MCSP area and vicinity, including emergency response and evacuation. Chapter 5, Site Design. The Site Design chapter provides guidelines for building standards and design including but not limited to building orientation, open space, parking, pedestrian access, grading standards, lighting, drainage and green infrastructure, retaining walls, and erosion. Chapter 6, Building Design. The Building Design chapter defines a set of requirements to aid in the design of properly scaled and articulated multifamily residential buildings and associated development compatible with the context of Moraga Canyon. Chapter 7, Architectural Style. The Architectural Style chapter provides standards and specific details for several optional architectural styles that developers may choose to apply to the multifamily residential development.
Chapter 8, Landscape Design. The Landscape Design chapter establishes landscape requirements for multifamily residential development, including but not limited to materials, vegetation, irrigation, hardscape, walls, fences, landscape lighting, site furnishings, and monumentation.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 48
Chapter 9, Public Services and Utilities. This chapter develops utilities, public services, infrastructure solutions and green infrastructure measures to support development, manage and treat stormwater, and enhance the public realm, including but not limited to the public right-ofway and city facilities. Chapter 10, Implementation, Financing, and Administration. This chapter identifies the legal framework of the MCSP, the anticipated phasing, the available financing mechanisms (including affordable housing), the processing procedures for development within the MCSP, maintenance responsibilities, environmental measures, and Specific Plan amendment procedure.
2.6.2 Components and Framework
Chapter 2 of the MCSP, Vision and Urban Design Framework, includes the following framework elements, as also illustrated on Figure 3 for development occurring under the proposed MCSP:
Areas Designated for Residential Development. 199 housing units of residential development are anticipated, including a minimum of 60 affordable housing units. Two sites have been identified where single-family development could occur, one at the cul-de-sac of Abbot Way and another where the site boundary touches Maxwelton Road at the northeastern corner of the site.
The remaining housing units, both market-rate and affordable, are to be co-located either entirely north of Moraga Avenue or entirely south of Moraga Avenue. Enhanced Right-of-Way. Extending from west to east, Moraga Avenue would be the element that links the entire site together. The right-of way would be enhanced to create safer pedestrian and bicycle travel and include a new stop light at Red Rock Road to provide safer connection between facilities and housing on both sides of the roadway.
Multi-Sport Field Expansion. The existing soccer field would be expanded to accommodate a multisport field with natural or synthetic turf the size of a U14 soccer field with baseball/softball overlay with spectator bleachers, restrooms and batting cages. Grading may be needed east of the existing field to provide adequate area. The existing retaining wall may need to be realigned. . The sports field expansion may also involve adding lighting to the field and parking areas. Non-Developable Open Space. Open Space deemed too steep for development north of Moraga Avenue with elevation above the proposed development areas may accommodate a nature trail.
Severe topographic slope area south of Moraga Avenue would be avoided. Corporation Yard Locations. Depending on where residential development occurs, the corporation yard would either remain in place or be moved to the south side of Moraga Avenue where a new facility will be constructed.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 49
Figure 3 Urban Design Framework Diagram
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 50
2.6.3 Development Regulations
Chapter 3 of the MCSP describes the proposed development regulations. The MCSP would serve as a planning tool to implement the intent of the Piedmont General Plan for the area covered by the Specific Plan. The MCSP along with the PCC and General Plan would serve as the policy document that regulates future development within the Specific Plan area. The MCSP would further define the allowed land uses already established by the City’s existing zoning. The intent for the Specific Plan is to allow for residential development to occur in the MCSP area while designating areas for recreation and civic uses. The land use plan within the MCSP includes four land use designations in addition to the Moraga Avenue right-of-way: Single Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Parks and Private Open Space, and Municipal (Corporation Yard Development Option). These are further explained below and illustrated on Figure 4.
Single-Family Residential. The purpose of the Single-Family Residential designation is to create up to two lots adjacent to the existing single-family residential uses in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area for the construction of two single-family residences and associated site improvements.
Multifamily Residential. The Multifamily Residential designation would be in one of two locations of the Specific Plan Area, but must exist entirely on one side of Moraga Avenue (either north or south of Moraga Avenue). The Multifamily Residential Land Use would allow up to 197 market rate and affordable (60 housing units minimum) housing units. Parks and Private Open Space. The purpose of the Parks and Private Open Space designation is to accommodate modernized recreation facilities including a multi-sport field with natural or synthetic turf the size of a U14 soccer field with baseball/softball overlay with spectator bleachers, restroom facilities and batting cages, and a skateboard facility (either the existing skate park or a skate spot if residential development occurs north of Moraga Avenue). Additional open spaces, such as one or more dog parks or playgrounds, may be designated in areas where residential development does not occur. Lighting of the playfield, open space areas, and parking and drop-off areas may be made in this designation.
Municipal (Corporation Yard Development Option). The purpose of the Municipal land use is to designate an appropriately sized area to accommodate the City’s corporation yard. If residential development is to occur south of Moraga Avenue, the existing corporation yard is to remain in its current location. If residential development is to occur north of Moraga Avenue, then the corporation yard is to be moved south of Moraga Avenue to the Blair Park Open Space where a new facility would be constructed.
The Development Regulations chapter of the MCSP also describes permitted land uses (either permitted use, permitted use with conditional use permit, or not permitted) for the four land use designations consistent with zoning ordinance regulations.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 51
Figure 4 Proposed Development and Land Use Plan
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 52
As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, under both development options for multi-family residential development south and north of Moraga Avenue, development as envisioned under the land use plan would result in the construction of up to 199 residential housing units and City facilities on 22.78 acres of land.
Table 1 Land Use Summary and Buildout Development Option A (Multi-Family South of Moraga Avenue)
Land Use Net Acres Number of Dwelling Units
MCSP Parcel – North
Single-Family Residential
Maxwelton Road 0.31 1
Abbott Way 0.32 1
Multifamily Residential 4.73 197
Parks and Open Space
Parks and Private Open Space 12.77 –
Public Works
Existing Public Works 1.51
Right-of-Way
Moraga Avenue 3.04 –
Red Rock Road 0.10 –
Total 22.78 199
Source: City of Piedmont 2025 (MCSP)
Table 2 Land Use Summary and Buildout Development Option B (Multi-Family North of Moraga Avenue)
Land Use Net Acres Number of Dwelling Units
MCSP Parcel – North
Single-Family Residential
Maxwelton Road 0.31 1
Abbott Way 0.32 1
Multifamily Residential 4.78 197
Parks and Open Space
Parks and Private Open Space 12.37 –
Public Works
Existing Public Works 1.51
Right-of-Way
Moraga Avenue 3.04 –
Red Rock Road 0.45 –
Total 22.78 199
Source: City of Piedmont 2025 (MCSP)
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 53
2.6.4 Circulation and Access
Chapter 4 of the MCSP describes proposed vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and emergency access and evacuation.
Vehicular Circulation and Access
Figure 5 shows the proposed vehicular circulation network in the MCSP area. Moraga Avenue would be maintained as an arterial with one travel lane in each direction. Currently the vehicle lane widths along Moraga Avenue through MCSP range between 10 and 18 feet. The MCSP would provide a more uniform lane width of 11 to 12 feet in both directions of Moraga Avenue. Infrastructure improvements such as relocation or undergrounding of utilities and power lines may be made along Moraga Avenue to accommodate roadway improvements.
The MCSP calls for signalization of the Moraga Avenue/Red Rock Road intersection which would better accommodate turns into and out of Red Rock Road, as well as improving pedestrian connectivity across Moraga Avenue. The new intersection would provide marked crosswalks across the north (Red Rock Road) and east (Moraga Avenue) approaches of the intersection. The intersection would provide a pedestrian refuge island, or median to calm traffic through the intersection and support pedestrians crossing a multi-lane intersection, on the east approach of the intersection.
Pedestrian Access
The MCSP proposes the following pedestrian access and circulation improvements:
East of Red Rock Road, an up to 6-foot-wide sidewalk with 5-foot-wide landscaping on both sides of Moraga Avenue.
West of Red Rock Road, an up to 6-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of Moraga Avenue separated with a 5-foot wide landscaping including low-fence/guardrail. This sidewalk would connect to an existing sidewalk that connects to the sidewalk network in Piedmont. A signal on Moraga Avenue at Red Rock Road (described above under “Vehicle Circulation and Access”)
A new hiking trail in the northwest part of the MCSP area that would extend from the location of the existing Kennelly Skatepark uphill to a vista point with an optional extension to Maxwelton Road.
Potential relocation or undergrounding of utility poles.
Bicycle Circulation and Access
The MCSP proposes the following upgrades to the bicycle network through implementing the following on Moraga Avenue:
Eastbound (uphill): Moraga Avenue would provide a buffered Class II bicycle lane, with an option to upgrade to a Class IV protected bicycle lane, on the south side of the roadway along the entire corridor in the MCSP area. Eastbound Moraga Avenue would remain a Class III bike lane west of Pala Avenue, and a Class II bike lane east of Maxwelton Road.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 54
Figure 5 Vehicular Circulation Plan
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 55
Westbound (downhill): Moraga Avenue would remain a Class III enhanced bicycle route on the north side of the roadway within a consistent lane width throughout the MCSP area and extending in both directions of Moraga Avenue. However, depending on the final development plan and right-of-way availability, westbound Moraga Avenue may be upgraded to a Class II bicycle lane.
The MCSP also proposes to expand the bicycle parking at Coaches Field and other open spaces in the area, as well as dedicated bicycle parking areas in new residential development, to further encourage bicycling.
Public Transit
The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) is the primary bus transit service provider in Alameda County, including the City of Piedmont. Currently, no bus service is provided in the MCSP area, and the closest bus stops are approximately 0.5 mile away. In 2024, the City of Piedmont was awarded an ABAG-MTC Priority Sites Grant Program technical assistance grant to continue to study transit feasibility for Moraga Canyon.
The configuration of Moraga Avenue would accommodate future bus service in both directions of the corridor. The MCSP plans to accommodate bus service by implementing the following:
Coordinate with AC Transit to introduce bus service along the Moraga Avenue corridor. Provide bus stops in both directions of Moraga Avenue near the signal at Red Rock Road to better accommodate bus riders needing to cross the street.
