From: Julie Stein
To: City Council
Subject: House Element
Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:55:56 PM
Dear City CouncilMy dear neighbor wrote up this letter and she is 100 percent correct on this. We live on Pala Avenue and building these houses in Moraga Canyon is a mistake! On Pala parking is already so tight. On game days at coaches field our little street is hit with over flow parking/ traffic. We don't have any over flow parking. Pala is a 2 lane road that is only wide enough for one vehicle to drive on. It is not safe to have more cars flying up our street. Moraga canyon cannot handle more. When mud slides happened or trees go down it impacts all of Piedmont. I am constantly worried when I see kids trying to frog hop across Moraga Avenue. Cars come flying down this street.
I will say for me I am mostly upset by the environmental impacts of this project. How can we be ok with taking one of our city parks!?!?
Please look at areas that have already be turned into hard landscape. Do not take our parks.
Best,
Julie Stein
To: City Council
Re: Housing Element EIR
From: Marj Blackwell
Date: Feb. 20, 2024
Dear Council Members,
I understand the dilemma you face in approving the 2023-2031 HE Implementation project “despite the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided …” but I once again urge you to consider the risks and inevitable consequences of doing so that will face Piedmont for years to come.
I refer specifically to the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Moraga Canyon development, described in the EIR. Namely: geologic instability of the steep hillsides, dangers of landslides, building in a Very High Risk wildfire zone, inadequate evacuation routes, and most importantly, dangers to pedestrians crossing Moraga Ave. These “unavoidable risks” are life threatening and cannot be taken lightly simply by adopting “overriding considerations.”
Also, not to be taken lightly are the facts and reality that Moraga Canyon is over a mile from the center of Piedmont, public transportation, and schools, and that Moraga Ave. is a high-traffic, commuter artery where cars typically travel 30-plus mph. It is simply not a safe or attractive area for any kind of housing and will likely brand Piedmont as putting mandated housing in a remote, undesirable area.
In addition to building 132 housing units, expanding Coaches Field and saving open space, the city’s consultant proposes “improvements” to Moraga Ave. such as adding sidewalks, a new bike lane and possibly a traffic signal. But they have yet to describe exactly how any of this will be accomplished. Do they propose to widen Moraga and straighten out the curves? How can a traffic light be installed with insufficient sight lines? And where will daily, high-volume traffic go during years of construction, since there are no alternative routes?
Another point not raised in the EIR is that Blair Park is a designated Piedmont city park. By declaring it developable surplus land, Piedmont will be the first and only city in California to build housing in a public park. An unfortunate precedent to set for a city that values its trees and parks!
Furthermore, in 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution to fund phase 1 of a landscape plan for Blair Park, but decided “given the pedestrian safety of accessing the park, Phase 2 of the landscape project will not be funded, until community wide consensus has been reached for the future of Blair Park.” Does a Council resolution have a limited lifespan?
Also not mentioned in the EIR is the exorbitant costs to Piedmont residents of making Moraga Canyon and Moraga Ave. somehow acceptable to a developer or an insurance company. How high will property taxes have to go to pay for this development?
I ask again, why is the City not considering alternatives now to Moraga Canyon? City Planning says it must abide by the Staterequirement of a minimum ½ acre for affordable housing sites. But if Piedmont is such a desirable “high resource area,” why not convince the State to permit the City to combine two or more separate and more desirable sites? I refer to two sites that have never been considered: two tennis courts directly above the Community Park and the lower, grassy slope of Dracena Park. Both are centrally located, within easy walking distance of schools and transportation. Development costs would be far lessthan Moraga Canyon, and parking structures would not even be needed.
I urge the Council to please consider the issues that many of us have been raising for the past two years and to recognize the undeniable facts and consequences of developing Moraga Canyon.
Thank you,
Marj Blackwell