Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Moraga Canyon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants outline landscape, utilities and stormwater plans for Moraga Canyon specific plan
Summary
Consultants presented chapters 8 (landscape) and 9 (public services and utilities) for the Moraga Canyon specific plan, describing two siting options, approaches to sewer and undergrounding, discouragement of natural‑gas hookups, and low‑impact stormwater designs; commissioners pressed for project‑level hydrology and grading detail.
Consultants for the Moraga Canyon specific plan presented draft landscape and public‑utilities chapters, telling the Planning Commission the plan anticipates up to roughly 190–199 new housing units and will include standards for plant selection, lighting, and infrastructure.
"It’s anticipated to develop up to a 199 new housing units or about 35% of the units needed for RHNA," consultant Drew Watkins said during the presentation, describing the project scope and a timeline that layers environmental review with subsequent public hearings. The presentation described two siting scenarios — option A south of Moraga Avenue and option B north of Moraga Avenue — and associated engineering responses for sewer mains, grading, and stormwater treatment.
On utilities, the team proposed undergrounding electrical lines within the right‑of‑way and "discouraging" new natural‑gas connections while acknowledging legal limits: staff told commissioners a court settlement prevents cities from outright prohibiting certain fuel appliances, so any restriction on gas hookups would be negotiated in development agreements rather than imposed by code.
The consultants emphasized low‑impact development strategies — flow‑through planters, permeable paving, bioswales and bioretention — designed to "make sure that the amount of water leaving the site is the same pre‑ and post‑development," Watkins said. Project engineers added these devices slow runoff and attenuate downstream flows during storm events.
Commissioners pressed for more project‑level analysis. Several asked that the plan not rely solely on diagrammatic LID approaches and that detailed hydrologic modeling be performed during permitting to protect downhill neighbors and public roads. Staff and consultants said more detailed modeling and the county’s hydro‑modification requirements will be part of later permitting.
Public commenters and nearby residents asked about interagency coordination with Oakland, the cost and prioritization of undergrounding utilities (one commenter noted PG&E programs could offset costs), and hillside stability near existing homes. Staff said they will continue outreach, release a full public‑review draft this fall, and return to the commission and city council for additional hearings in late 2024 and into 2025.