Provide amenities, such as shelter with bench and trash receptacle, at the bus stops.
Emergency Access
The City of Piedmont Police Department Emergency Operations Procedures (December 2022) identifies Moraga Avenue as an evacuation route which, depending on the areas evacuated and the direction of the evacuation, can be used to either evacuate to the east to State Route 13 or to the west to Pleasant Valley Avenue and Broadway. The City of Oakland’s 2045 General Plan Safety Element (July 2023) identifies State Route 13, Pleasant Valley Avenue, and Broadway as primary local evacuation routes. The reconfiguration of Moraga Avenue would continue to provide one travel lane in each direction and would remove on-street parallel parking along the Moraga Avenue roadway.
2.6.5 Development Requirements
Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the MCSP includes site design, building design, architectural styles, and landscape requirements and regulations for the multifamily residential development within the MCSP. Chapter 7 provides standards for several architectural styles that may be applied to the multifamily residential product. Detailed grading standards are included within Chapter 5 because development under the MCSP will involve grading of the sloped areas to accommodate residential development.
2.6.6 Public Services and Utilities
To support the vision of the MCSP to introduce new residential development and recreational resources, as well as improving municipal facilities, Chapter 9 of the MCSP includes infrastructure options and green infrastructure measures to support the development, manage and treat stormwater, and enhance the public realm. Like all parts of Piedmont, existing infrastructure in the ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 56
MCSP area dates from 1950s and later and might not be adequate to serve an increase in population.
As a result, MCSP area some adjustments would be necessary to address existing infrastructure conditions, improve service, and increase infrastructure performance long term. The MCSP includes descriptions and options for improvements to wet utilities (water, sewer, stormwater) and dry utilities (electricity, natural gas, communications), as well as plans for site grading and green infrastructure. A sewer capacity study was conducted as part of the proposed MCSP and is further discussed in Section
3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Addendum. The City is also required to continue updating its sewer infrastructure pursuant to the USEPA and State of California Consent Decree.
2.6.7 Comparison to Housing Element Implementation EIR – CEQA Baseline and Buildout Assumptions
The CEQA baseline for this analysis is the development for the MCSP area analyzed under the Housing Element Implementation EIR. The 2024 EIR assumed a buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area and the proposed MCSP also assumes a buildout of 199 housing units and construction and improvements of City facilities in the MCSP area. Therefore, development under the proposed MCSP falls within the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element Implementation Project EIR.
In addition, as shown below in Figure 6, the MCSP area boundaries under the Housing Element Implementation EIR and the proposed MCSP are slightly different. This is due to the inclusion of additional right-of-way under the proposed MCSP. Nonetheless, the project footprint under the proposed MCSP falls within the geographic area and environmental issues analyzed in the Housing Element Implementation EIR, and this Addendum analyzes the impacts associated with the entire footprint as proposed in the MCSP.
2.7 Project Objectives
The MCSP is intended to achieve the following project objectives and desired outcomes as it is implemented over time:
1. Promote quality development by ensuring consistency between the goals and policies of the City of Piedmont General Plan and this Specific Plan.
2. Promote development that is compatible with and enhances surrounding uses.
3. Establish compact development that promotes walking and creates a strong sense of neighborhood.
4. Establish development standards for multifamily residential housing units, including housing affordable to households with lower incomes.
5. Facilitate private funding for public improvements and facilities, and public services required to implement the Specific Plan, including circulation, transit, and streetscape, utilities, domestic water, drainage facilities, and sewage disposal improvements.
6. Encourage sustainable development by promoting energy efficiency, solar energy generation, efficient water consumption, diversion of construction waste from landfills, and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design.
7. Develop a plan that is economically feasible and that can be implemented based on existing and anticipated future economic conditions.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 57
Figure 6 Housing Element Implementation EIR and Proposed Project MCSP area Boundary ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 58
8. Promote integrated amenities, pedestrian and vehicular access, exterior materials, and architectural and landscape design among various housing types.
9. Promote wildfire safety in accordance with General Plan policies, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and regional best practices.
10. Promote roadway safety in accordance with General Plan policies, California Department of Transportation standards, and regional best practices.
2.8 Required Approvals
In order for the proposed MCSP to be implemented, it would require adoption by the City Council of the City of Piedmont. The analysis and the resulting preparation of this Addendum are intended to provide the information and environmental analysis necessary to assist the City and City Council in considering all the approvals and actions necessary to adopt and implement the MCSP, as well as to adopt corresponding zoning amendments.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 59
3 Impact Analysis
As outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR for a proposed project if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The CEQA Guidelines further specify that a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR should be included in one of the following: the addendum itself, the Lead Agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum does not need to be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted EIR prior to deciding on the project.
A comparative analysis has been prepared of the potential impacts associated with the proposed Moraga Canyon Specific Plan project and those potential impacts of the Housing Element Implementation Project analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, using the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist as a guide. The checklist considers the full range of environmental issues subject to analysis under CEQA (in rows), and then poses a series of questions (in columns) aimed at identifying the degree to which the issue was analyzed in the EIR. The checklist also includes a column identifying whether the proposed changes constitute new information of substantial importance relative to each environmental issue. The questions posed in each column are described below:
Where was impact analyzed? This column provides a cross-reference to the portions of the Housing Element EIR where information and analyses may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. The cross-references identified in this column correspond with page numbers and section numbers of the Housing Element EIR. Do proposed changes require major revisions to the EIR? In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1), this column indicates whether the proposed project would involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of identified significant impacts that, in turn, would require major revisions of the Housing Element EIR. Do new circumstances require major revisions to the EIR? In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(2), this column indicates whether changes to the circumstances under which the proposed project is undertaken or implemented have occurred that would involve new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of identified significant impacts that, in turn, would require major revisions of the Housing Element EIR. Is there any new information resulting in new or substantially more severe significant impacts? In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(3)(A) and 15162(a)(3)(B), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified, shows additional or substantially more severe significant impacts not discussed in the Housing Element EIR.
Do mitigation measures included in the certified EIR address and/or resolve impacts? In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(3)(C) and 15162(a)(3)(D), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Housing Element EIR was certified, was identified. Note: a notation of “N/A” in this column indicates “not appliable” and that that no mitigation measures were identified in the Housing Element EIR.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 60
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed MCSP in relation to the environmental impacts identified for the MCSP area in the certified Housing Element EIR. The following analysis was conducted pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 61
3.1 Aesthetics
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Pages 4.1-
8 through
4.1-9
No No No N/A
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Pages 4.1-
9 through
4.1-10
No No No N/A
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
Pages 4.1-
10 through
4.1-11
No No No N/A
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
Pages 4.1-
11 through
4.1-12
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’simpacts related to aesthetics.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, views from the MCSP area are limited to the immediate hills and hillsides in the area as well as Blair Park Open Space, and views of the MCSP area are also limited to mostly those from Moraga Avenue, a public roadway through the MCSP area, residences on the hillsides in the immediate surroundings, and points from within the MCSP area such as Coaches Field and Blair Park Open Space. There are no designated scenic views or vistas available through the site.
Therefore, impacts to scenic resources were found to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines and development standards.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 62
Similarly, although the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, would increase development in the MCSP area and change the characteristics of the area from primarily open space, municipal uses, and recreational uses to primarily residential development, with implementation of General Plan policies and Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines and development standards, impacts related to scenic quality were found to be less than significant.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, development under the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would add new sources of light and glare to the area. However, existing sources of light and glare already exist to a limited extent, and future projects under the MCSP would be subject to applicable regulations to reduce excessive light and glare. Impacts related to light and glare were found to be less than significant.
The Housing Element EIR determined that there are no designated or eligible scenic highways in the MCSP area or with substantial views of the MCSP area. There was found to be no impact related to damaging scenic resources.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same buildout of an anticipated 199 residential housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area, consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area is located within a canyon and views from the site are limited to the immediate hills and hillsides in the area, as well as Blair Park Open Space. Further, views of the MCSP area are limited and are mostly from Moraga Avenue, a public roadway through the MCSP area, from residences on the hillsides in the immediate surroundings, and from points within the MCSP area, such as Coaches Field and Blair Park Open Space.
There are no designated scenic views or vistas available through the site. These conditions have not substantially changed since certification of the Housing Element EIR.
