Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Moraga Canyon topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Piedmont planners review Moraga Canyon specific plan that anticipates 197 units, residents press safety concerns
Summary
Consultants presented a draft Moraga Canyon specific plan that anticipates about 197 multifamily units (at least 60 lower‑income units) and a range of street, stormwater and site design changes; neighbors at the public forum urged more study of traffic, evacuation and sight‑distance safety before the council decides.
Consultants and staff presented the Moraga Canyon Specific Plan as a study session, describing a draft that anticipates roughly 197 multifamily units, including at least 60 lower‑income units, and options to locate development on either the north or south side of Moraga Avenue. The presentation noted a $160,000 MTC priority‑sites grant and an expected Alameda County Measure A1 funding opportunity to support planning and infrastructure work.
"It anticipates development of 197 multifamily units, including at least 60 lower income units," consultant Drew Watkins said as he reviewed land‑use options and development standards. Watkins and staff walked the commission through two plan options (Option A south of Moraga Avenue; Option B north of Moraga Avenue), circulation improvements including a proposed signal at Red Rock Road, and site design, landscaping and wildfire‑safety measures.
Traffic and emergency access dominated commissioner questions. Consultants said the project would add about 900–910 daily trips on Moraga Avenue — roughly 8 percent of the road’s existing 11,000 average daily trips — with an AM‑peak increase of about 74 trips and PM‑peak about 79 trips. The team recommended an uphill (eastbound) bike lane, intersection improvements at Red Rock, and driveway locations sited to meet stopping‑site‑distance criteria.
Residents at the public forum urged caution. One neighborhood commenter said concentrating 200 units with a single primary access could create severe evacuation bottlenecks; others asked the city to coordinate more closely with Oakland and to re‑examine whether some housing could be sited elsewhere. Several speakers disputed whether prior sight‑distance analyses still apply and asked staff to re‑check Caltrans guidance.
Staff and consultants said additional analysis will be documented in the Environmental Impact Report addendum and that the commission will see a hearing draft on Sept. 8, followed by a second commission meeting Sept. 16 and subsequent city‑council hearings in the fall. The session was informational; no action was taken.