Development facilitated by the proposed MCSP in this area would be within what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR and would not substantially alter or block scenic vistas. Development under the proposed MCSP would generally be the same as envisioned in the Housing Element EIR in terms of building height and location. Furthermore, future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with site design standards outlined under the following MCSP sections: sections
5.4 (Multifamily Site Design Requirements), 5.5 (Building Facades), 5.7 (Multifamily Residential Open Space), 5.11 (Site Lighting), and 5.12 (Grading Standards) of the MCSP; building design standards outlined under sections 6.3 (Building Height), 6.4 (Massing), 6.5 (Stepbacks), 6.6 (Allowable Projections), 6.8 (Openings Alignment), 6.10 (Articulations), 6.11 (Façade Design), 6.12 (Building Entrance Typologies), and 6.13 (Utilities, Service Areas, and Building Equipment) of the MCSP; and landscape design standards outlined under sections 8.3 (Public Right-of-Way), 8.4 (Landscape Materials and Vegetation), 8.6 (Hardscape), 8.7 (Walls and Fences), 8.8 (Landscape Lighting), 8.9 (Site furnishing), and 8.10 (Monumentation) of the MCSP; as well as General Plan policies and PCC Chapter
17. Therefore, the proposed MCSP would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would remain less than significant, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 63
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, there are no designated or eligible scenic highways in the MCSP area or with substantial views of the MCSP area. The nearest eligible scenic highway is State Route (SR) 13, which is approximately 0.48 mile east of the MCSP area (Caltrans 2018). Due to surrounding development and landscaping, the MCSP area is not visible from SR 13. Future development pursuant to an adopted MCSP would not damage scenic resources in or within clear view of this State-designated Scenic Highway. No impact would occur, consistent with the analysis and conclusions of the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Development under the proposed MCSP would generally be the same as development envisioned in the Housing Element EIR in terms of building height and location. Similar to what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would result in increased development within the MCSP area and would change the characteristics of the area from primarily open space, municipal uses, and recreational uses to primarily residential development. However, future development would be required to comply with site design standards outlined under the following MCSP sections: sections
5.4 (Multifamily Site Design Requirements), 5.5 (Building Facades), 5.7 (Multifamily Residential Open Space), 5.11 (Site Lighting), and 5.12 (Grading Standards) of the MCSP; building design standards outlined under sections 6.3 (Building Height), 6.4 (Massing), 6.5 (Stepbacks), 6.6 (Allowable Projections), 6.8 (Openings Alignment), 6.10 (Articulations), 6.11 (Façade Design), 6.12 (Building Entrance Typologies), and 6.13 (Utilities, Service Areas, and Building Equipment) of the MCSP; and landscape design standards outlined under sections 8.3 (Public Right-of-Way), 8.4 (Landscape Materials and Vegetation), 8.6 (Hardscape), 8.7 (Walls and Fences), 8.8 (Landscape Lighting), 8.9 (Site furnishing), and 8.10 (Monumentation) of the MCSP; as well as General Plan policies and PCC chapters 8 and 17 governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Some sources of light and glare already exist to a limited extent within the MCSP area and in adjacent residential neighborhoods due to lighting of buildings in residential neighborhoods and in the Corporation Yard, streetlights, and cars traveling through and parked in the area. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, new residential development facilitated by the proposed MCSP would add new sources of light and glare to the area. Further, the proposed MCSP includes a potential expansion of the existing soccer field as well as improvements such as the addition of field and parking lot lighting to allow for evening use of the field, which would increase on-site sources of lighting compared to existing field conditions. However, future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with lighting standards in MCSP Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8, as well as Chapter 10 environmental measures which is equivalent to Piedmont Design Standards and Guidelines limits on impacts to neighboring properties’ privacy and protection from light pollution.. In addition, future projects would be required to comply with sections 5.11.1 and 8.8 of the MCSP which would further ensure a ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 64
reduction of light and glare impacts to a less than significant level. Also, Chapter 10 of the proposed MCSP includes the following requirement to address lighting:
To ensure consistency with Section 3.12 of the City of Piedmont Design Guidelines related to exterior light spillage, prior to the approval of any building or landscape design for the park, corporation yard, or residential, a photometric plan shall be submitted to the City of Piedmont Planning and Building Department for Review. Direct light rays shall be shielded as necessary to not spill over onto abutting properties. Also, the photometric plan shall demonstrate that any proposed lighting shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candle on the cemetery property or 0.3 foot-candle on any property outside of the Specific Plan area. Furthermore, any sports field lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle at any residence within the Specific Plan area.
Therefore, consistent with the analysis and conclusions of the Housing Element EIR, with compliance with existing regulations as well as proposed MCSP policies and standards, the proposed MCSP would result in less than significant impacts to light and glare. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to aesthetics than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 65
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code
Section 4526); or timberland
zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 66
Housing Element EIR Summary
As discussed in Section 1, Introduction, of the Housing Element EIR, the City of Piedmont lacks agricultural and forest land and there would be no impacts to agricultural or forestry resources.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP. There are no areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Williamson Act lands on or near the MCSP area. The project area is not zoned for forest land or timber land production. There would be no impacts, consistent with the Housing Element EIR.
There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to agricultural resources than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 67
3.3 Air Quality
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Pages 4.2-
13 through
4.2-17
No No No N/A
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
through
4.2-20
No No No Yes
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Pages 4.2-
21 through
4.2-25
No No No N/A
d. Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Pages 4.2-
25 through
4.2-26
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’simpacts related to air quality.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and impacts would be less than significant. The Housing Element EIR determined that with the inclusion of policies related to construction emissions screening and construction emissions control measures to the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element, as set forth below, and compliance with Action 15B (Construction Dust Controls) of the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element, impacts related to construction criteria pollutants and fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant.
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 15.6: Construction Emissions Screening. For individual projects subject to CEQA that do not meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) construction and/or operational screening criteria under as provided in the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (or the guidelines in place at the time of development), individual air quality analysis shall be conducted to determine project significance.
Where individual projects exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, mitigation measures shall be incorporated to reduce emissions to below thresholds. Construction mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, incorporation of Tier 4 and/or alternative fueled equipment, use of onsite power sources instead of generators, and use of low/no-VOC content architectural ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 68
coatings. Operational mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, increased incorporation of photovoltaic systems (PV) beyond regulatory requirements, increased incorporation of EV charging stations and/or infrastructure beyond regulatory requirements, incorporation of a development-wide ride-share system, or elimination of natural gas usage within residential developments. Individual project analysis and accompanying emissionreduction measures shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a permit to construct or permit to operate.
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 15.7: Construction Emissions Control Measures. As part of the City’s development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future development projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 5-2, Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, or applicable best management practices in BAAQMD’s guidelines in place at the time of development), outlined below.
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
9. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations The Housing Element EIR also found that since vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the Housing Element would increase at a lower rate than population growth, impacts related to operational criteria pollutants would be less than significant.
The Housing Element EIR found that construction activities in the MCSP area in proximity to sensitive receptors could exceed BAAD’s thresholds of an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) and potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, consistent with the policy related to construction health risk assessments (HRA) added to the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element, as set forth below, projects with construction timelines greater than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors would be required to prepare a construction HRA, which was determined to reduce potential risk exposure to nearby sensitive ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 69
receptors to a less than significant level. In addition, consistent with the policy related to roadway HRAs added to the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element, as set forth below, projects sited within 500 feet of a roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more would be required to prepare a roadway HRA, which was determined to ensure roadway impacts are below BAAD’s single-source risk and hazard threshold, reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 15.8: Construction Health Risk Assessments. Development projects (excluding small structures exempt under CEQA) where construction activities would occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would last longer than two months, and would not utilize Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment, shall perform a construction health risk assessment (HRA). If an HRA is to be performed, the HRA shall determine potential risk and compare the risk to the following BAAQMD thresholds:
Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
If risk exceeds the thresholds, measures such as conditions of approval limiting use of diesel equipment to a maximum of two months, and requiring the use of Tier 4 and/or alternative fuel construction equipment for construction lasting longer than 2 months shall be incorporated to reduce the risk to appropriate levels.
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 15.9: Roadway Health Risk Assessments. Residential development projects (excluding small structures exempt under CEQA) that would be sited within 500 feet of a roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more such as Park Boulevard and Oakland Avenue, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be consulted to determine if a health risk assessment (HRA) is necessary. The roadway HRAs shall demonstrate that roadway impacts are below the BAAQMD’s single-source risk and hazard thresholds. If risks and hazards exceed the applicable BAAQMD thresholds, then feasible project design features such as high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration shall be incorporated into the project. Screening tools may be used to assess health risks in lieu of a roadway HRA if said tools are the most current published BAAQMD tools.
Lastly, as discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would not facilitate odor-generating sources and would not be located near odor producing facilities.
Impacts were found to be less than significant.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and anticipated buildout of up to 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area. Similar to what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would be compliant with the 2017 Clean Air Plan since development under the proposed MCSP would also be required to comply with the most current version of Title 24 at the time of project construction; 2022 CALGreen standards which require a minimum 65 percent diversion of construction/demolition waste; EBMUD’s Section 31 water efficiency regulations; and the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The proposed MCSP would also ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 70
include improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit system, as discussed in further detail in Section 3.17, Transportation, of this Addendum. The improvements would further encourage future residents to walk and use bicycles instead of single-occupancy vehicles, and would better connect future residents to transit, services and jobs, thereby reducing VMT. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Similar to what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, although construction activities would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, future development would be required to comply with the new General Plan policies 15.6 and 15.7 related to construction emissions screening and construction emissions control measures, as well as Action 15B (Construction Dust Controls) of the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element. Adherence to General Plan policies and actions would reduce impacts from construction and fugitive dust emissions, and construction-related impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the Housing Element EIR.
There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
According to the BAAD 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors requires an assessment of the rate of increase of plan VMT and population. VMT and population estimates for future development under the proposed MCSP were factored into the VMT modeling performed by Fehr & Peers in the Housing Element EIR. Since the proposed MCSP would include the same anticipated buildout of 199 housing units as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, VMT would increase at a lower percentage than population as the proposed MCSP would change land uses to concentrate growth and residences close to jobs and services to reduce singular vehicle trips and encourage alternative models of travel. The proposed MCSP would also include improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit system, which would further reduce VMT.
Therefore, operation-related impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the impacts analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, construction activities for individual projects facilitated by the proposed MCSP lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with the new General Plan Policy 15.8 related to construction HRAs which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed MCSP would include the development of an anticipated 199 residential housing units and City facilities, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Residential developments of this type and scale do not typically include new stationary sources onsite, such as emergency diesel generators.
However, if residences did include a new stationary source onsite, they would be subject to BAAD ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 71
Regulation 2, Rule 2 (New Source Review) and require permitting. This process would ensure that the stationary source does not exceed applicable BAAD health risk thresholds. Therefore, operational TAC impacts would remain less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the Housing Element EIR.
According to the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 15.9, residential development projects sited within 500 feet of a roadway with 10,000 vehicles per day or more should consult with BAAD to determine if a roadway health risk assessment (HRA) is necessary. Since Moraga Avenue is a roadway with 10,000 vehicles or more per day, future development would be required to comply with Policy 15.9. Future development would also be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards which currently require Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value 13 (or equivalent) filters for heating/cooling systems and ventilation systems in residences (Section 150.0[m]). If the roadway HRA determines that risks and hazards would exceed the applicable BAAD thresholds, then feasible project design features such as high-efficiency particulate air filtration would be required to be incorporated into the project. Therefore, impacts on project siting would remain less than significant, similar to those in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Development under the proposed MCSP would not include odor producing facilities identified in the BAAD 2022 CEQA Guidelines such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants. Development would also not be located near typical odor producing facilities. In addition, future development would be required to comply with section 6.9.2 of the MCSP which outlines requirements for odor attenuation. Therefore, odor impacts would remain less than significant, similar to those in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the analysis completed in the Housing Element EIR or require recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to air quality than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 72
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 73
3.4 Biological Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Pages 4.3-
16 through
4.3-19
No No No Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural
community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Pages 4.3-
19 through
4.3-20
No No No N/A
c. Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
Pages 4.3-
20 through
4.3-21
No No No N/A
d. Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Pages 4.3-
21 through
4.3-22
No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 74
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
e. Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Pages 4.3-
22 through
4.3-23
No No No N/A
f. Conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to biological resources. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR may result in impacts to special-status species, including wildlife and plant species, as well as their habitats. However, the Housing Element EIR determined that with the addition of the following policies related to the San Franscisco Dusky Footed Woodrat protection, roosting bad protection, nesting bird protection, and bird safe design to the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element, this impact would be less than significant:
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 13.12: San Francisco Dusky Footed Woodrat Protection. For development projects where construction would take place within 50 feet of woodland or riparian habitat (excluding remodels of existing structures), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for woodrats no more than 14 days prior to construction. Middens (woodrat or other packrat nest structure) within 50 feet of project activity that would not be directly impacted by project activity should be demarcated with a 10- foot avoidance buffer and left intact. If a midden(s) that cannot be avoided is found during the pre-construction survey, an approved biologist should monitor the dismantling of the midden by a construction contractor to assist with the goal of ensuring the individuals are allowed to leave the work areas unharmed before on site activities begin.
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 13.13: Roosting Bat Protection. For development projects that involve the removal of on-site trees or demolition of vacant structures, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of trees and structures to be removed to determine whether active roosts of special-status bats are present. Trees and/or structures containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If active roosts are present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 75
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 13.10: Nesting Bird Protection. Development projects that involve tree removal or significant tree trimming shall take steps to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Initial site disturbance activities for construction, including vegetation and concrete removal, shall be avoided during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to August 30). If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed inside the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest.
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 13.11: Bird Safe Design.
Development projects (excluding small structures exempt under CEQA) shall incorporate birdfriendly building materials and design features to prevent bird strikes and collisions. Strategies for bird safe designs include but are not limited to: prohibiting glass walls around planted atria or windows installed perpendicularly on building corners; directing external lighting downward or shielding light fixtures to prevent light from spilling upward; designing building and landscaping without features known to cause collisions such as clear glass terrace, deck, or porch railings; using bird glazing treatments such as fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, or physical grids placed on windows.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, there are no sensitive natural communities within the MCSP area. In addition, there are no protected wetlands or waters within the MCSP area. Impacts were determined to be less than significant with adherence to State and local regulations such as the Clean Water Act, City of Piedmont’s General Plan Action 13.D, and Watercourse Protection Ordinance (30.11).
The Housing Element EIR determined that there is no natural connectivity between the MCSP area and movement corridors east of Piedmont along the Diablo Range. The urban nature of Piedmont and surrounding City of Oakland precludes the MCSP area as a wildlife movement corridor. This impact was found to be less than significant.
The MCSP area contains trees and other vegetation cover. Tree removal for projects under the MCSP, including removal of Heritage Trees, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would be subject to the existing regulations, policies, and actions in the General Plan and PCC and the Piedmont Heritage Tree Program. This impact was found to be less than significant.
As mentioned in the Housing Element EIR, no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans are adopted in Piedmont, including the MCSP area. There would be no impact related to conflict with any such plans.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 76
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, and the level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance would be the same. Similar to what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, development facilitated under the MCSP would require construction activities that may involve removal of trees and habitats for nesting birds or special-status species such as roosting bats and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat.
Following construction, operation of development would require artificial light and mechanical equipment, generating noise, that could interfere with special-status wildlife species behavior and nesting habits. Additionally, the proposed recreational facilities such as the multi-sport field with baseball/softball overlay, a skateboard park, and batting cages could generate lighting during evenings which could impact special-status wildlife species behavior and nesting habits. Nonetheless, future development would be required to comply with Chapter 10 of the proposed MCSP which states that sports field lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle at any residence within the MCSP area, which would also minimize impacts on species and nesting habitats. Future development facilitated by the MCSP would also adhere to the new General Policies related to the San Franscisco Dusky Footed Woodrat protection, roosting bad protection, nesting bird protection, and bird safe design. Therefore, impacts to special-status species would remain less than significant, consistent with the impacts studied in the Housing Element EIR.
Since certification of the Housing Element EIR in 2024, a pair of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have been reported in online forums to have nested in a tree within 600 feet of the MCSP area.
Because this nest is outside of the MCSP area, should the nest still be present during future construction or operation of development under the MCSP, future development under the MCSP would not directly affect the nest such as through tree removal. Furthermore, the nesting site is in an area with regular foot traffic, suggesting that the eagles have become at least partially habituated to human presence. In addition, future development would be subject to existing laws and regulations regarding protected birds such as the California Endangered Species Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Potential indirect impacts to the bald eagles would be addressed by the existing General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Policy 13.10 protecting nesting birds and 13.11 requiring bird-safe design. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, and the level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance would be the same. There are no sensitive natural communities identified within the MCSP area. Natural communities exist within the MCSP area, but these communities are not considered sensitive by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or other regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If impacts to riparian areas are identified, development in the MCSP area would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan Action 13.D and Watercourse Protection Ordinance (30.11) and be subject to permitting pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) and California ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 77
Fish and Game Code (CFGC). There would be no impact, consistent with the analysis and conclusions of the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, and the level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance would be the same. There are no protected wetlands or waters identified within the MCSP area. If impacts to wetlands are identified during the planning process for future development in the MCSP area based on site-specific conditions and the design associated with the proposed MCSP, development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan Action 13.D and Watercourse Protection Ordinance (30.11) and be subject to permitting pursuant to the CWA and CFGC. Impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, and the level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance would be the same. The MCSP area is surrounded by urban development on all sides. Although wildlife may move locally within the Moraga Canyon area of Piedmont, there is no natural connectivity between the MCSP area and movement corridors east of Piedmont along the Diablo Range. The urban nature of Piedmont and surrounding City of Oakland precludes the MCSP area as a wildlife movement corridor.
In other words, the MCSP area is separated from other wildlife movement corridors by expansive amounts of urban development, such as the City of Oakland, City of Berkeley, Highway 13, and developed parts of the City of Piedmont. Future development would be required to comply with General Plan policies 13.4, 14.2, and 14.3, as well as the new General Plan policies 13.10 and 13.11 related to nesting bird protection and bird safe design. Impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysisin the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Consistent with what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, future development facilitated by the proposed MCSP could require substantial tree removal, including potential removal of one or more designated Heritage Tree(s). A bay laurel tree (Umbellularia californica) located in the Blair Park Open Space, designated as a Heritage Tree by the Piedmont Park Commission, may require removal under the development anticipated by the MCSP. Since certification of the Housing Element EIR, the line of redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) planted by the City on the southwestern corner of Coaches Field above Moraga Avenue have been designated as Heritage Trees by the Piedmont Park Commission in 2024. Therefore, the proposed MCSP may involve removal of Heritage Trees. However, as discussed in the Housing Element EIR, tree removal would be subject to the existing regulations, ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 78
policies, and actions in the General Plan and PCC and the Piedmont Heritage Tree Program. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans adopted in Piedmont, including the MCSP area. Therefore, future development in the MCSP area would not conflict with any such plans. No impact would occur, consistent with the analysis and conclusions of the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred with the preparation of the MCSP that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to biological resources than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 79
3.5 Cultural Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Pages 4.4-
17 through
4.4-19
No No No N/A
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological pursuant to
§15064.5?
Pages 4.4-
19 through
4.4-21
No No No Yes
c. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
Pages 4.4-
21 through
4.4-22
No No No Yes
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to cultural resources. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the 12-acre site in the MCSP area currently utilized for the Coaches Field, skate park, recreational parking, and the Piedmont Corporation Yard was determined to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) for lack of historical or architectural significance and is therefore not a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. The Housing Element EIR determined that with the addition of a policy related to historical resources assessment and treatment to the General Plan Design and Preservation Element, as set forth below, impacts related to historical resources would be less than significant.
General Plan Design and Preservation Element Policy 31.10: Historical Resources Assessment and Treatment. A historic resources assessment including State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms shall be prepared prior to the approval of development projects involving the demolition or substantial alteration (alteration of 30 percent or more of the building exterior) of buildings 45 years or older. DPR forms shall include a Primary Record (523A), Location Map (523J), and appropriate detailed recording forms (e.g., BSO Record (523B), Archaeological Site Record (523C), or District Record (523D)). The forms shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history (as defined in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61). If the property is already listed in the NRHP or CRHR or if DPR forms or an historical resources evaluation (HRE) has been prepared for the property in the past five years, preparation of new DPR forms shall not be required.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 80
If a building to be demolished or substantially altered is identified as a historical resource, efforts shall be made to the greatest extent possible to ensure that the alteration of the identified historical resources is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Where compliance with the Standards and/or avoidance is not possible, documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-like report shall be prepared. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the PQS.
The Housing Element EIR found that the historic and existing levels of disturbance in the MCSP area suggests low potential for encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits. However, potential for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources still exists. Nonetheless, compliance with the General Plan policy, set forth below, related to archaeological resources assessment and treatment added to the General Plan Design and Preservation Element would reduce impactsto a less than significant level, similar to the conclusion for potential citywide impacts in the Housing Element EIR.
General Plan Design and Preservation Element Policy 30.2: Archaeological Resources Assessment and Treatment. Prior to approval of development projects (excluding small structures exempt under CEQA) that have the potential to impact an archaeological resource(s), such as through grading, excavation for foundations or basements, or new swimming pools, an Archaeological Resources Assessment shall be conducted under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall be completed in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation guidance and will follow the Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format guidelines.
If the Archaeological Resource Assessment identifies resources that may be affected by the project, Phase II testing and evaluation will be required. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be identified in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist.
If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites.
The Housing Element EIR determined that historic and existing levels of disturbance in the proposed MCSP area suggests there is a low potential for encountering intact burial deposits. However, it is still possible that human remains could be encountered and damaged during the ground-disturbing activities associated with construction. Nonetheless, with adherence to the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) and PRC Section 5097.98, impacts related to human remains were found to be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 81
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
This analysis is based on a Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in January 2025 (Appendix A), requested by the City of Piedmont pursuant to policies
31.10 and 30.2 of the General Plan Design and Preservation Element. The CRTR was performed to provide a site-specific study for the MCSP area for this Addendum and includes a cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation, Mountain View Cemetery boundary assessment, and field survey. As discussed in the CRTR, the Mountain View Cemetery to the north of the MCSP area was previously recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR and is an identified historical resource by the City of Oakland, and therefore qualifies as a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Although the proposed MCSP would not result in demolition or alteration of the Mountain View Cemetery, adjacent new construction facilitated by the MCSP could result in changes to the Cemetery’s visual context, including views from the cemetery, which could lead to its material impairment, meaning it could alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR. However, with adherence to Section 10.5.7.3A of the MCSP, which outlines requirements for reducing visual impacts to the Mountain View Cemetery such as avoiding construction that would introduce a contrasting visual element, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
This analysis is based on a CRTR prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in 2024 (Appendix A). As discussed in the CRTR, no archaeological resources or unique cultural resources were identified in the MCSP area. However, the MCSP area has been identified as sensitive for the presence of potential tribal cultural resources, specifically tribal archaeological resources. Tribal cultural resources are further discussed under Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. Nonetheless, future development facilitated by the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with Section 10.5.7.2A of the proposed MCSP, which outline requirements for individual projects to execute a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program for all personnel working in the MCSP area, and prepare an Archaeological Resources Assessment. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and the level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance would be the same. Future development under the proposed MCSP would be subject to PRC Section 5097.98, the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5, 7051, and 7054), and General Plan Policy 30.1 and Action 30.b, which would ensure impacts are reduced to human remains to a less than significant level, consistent with the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 82
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 83
3.6 Energy
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Pages 4.5-
13 through
4.5-16
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Pages 4.5-
17 through
4.5-21
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.5, Energy, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to energy. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, construction and operation of the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Projects would be required to comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code and California Energy Code requirements during operation. Impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would be consistent with State renewable energy and energy efficiency plans, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0). Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of anticipated housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. During construction, future projects under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations that restrict the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and govern the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. Construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of 13 California Code of Regulations Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 84
than five minutes, which would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the U.S. EPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption. These construction equipment standards (i.e., Tier 4 efficiency requirements) are contained in Title 40 of the CFR, Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Future development would also be required to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition debris and comply with the most recent iteration of CALGreen. Therefore, construction-related energy impacts would remain less than significant and would not be substantially greater than those identified in the Housing Element EIR.
In terms of operational-related energy impacts, future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with the most recent Title 24 requirements for building energy efficiency and water conservation. Additionally, future development in the MCSP area would be required to adhere to the new General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Policy 16.7 for greenhouse gas emissions reduction (see Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions), which would incentivize restriction of natural gas appliances and natural gas plumbing in new development, as well as new MCSP sections
5.9 (Bicycle Parking), section 5.10 (Pedestrian Access and Circulation), and 5.11 (Site Lighting). The proposed MCSP project would also include improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit system, as discussed in further detail in Section 3.17, Transportation, of this Addendum, which would encourage walking and bicycling, reducing VMT and consumption of gasoline. Therefore, operationalrelated energy impacts would remain less than significant, similar to those potential impacts studied in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As a result, similar to what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would be consistent with State renewable energy and energy efficiency plans, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s CAP 2.0. The proposed MCSP would also include improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit system, as discussed in further detail in Section 3.17, Transportation, of this Addendum. The improvements would further encourage future residents to walk and use bicycles instead of single-occupancy vehicles, and would better connect future residents to transit, services and jobs, thereby reducing VMT and consumption of gasoline. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to energy than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 85
3.7 Geology and Soils
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving:
1. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault?
Pages 4.6-
20 through
4.6-24
No No No Yes
2. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Pages 4.6-
20 through
4.6-24
No No No Yes
3. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
Pages 4.6-
20 through
4.6-24
No No No Yes
4. Landslides? Pages 4.6-
20 through
4.6-24
No No No Yes
b. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Pages 4.6-
24 through
4.6-25
No No No N/A
c. Be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Pages 4.6-
20 through
4.6-24
No No No Yes
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 86
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to the
EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
d. Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
Pages 4.6-
25 through
4.6-26
No No No N/A
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Pages 4.6-
26 through
4.6-27
No No No N/A
f. Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Pages 4.6-
27 through
4.6-28
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to geology and soils. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area is not located within a liquefaction zone and has soil type with low shrink-swell (or expansivity) potential. Development would be required to comply with State and local regulations including policies 18.8 and 18.9 related to siting of new developments and landslide susceptibility inspections added to the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, listed below, as well as Section R401.4.3 of the California Building Code (CBC).
General Plan Environmental Hazards Element Policy 18.8: Siting of New Developments.
Minimize risks from landslide by requiring new developments to be sited outside of hazards areas, when possible, and to incorporate design that minimizes the potential for damage.
General Plan Environmental Hazards Element Policy 18.9: Landslide Susceptibility Inspections.
Regularly inspect locations with high landslide susceptibility directly following major storm and atmospheric events.
Nonetheless, since the MCSP area is located in an earthquake-induced landslide zone and contains areas of non-engineered fill, Mitigation Measure MCSP-GEO-1 (Geotechnical Assessment for Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area) would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Housing Element Implementation Project EIR Mitigation Measure MCSP-GEO-1: Geotechnical Assessment for Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area. A geotechnical assessment shall be prepared for development in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area by a qualified engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The geotechnical assessment shall include onsite sampling of existing soil to ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 87
ascertain current conditions and characterize the potential for risks and implications for future building foundation elements. The analysis of the onsite conditions and risks shall be based on laboratory results generated in accordance with current procedures and applicable state and local construction, engineering, and geotechnical building standards at the time the assessment is prepared. The design of individual projects and/or construction shall incorporate all recommendations of the geotechnical assessment. The assessment and recommendations shall be prepared by a California-licensed professional engineer and shall comply with current state and local building codes. The intention of the geotechnical assessment is to sufficiently inform design related to geologic hazards and to help ensure that the design of building foundations, subgrades, and transportation infrastructure can withstand existing conditions, or that the individual site can be treated in such a manner as to address hazardous geologic conditions.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, soils in the MCSP area have low or moderate potential for erosion-related hazards and have low potential for expansiveness. With adherence to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the Construction General Permit, the PCC and Piedmont General Plan policies, impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil were found to be less than significant. Furthermore, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services would be provided by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), and no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be required. There would be no impact.
The Housing Element EIR determined that the MCSP area is located in an area assigned low paleontological sensitivity. Nonetheless, projects would be required to adhere to the policy related to paleontological resources added to the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element, listed below, which would further ensure less than significant paleontological impacts.
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Policy 13.14: Paleontological Resources. For new development that involves ground disturbance within the high sensitivity Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf) geologic unit, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Paleontologist prior to excavations who shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity shall cease and the construction contractor shall contract a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the find and make appropriate recommendations. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and implement a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of the identified resources.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 88
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a.1 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2 Strong seismic ground shaking?
a.3 Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4 Landslides?
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, and the level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance would be the same. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area is not located within a liquefaction zone and has soils with low expansivity. As shown in Figure 4, multifamily residential development would occur either entirely north of Moraga Avenue or entirely south of Moraga Avenue in areas with gentler slopes and two single-family developments (total of 2 housing units, plus ADUs) are shown on steeper sites off Abbott Way and Maxwelton Road. Future development would be required to comply with State and local regulations such as Division 8.02 of the PCC which adopts the CBC; Section R401.4.3 of the CBC which requires development in the MCSP area that would occur on slopes 20 percent or greater to prepare a mandatory soils report and to implement recommendations in the report; PRC Section 2690-2699.6; policies 18.1 through 18.5 of the City’s General Plan which would restrict development on unstable sites, maintain and enforce seismic design and construction standards, ensure infrastructure reliability, require site-specific soils reports and geologic studies for development that may be exposed to substantial geologic or seismic hazards and identify mitigation, and require seismic upgrades to structures; and new General Plan Environmental Hazards Element policies 18.8 and 18.9 regarding siting of new developments and landslide susceptibility inspections.
In addition, future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure MCSP-GEO-1, reinforced under Section 5.12 (Grading Standards) and Section 10.5.7.5 (Hillside Stability) of the proposed MCSP, which requires implementation of recommended measures in the geotechnical assessment. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with potential impacts studied in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, soils in the MCSP area are characterized by having “low” or a “moderate” potential for erosion-related hazards. The Housing Element EIR determined that compliance with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB’s) General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009- DWQ); the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) for projects over one acre; Section R401.4.3 of the CBC, as incorporated into the PCC; and Policy 18.4 of the General Plan Environmental Hazards ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 89
Element which requires preparation of a foundation and soils investigation as well as a soil and geologic report would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, future development would be required to comply with Section 5.12.7 (Slope Setbacks) of the proposed MCSP which outlines standards for construction on slopes and prevention of grading and erosion disturbance; and Section 5.12.11 (Erosion Control) which outlines standards for erosion prevention. Since the proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as the MCSP analyzed under the Housing Element EIR and would include the same level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance, the same requirements studied in the Housing Element EIR would apply to the proposed MCSP. Impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with those potential impacts studied in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, soils in the MCSP area are characterized as having “low” potential for expansiveness. The Housing Element EIR determined that compliance with existing State of California and local laws and regulations, such as the CBC Section R401.4.3, PCC Section 8.02.020.S, and General Plan Environmental Hazards Element policies 18.1 and 18.4 would ensure that the impacts from development associated with implementation of the proposed MCSP on expansive soils are minimized by requiring the submittal and review of detailed soils and geologic reports prior to construction. Since the proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance, the same requirements studied in the Housing Element EIR would apply to the proposed MCSP. Impacts would continue to be less than significant, consistent with potential impacts studied in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Similar to what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, future development under the proposed MCSP would be served by the EBMUD, which is responsible for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from all residential and commercial sources within its sewer service area.
Development facilitated by the proposed MCSP would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, there is no potential for adverse effects due to soil incompatibility. No impact would occur with the MCSP, consistent with the analysis and conclusions of the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, and the level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance would be the same. Therefore the paleontological resources analysis for the Housing Element EIR would apply to the proposed MCSP project. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area contains areas of uncompacted fill and is located in an area assigned low paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with potential impacts studied in the Housing ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 90
Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to geology and soils than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 91
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Pages 4.7-
19 through
4.7-21
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Pages 4.7-
21 through
4.7-29
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to GHGs. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, even with the addition of the policy related to GHG reductions to the General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element, as outlined below, the city cannot ban natural gas because they are preempted from doing so by federal law under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and development under the MCSP would not be consistent with BAAD’s updated GHG threshold of prohibiting natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. In addition, the City’s electric vehicle (EV) requirements are less stringent than CALGreen EV Tier 2 requirements, and the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would not meet the locally adopted SB 743 VMT target. Therefore, the MCSP, as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, was found to be inconsistent with BAAD’s GHG thresholds 1.a, 2.a, and 2.b, and impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Element Policy 16.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions. Single-family and multi-family development projects shall be encouraged to not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing and shall achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
The Housing Element EIR determined that the MCSP, as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, would be consistent with the 2022 California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan, ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s CAP 2.0. These impacts were found to be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 92
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Similar to environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would be inconsistent with threshold 1.a, 2.a, and 2.b of the BAAD GHG thresholds since the City is not allowed to ban natural gas appliances, VMT would not meet the locally adopted VMT target, and the City’s EV requirements are less stringent than those of CALGreen Tier 2.
Although the new General Plan Natural Resources and Sustainability Policy 16.7 related to GHG emissions reductions would encourage future development not to include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing, natural gas could still be used and therefore impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to those impacts and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than those impacts analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As a result, similar to environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would be consistent with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan, ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, and the City’s CAP 2.0. Future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with the most recent iteration of Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, the City’s Reach Code, and the Piedmont General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed MCSP would also include improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit system, as discussed in further detail in Section 3.17, Transportation, of this Addendum. The improvements would further encourage future residents to walk and use bicycles instead of single-occupancy vehicles, and would better connect future residents to transit, services and jobs, thereby reducing VMT and GHGs. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant, similar to the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 93
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Pages 4.8-
13 through
4.8-16
No No No N/A
b. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Pages 4.8-
17 through
4.8-18
No No No N/A
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Pages 4.8-
17 through
4.8-18
No No No N/A
d. Be located on a site that is
included on a list of
hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Pages 4.8-
18 through
4.8-22
No No No Yes
e. For a project located in an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in
the project area?
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 94
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP, as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, would not introduce new manufacturing, warehouse, or industrial uses that would sell, use, store, transport, or release substantial quantities of hazardous materials. The transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction is subject to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Alameda County, and City of Piedmont requirements. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, although no known hazardous waste sites are present in the MCSP area, the Piedmont Corporation Yard, which functions as the base of operations for Public Works Department and involves storage of maintenance equipment and Fire Department vehicles, may contain hazardous materials, and impacts would be potentially significant even with compliance with the following policy related to hazardous waste sites cleanup added to the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element:
General Plan Environmental Hazards Element Policy 20.7: Hazardous Waste Sites Cleanup. The City shall regulate development on sites with known contamination of soil and groundwater to ensure that construction workers, future occupants, and the environment as a whole, are adequately protected from hazards associated with contamination, and encourage cleanup of such sites. Applicants for development projects shall be required to provide documentation that the proposed development site is not impacted by former/current site uses, including but not limited to, agricultural chemicals, aerially deposited lead, common railroad contaminants, and hazardous material storage and/or use.
The following mitigation measures MCSP-HAZ-1 (Property Assessment – Phase I and II ESAs), MCSPHAZ-2 (Soil Management Plan), and MCSP-HAZ-3 (Remediation) would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level:
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 95
Mitigation Measure MCSP-HAZ-1: Property Assessment – Phase I and II ESAs. Prior to the issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit for development in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental professional (EP), as defined by ASTM E-1527 to prepare a project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with standard ASTM methodologies, to assess the land use history of the project site.
If the Phase I ESA identifies recognized environmental conditions or potential areas of concern, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA for the project site to determine whether the soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor has been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels. The Phase II ESA shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permit authorizing construction, grading permit or demolition permit and shall be based on the results of the Phase I ESA.
As part of the Phase II ESA, the qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) shall screen the analytical results against the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board environmental screening levels (ESL). These ESLs are risk-based screening levels under various depth and land use scenarios. The City shall review and approve the Phase II ESA prior to the issuance of any building, grading, or demolition permit.
If the Phase II ESA for the project site indicates that contaminants are present in the subsurface at the project site, the project applicant shall take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (see Mitigation Measure MCSP HAZ-2) prior to issuance of a building, grading or demolition permit.
If the Phase II ESA for the project site indicates that contaminants are present at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil and/or groundwater (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24 Characteristics of Toxicity), the project applicant shall take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the completion of remediation (see Mitigation Measure MCSP HAZ-3) at the project site prior to onsite construction.
Mitigation Measure MCSP-HAZ-2: Soil Management Plan. For future development in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area, if impacted soils or other impacted wastes are present at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to issuance of a building, demolition or grading permit. The SMP, or equivalent document, shall address:
1. On-site handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes (e.g., stained soil, and soil or groundwater with solvent or chemical odors) if such soils or impacted wastes are encountered, and
2. Specific actions to reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during the construction phase.
The plan must establish remedial measures and soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the project site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 96
Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs
Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
Investigation procedures for encountering known and unexpected odorous or visually stained soils, other indications of hydrocarbon piping or equipment, and/or debris during grounddisturbing activities Monitoring and reporting
A health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
The health and safety plan shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction
The City of Piedmont Public Works Director or designee shall review and approve the project site SMP prior to issuing of any grading, demolition or grading permit. The project applicant shall implement the SMP during demolition, grading, and construction at the project site Mitigation Measure MCSP-HAZ-3: Remediation. For future development in the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan Area, where contaminated soil is identified during implementation of Mitigation Measures MCSP HAZ-1 and/or MCSP HAZ-2 as present within the demolition, grading or construction envelope at the project site at chemical concentrations exceeding ESLs and/or hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to properly dispose of the contaminated soil. The qualified environmental consultant shall utilize the project site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified consultant shall provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.
Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls may require: additional delineation of sub-surface impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.
The City of Piedmont Public Works Director or designee shall review and approve the project site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.
The project applicant shall review and implement the project site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and implement the remedial engineering controls prior to construction.
The City of Piedmont shall review and approve the project site disposal recommendations and remedial engineering controls prior to issuing a building, demolition or grading permit.
In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that no public or private airports exist within two miles of the MCSP area. Impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise hazards within airport land use plan areas were found to be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 97
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, would include generally the same land uses, and would require the same level and extent of grading, site preparation, construction and operation. The land uses envisioned in the proposed MCSP would generally be the same as those envisioned in the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Therefore, similar to the environmental issues and site conditions that were analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, with adherence to federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, there are no schools within 0.25 mile of the MCSP area.
Therefore, development facilitated by the MCSP would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. This impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, would include generally the same land uses, and would require the same level and extent of grading, site preparation, construction and operation. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, no known hazardous waste sites are present in the MCSP area. If an unidentified UST or other hazardous contamination were uncovered or disturbed during construction activities, compliance with State and local regulations and General Plan Environmental Hazards Element policies 20.1, 20.3,
20.5, and 20.6, as well as the new General Plan Environmental Hazards Element Policy 20.7 related to hazardous waste sites cleanup would be required. Nonetheless, the MCSP area includes the Piedmont Corporation Yard, which functions as the base of operations for Public Works Department and involves storage of maintenance equipment and Fire Department vehicles which may contain hazardous materials. The proposed MCSP could also include moving the Piedmont Corporation Yard to the south side of Moraga Avenue depending on where multifamily residential development occurs, which could expose future development on the existing site to hazardous materials. Sections
10.5.7.4A through C of the MCSP would incorporate mitigation measures MCSP-HAZ-1 through 3 of the Housing Element EIR and would require identification, management onsite, and/or removal of hazardous material-impacted soils prior to construction (demolition and grading), which would ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 98
reduce exposure to hazards resulting from development of a potential hazardous materials site in the MCSP area to a less than significant level, consistent with the analysis and conclusions of the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, there are no public or private airports within Piedmont.
Development facilitated by the proposed MCSP would have no impact related to a safety hazard or excessive noise hazards within airport land use plan areas or proximity to airports, consistent with the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Refer to Section 3.20, Wildfire, of this Addendum, for a discussion on the potential of the MCSP project to impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Refer to Section 3.20, Wildfire, of this Addendum, for a discussion on the potential of the MCSP project to expose people or structures to a significant risk of lost, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP project would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials than the impacts that were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 99
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Pages 4.9-
17 through
4.9-20
No No No N/A
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Pages 4.9-
20 through
4.9-21
No No No N/A
c. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or
through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation onor off-site
Pages 4.9-
22 through
4.9-24
No No No N/A
(ii) Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site
Pages 4.9-
22 through
4.9-24
No No No N/A
(iii) Create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff
Pages 4.9-
22 through
4.9-24
No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 100
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
(iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows?
Pages 4.9-
22 through
4.9-24
No No No N/A
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
Pages 4.9-
24 through
4.9-25
No No No N/A
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Pages 4.9-
20 through
4.9-21
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, construction of future projects under the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, would be required to comply with State and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality during construction, including requirements of the SWRCB Construction General Permit, the CBC, the PCC, and the City’s General Plan. Operation of future projects under the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, would be required to comply with existing programs and permits, including the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (No. CAS612008), Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), and requirements in the PCC and the City’s General Plan. Impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of surface or groundwater quality were found to be less than significant.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, development under the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, would receive water supplied by EBMUD and would not include installation of new groundwater wells or use of groundwater from existing wells. With adherence to existing State and local regulations, impacts related to groundwater recharge or conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan were found to be less than significant.
The Housing Element EIR determined that development under the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, could potentially alter the existing drainage patterns at the future development sites through the introduction of new impervious surfaces and infrastructure. However, with compliance with State and local regulations such as the NPDES Construction General Permit; NPDES MS4 General Permit; the MRP; and the PCC Sections 8.02.030T, 30.10, and 30.11, which control stormwater runoff and protect water quality, impacts were found to be less than significant.
The Housing Element EIR stated that the MCSP area does not contain flood zones; is not located within a FEMA-designated 100-year Flood Hazard Area; and is not susceptible to seiches. The Housing Element EIR discusses the addition of new and revised policies to the City’s General Plan Environmental Hazards Element related to reducing flood damage, managing development activities ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 101
in flood prone areas, implementing CAP 2.0, and keeping flood hazards low, as set forth below, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
General Plan Environmental Hazards Element
Policy 19.31: Reduce Flood Damage. Reduce potential flood damage in areas of the city subject to flood conditions through Capital Improvement projects, the development review process, or other means as applicable.
Policy 19.32: Development Activities in Flood Prone Areas. Require new development or expansion of existing development adjacent to canyons or valleys to assess potential environmental impacts from increased run-off and erosion and implement appropriate mitigation.
Policy 19.33: Implement CAP 2.0. Implement all adaptation measures identified in the CAP 2.0 regarding addressing flooding risks, including the maintenance of storm drains across the city, encouraging green infrastructure, and restoring natural features of the watershed.
Policy 19.34: Keeping Flood Hazards Low. Maintain Piedmont’s low potential for flooding through storm drain maintenance, preservation of creeks and drainage courses in their natural state, and periodic clearing of debris from storm drains and catchment basins. Ensure that new development does not increase the risk of off-site flooding, either in Piedmont or downstream in Oakland.
Policy 19.35: Managing Runoff. Ensure that runoff from individual properties is directed in a way that does not threaten adjacent properties. Runoff should be directed to places where it can be absorbed into the ground, detained in rain barrels or cisterns, or directed toward storm drains.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, would involve the same land uses, and would require the same level and extent of grading, site preparation, construction, and operation. Hydrological conditions related to soils and hydrology on and around the site have not substantially changed since adoption of the Housing Element EIR. Similar to the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, construction activities associated with the proposed MCSP could have potential to degrade water quality due to sediment erosion or the presence of contaminants located within the soils. However, construction activities under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with the same State and local water quality regulations such as the SWRCB Construction General Permit, the most recent version of the C.3 Stormwater Program as adopted by the Alameda County pursuant to Section
8.02.030T of the PCC, and the San Francisco RWQCB Groundwater General Permit which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Operation of projects under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (No. CAS612008), Provision C.3 of the MRP, and the PCC, which would reduce operational impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 102
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, would involve the same land uses, and would require the same level and extent of grading, site preparation, construction, and operation. Future development under the proposed MCSP would receive water supplied by EBMUD and would not include installation of new groundwater wells or use of groundwater from existing wells. Similar to the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, future development pursuant to the MCSP would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP which promotes infiltration, as well as implement low impact development (LID) measures to increase peak flow attenuation and absorption of stormwater runoff and the potential for groundwater recharge. With adherence to State and local water quality standards, development facilitated by the proposed MCSP would not have an adverse effect on water quality and would not interfere with the objectives and goals in the SWRCB San Francisco Bay Basin Plan. Impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or situation on- or off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, would involve the same land uses, and would require the same level and extent of grading, site preparation, construction, and operation. Hydrological conditions related to soils and hydrology on and around the site have not drastically changed since adoption of the Housing Element EIR. Similar to the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, construction for future development under the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit; NPDES MS4 General Permit; the MRP; and PCC Sections
8.12.030T, 30.10, and 30.11, which would control stormwater runoff and protect water quality. In addition, consistent with the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would not include housing in the area on the northern boundary of the city with water storage ponds that are under the jurisdiction of the Mountain View Cemetery and would not directly affect Cemetery Creek or the ponds. Moreover, the MCSP proposes the use of artificial field turf which could potentially be less pervious than natural turf. However, artificial turf used would be engineered with integrated subsurface drainage features designed to effectively manage stormwater such as permeable backing, infill materials, and an underlying gravel or sand base that facilitates infiltration.
The use of artificial turfs can also reduce surface runoff by promoting more uniform infiltration and ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 103
minimizing soil compaction. Because artificial turf does not require irrigation, it avoids the potential for overwatering and associated runoff that could occur with natural grass maintenance. Therefore, the proposed MCSP would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or alter the course of a stream or river, would not result in erosion or siltation, and would not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite or exceed capacity of a stormwater system. Impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area does not contain flood zones; is not located within a FEMA-designated 100-year Flood Hazard Area; and is not susceptible to seiches. The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area. Therefore, consistent with the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, with compliance with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5.14 of the PCC, and new General Plan Environmental Hazards Element policies 19.31 through
19.35 related to reducing flood damage, managing development activities in flood prone areas, implementing CAP 2.0, and keeping flood hazards low, impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 104
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 105
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an
established community?
Pages 4.10-
10 through
4.10-11
No No No N/A
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Pages 4.10-
11 through
4.10-19
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to land use and planning. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, would not physically divide an established community and impacts were determined to be less than significant. In addition, the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR would not conflict with ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, or the PCC. Impacts were found to be less than significant.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP area does not contain existing residential development, and the MCSP plans for the design and development of new residential uses.
The proposed MCSP would also enhance the Moraga Avenue right-of-way to create safer pedestrian and bicycle travel and include a new stoplight at Red Rock Road to provide access to either the existing Corporation Yard or new residential development and the upgraded sport fields and parking.
Development facilitated by the proposed MCSP would not result in the construction of barriers that would divide the existing residences surrounding the MCSP sites from each other or from the community. Therefore, development in the MCSP area would not divide an established community and impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 106
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
On February 20, 2024, the City’s General Plan was amended to implement the programs identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. This amendment included establishing the “Moraga Canyon Specific Plan” as the land use designation for the MCSP area. The General Plan describes this land use as a plan for new housing and to maintain, replace, and improve existing City facilities, open space, and recreational amenities including Blair Park Open Space, Coaches Field, Kennelly Skate Park, and the City’s Corporation Yard. The City’s current zoning designation for the MCSP area is “Zone B - Public Facilities.” This zone allows for residential facilities along with other uses, such as municipal and recreation uses. The proposed MCSP envisions residential, City facilities, open space, and recreational uses and would be consistent with the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan General Plan land use designation and Zone B - Public Facilities zoning designations.
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Because the MCSP generally includes the same area, land uses, site preparation, grading, construction, and operation as was envisioned and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would also be consistent with ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s General Plan, and the PCC. Appendix A of the proposed MCSP includes a detailed General Plan consistency analysis which shows that the proposed MCSP is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to land use and planning than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 107
3.12 Mineral Resources
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
Housing Element EIR Summary
As discussed in Section 1, Introduction, of the Housing Element EIR, the City of Piedmont does not have significant mineral resources or active mining sites within its boundaries, and there would be no impacts related to mineral resources.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, and the level and extent of site preparation and ground disturbance would be the same. There are no known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites in the MCSP area. There would be no impacts, consistent with the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to mineral resources than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 108
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 109
3.13 Noise
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Generate a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Pages 4.11-
16 through
4.11-22
No No No N/A
b. Generate excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Pages 4.11-
23 through
4.11-26
No No No N/A
c. For a project located within
the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, expose
people residing or working in
the project area to excessive
noise levels?
26 No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.11, Noise, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to noise. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, construction activities associated with projects under the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, could result in noise levels exceeding Federal Transit Authority (FTA) guidelines. Although compliance with the policy related to construction noise reduction added to the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, as set forth below, would reduce construction noise levels associated with smaller housing development to below the eighthour 80 dBA Leq daytime residential noise limit per FTA guidelines, construction associated larger projects could include lengthier construction durations (i.e., longer than 18 months) and different types of equipment that would lead to an exceedance of FTA noise limits at nearby sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
General Plan Environmental Hazards Element Policy 22.7: Construction Noise Reduction. For projects within 500 feet of a noise sensitive land use and that involve subterranean parking, large excavation, construction over 18 months in duration, and/or the use of heavy-duty equipment, a ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 110
Construction Noise Study prepared by a qualified noise expert shall be required. The Construction Noise Study shall characterize sources of construction noise, quantify noise levels at noisesensitive uses, and identify feasible measures to reduce noise exposure. The project shall incorporate the feasible measures identified in the study. Noise reduction techniques may include, but are not limited to, shielding and silencing construction equipment, enclosing and screening outdoor fixed equipment, placing construction staging areas away from noise-sensitive uses, using smart adjusting back-up alarms for mobile construction equipment, controlling worker radio noise, installing temporary sound barriers, designating a noise complaint response protocol, shall be used as appropriate.
The Housing Element EIR also analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to echoing. The Housing Element EIR found that while development in the MCSP area would involve development in a canyon, it is not anticipated that effects associated with echoing or sound reflection would substantially increase noise related to construction since by the time sound travels from one side of the canyon to the other, the sound attenuates substantially. The presence of intervening structures would further attenuate noise.
Therefore, the echo or reflection would have a negligible effect on overall noise levels above those experienced by the receiver from non-reflected sound traveling the shortest distance from the source to the receiver, and both construction- and operation-related impacts were found to be less than significant.
The Housing Element EIR determined that future development could include mechanical equipment (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)), delivery and trash trucks, and other noisegenerating activities. However, such activities would be typical of the existing environment, and onsite activities would be required to comply with PCC noise standards. In addition, the increase in vehicle trips would not result in a perceptible 3 dBA increase in noise from mobile sources.
Operational noise impacts were found to be less than significant.
The Housing Element EIR found that development within the MCSP area would not occur within 115 feet of a historic structure as none are present in or adjacent to the MCSP area, and construction vibration would not exceed thresholds for potential damage to historic or other structures. With implementation of the policy related to preparation of a vibration control plan added to the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, as set forth below, impacts related to vibration were determined to be less than significant.
General Plan Environmental Hazards Element Policy 22.8: Vibration Control Plan. For construction activities involving vibratory rollers and sonic pile drivers within 40 feet of a historic structure or impact pile drivers within 115 feet of a historic structure, or if an impact pile driver is used within 60 feet of an occupied structure, the applicant shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to the commencement of construction activities. The Vibration Control Plan shall be prepared by a licensed structural engineer and shall include methods required to minimize vibration such as alternative installation methods for pile driving or vibration monitoring. The Vibration Control Plan shall also establish baseline conditions at potentially affected structures, provide shoring design to protect buildings and structures from damage, document damage at the conclusion of vibration generating activities, and include recommendations for repair if necessary.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, there are no public or private airports within Piedmont, including within the MCSP area. Development would not expose people residing in the MCSP area to excessive noise levels, and impacts were found to be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 111
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, would involve the same land uses, and would require the same level and extent of grading, site preparation, construction, and operation. Consistent with the environmental issues and site conditions analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, even with compliance with the new General Plan Environmental Hazards Policy 22.7 related to construction noise reduction, development under the proposed MCSP could still include lengthier construction durations (i.e., longer than 18 months) and different types of equipment that would lead to an exceedance of FTA noise limits at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Consistent with the analysis under the Housing Element Update, the proposed MCSP would not generate a substantial increase in ambient noise levels from delivery/trash trucks, truck loading, HVAC, and outdoor activity areas. While the proposed MCSP involves expansion of the existing sports field and the potential addition of field lighting such that field activities extend into evening hours, noise-generating activities associated with recreational uses would be similar to those of Piedmont’s developed and urbanized environment and, within the MCSP study area, would occur only during daytime and evening hours (not during regular sleep hours). The programming and hours of operation of city recreation operations would continue to be subject to City Council authority and would be subject to noise standards in the Piedmont General Plan and PCC. Further, potential future recreational uses such as baseball/softball courts, batting cages, skateboard park, or pickleball courts, as well as private recreational uses for future residences, would be subject to Section 10.5.7.8, Noise Compliance of the MCSP which requires preparation of a noise study and incorporation of noise reduction measures for new or expanded recreational uses within 500 feet of residences. In addition, future development under the proposed MCSP could involve relocating the Corporation Yard to be closer to residences. However, Section 10.5.7.8, Noise Compliance of the MCSP in the MCSP requires preparation of a noise study and incorporation of noise reduction measures for new or expanded recreational uses within 500 feet of residences. With adherence to this MCSP requirements, impacts associated with operational noise in the MCSP area would remain less than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than those impacts analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
In addition, as discussed in the Housing Element EIR, a doubling of traffic would result in a 3 dBA increase, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase and thus is the City’s threshold of significance for traffic noise increases. The proposed MCSP would not double the noise from existing mobile noise sources and would not increase traffic noise levels by more than 3 dBA. Future development would also be required to comply with the 2022 CBC, Title 24, Part 2, Section 1206.4, which states that multi-family residences must be constructed and designed such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL. Moreover, future development would also be required to comply with Section 6.9.1, Noise Attenuation, of the proposed MCSP which outlines requirements for noise attenuation in the design and construction of new multifamily housing. Therefore, operational noise impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the analysis and conclusions in the Housing ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 112
Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
As determined in the Housing Element EIR, the echo or reflection of sound would have a negligible effect on overall noise levels compared to those experienced by the receiver from non-reflected noise traveling the shortest distance from the source to the receiver, and would also have a negligible effect on overall operational noise levels compared to those experienced by the receiver. As these impacts would not change under the proposed MCSP, echo and reflection noise impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
b. Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP, would involve the same land uses, and would require the same level and extent of grading, site preparation, construction, and operation. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, vibratory rollers and sonic pile drivers would exceed the threshold of 0.12 in./sec. peak particle velocity (PPV) for historic structures at 40 feet from the source; and impact pile drivers would exceed this threshold at 115 feet. Development within the MCSP area would not occur within 40 or 115 feet of a historic structure as none are present in or adjacent to the MCSP area. Therefore, construction vibration would not exceed thresholds for potential damage to historic or other structures. Impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. c. Would the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, there are no public or private airports within Piedmont, and no area in the City is located within an airport’s noise contours. Therefore, this impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to noise than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 113
3.14 Population and Housing
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
Pages 4.12-
6 through
4.11-7
No No No N/A
b. Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Pages 4.12-
7 through
4.11-8
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to population and housing. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the MCSP as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR would result in an increase of approximately 370-557 residents, which is within population and housing growth assumptions for the Housing Element and within regional growth forecasts. The Housing Element EIR determined that the MCSP, as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly in the MCSP area. Impacts were found to be less than significant.
The Housing Element EIR stated that the MCSP area does not include any existing residential housing units and therefore would not displace people. There would be no impact.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Similar to the MCSP as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the proposed MCSP would result in an increase of approximately 557 residents in the MCSP area. This growth is within the population and housing growth assumptions for the Housing Element, Land Use Element, and all General Plan elements and would be within regional growth forecasts. Therefore, the proposed MCSP would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly in the MCSP ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 114
area. This impact would be less than significant, similar to the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, there are no existing residential housing units in the MCSP area. Since the proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as the MCSP analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, no displacement of people would occur, and there would be no impact, similar to the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to population and housing than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 115
3.15 Public Services
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, or
the need for new or
physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? Pages 4.13-
10 through
4.13-13
No No No N/A
2 Police protection? Pages 4.13-
13 through
4.13-14
No No No N/A
3 Schools? Pages 4.13-
14 through
4.13-15
No No No N/A
4 Parks? Pages 4.13-
16 through
4.13-17
No No No N/A
5 Other public facilities? Page 4.13-
10 No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to public services and recreation. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, development under the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, could increase demand for Piedmont Fire Department (PFD) and Piedmont Police Department (PPD) services. However, with adherence to the CBC and PCC, as well as the new action (Action 34.D) related to preparing for increased demand added ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 116
to the General Plan Community Services and Facilities Element, impacts related to fire and police services were found to be less than significant.
The Housing Element EIR determined that all schools across the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) have a remaining capacity for 847 students. The MCSP, as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR, would add approximately 101 to 152 new students, which would be within the remaining capacity of the PUSD. Impacts on schools were found to be less than significant.
As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, impacts related to other public facilities such as water, wastewater, and landfills were addressed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Housing Element EIR.
Impact Analysis
a1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, although the increase in population could increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, future development in the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with the California Fire Code; CBC; Community Services and Facilities Element policies 34.1, 34.5, 34.7, and 34.9 of the City’s General Plan including the new action 34.D related to preparing for increased demand; and Chapter 8 of the PCC. All of the aforementioned regulations and policies would reduce impacts related to fire services to a less than significant level, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
a2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, although the increase in population could increase demand for police services, future development in the proposed MCSP would be required to comply with Community Services and Facilities Element Policy 34.1 and 34.3 of the City’s General Plan, as well as the new action 34.D related to preparing for increased demand, which would reduce impacts related to police services to a less than significant level, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 117
a3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, the addition of 199 housing units would increase school population by approximately 101 to 152 new students in the MCSP area.
Students in the MCSP area would attend the same schools as the rest of Piedmont residents. As outlined in the Housing Element EIR, there is remaining capacity for 847 students across all PUSD schools. The proposed MCSP would not necessitate the construction of new school facilities, and the impact to Piedmont schools would remain less than significant, similar to the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted. a4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Refer to Section 3.16, Recreation, of this Addendum, for a discussion on parks and recreational facilities.
a5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Future development would be adequately served by existing public facilities and services, including libraries, senior services, childcare facilities, and medical centers, and the MCSP would not necessitate the construction of new facilities. Refer to Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Addendum, for a discussion on water, wastewater, and landfills.
There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to public services than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 118
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 119
3.16 Recreation
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Pages 4.13-
16 through
4.13-17
No No No N/A
b. Include recreational facilities
or require the construction
or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Pages 4.13-
16 through
4.13-17
No No No N/A
Housing Element EIR Summary
Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the Housing Element EIR analyzed the MCSP’s impacts related to public services and recreation. The Housing Element EIR found that the MCSP, as analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, could result in a reduction of acreage of the parks and recreational facilities in the MCSP area. Conservatively assuming Blair Park Open Space, Coaches Field, and the Kennelly Skate Park are removed and replaced with housing, the removal of these facilities would result in a decrease of approximately 7.5 acres of parkland within the city. However, the park-toresident ratio would still be above the State standard. In addition, the City of Piedmont would comply with State of California Public Park Preservation Act requirements for the transfer of property dedicated as a public park for any non-park use. Impacts related to parks and recreation facilities were found to be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 120
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed MCSP would generally be located in the same area as analyzed under the Housing Element EIR for the MCSP and would include the same type of use and buildout of an anticipated 199 housing units, as well as City facilities, in the MCSP area consistent with the buildout analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As discussed in the Housing Element EIR, future development in the MCSP area could result in a reduction of acreage of the parks and recreational facilities in the MCSP area.
However, the Housing Element EIR found that the park-to-resident ratio would still be above the State standard.
Further, while the Housing Element EIR conservatively assumed that future development in the MCSP area could result in a reduction of parks and recreational facilities by reducing the size of or eliminating the existing recreational uses in the MCSP area, the proposed MCSP includes provisions to maintain or add parks and recreational facilities. The MCSP includes a framework for approximately five acres devoted to public recreational uses, including a multi-sport field with baseball/softball overlay and amenities and a skateboard facility. The proposed MCSP may also accommodate a new nature trail for residents and park users in open space deemed too steep for other development north of Moraga Avenue,. Furthermore, the MCSP calls for other amenities such as a dog park, playground, community garden, or other passive open space use. Lastly, potential future multi-family residences would be required to have private on-site recreational facilities to serve future residences such as an indoor gym, playground, picnic area, or court facilities. Therefore, impacts related to parks and recreational facilities would remain less than significant, consistent with the analysis and conclusions in the Housing Element EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe impacts than what was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and further analysis is not warranted.
Conclusion
No substantial changes have occurred that require major revisions to the Housing Element EIR or recirculation of the Housing Element EIR. There is no new information indicating that the proposed MCSP would have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to recreation than were identified in the Housing Element EIR. None of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENT D Agenda Report Page 121
3.17 Transportation
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the EIR?
Do Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the EIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Pages 4.14-
19 through
4.14-21
No No No N/A
b. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Pages 4.14-
21 through
4.14-27
No No No N/A
c. Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)?