http://www.piedmontcivic.org/2012/01/31/planning-commission-hearing-on-blair-park-postponed/

Meanwhile, what action does Friends of Moraga Canyon plan to take? We strongly believe the Addendum to the Blair Park EIR was incomplete and did not analyze the many changes made to the project in the “final” plan approved by the Piedmont City Council on Dec. 5, 2011. Similarly to Oakland, we want the City of Piedmont to conduct a supplemental environmental review, particularly to analyze the new traffic plan (building a roundabout and two pedestrian crosswalks on Moraga Ave.) and new hydrology plan (a “bioswale,” which would affect drainage all the way to Lake Merritt), among other significant changes, including PRFO’s last-minute deletion of the bicycle lane on Moraga Ave. at 4 p.m. on Dec. 5th!

Just like Oakland, FOMC has 30 days (until January 6, 2012) to file a lawsuit to require the City of Piedmont to conduct a Supplemental EIR. We are seriously considering this option in consultation with our attorney and will make a decision before Jan. 6. While Oakland’s objections to the project are similar to FOMC’s, there are differences in our interests, and our decision will not rest on what Oakland decides to do.

Our ongoing legal costs are heavy, and the only way we can continue this fight is with your help. Please make a tax-deductible donation now.

You can donate online by clicking here or by sending a check made out to “Friends of Moraga Canyon” to:

Friends of Moraga Canyon
P.O. Box 70127
Oakland, CA 94612-0127

This outcome—the culmination of a deeply flawed process in which the City Council and its staff repeatedly handed over the reins to the project’s advocates and abdicated their basic responsibility to perform due diligence—was, sadly, not unexpected. FOMC has been preparing for the possibility of legal action for some time, and our Board of Directors is weighing the options. We will let you know as soon as a decision is made, and when we might once again need to ask for your help.

We know this has been a tiring and frustrating process for all of you, as you have donated money, written many letters and emails, and spoke against the project at City Council meetings. But without the support you’ve all shown us, we would not be in as strong a position as we are now to continue the fight.

We’ve said it many times, but once again—a heartfelt THANK YOU from all of us at FOMC. Please stay tuned for our next report.

Thank you for your continued support on our long journey to save Moraga Canyon.  We are facing a critical juncture, and we urgently need your attention and your help once again.

The City Council will review PRFO’s “final” plans for Blair Park at a public hearing on Monday, December 5th in City Council chambers at 7:30 pm. At this meeting, they may well vote to approve the project.

In order to be as well prepared as possible for this meeting, we are asking our FOMC attorney, Gabriel Ross, of Shute/Mihaly/Weinberger LLP, and traffic consultant Tom Brohard to review and critique the latest City/PRFO environmental documents and traffic plan. Their reviews are essential to persuade the City to undertake a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and not just pass off a simple EIR addendum. We need your immediate financial support to raise significant funds to cover these vital analyses and other legal expenses.

Here is the current status of the proposed project:

• The “gift” that keeps on taking has now cost the city over $300,000 in various costs and lawyer fees, as well as countless hours of staff time, easily valued at several hundred thousand more dollars. This comes during a time when the schools are in financial crisis, and the city faces a deficit over expenditure commitments and public works project mismanagement.
• The “final” plans for the Blair Park sports field project were not made public until after Friends of Moraga Canyon filed a Public Records Request. The city responded by publishing the plans on the city website.
• The City Council and staff have permitted project proponents and their attorneys to act as special counsel to the City Attorney, leading to a clear conflict of interest. This decision was made in closed session with no public discussion or vote (see articles on the PCA website and the Piedmont Patch).
• On the advice of the PRFO attorneys, the city is planning to produce a simple addendum to the original EIR in response to the many changes that have been made to the project. Prominent land-use attorneys Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, retained by FOMC and paid for by your generous donations, have concluded that due to the constantly shifting nature of the project as well as the many serious flaws in the original EIR, the city is legally required to produce a full Supplemental EIR, not just a simple addendum. (Please read their analysis, as well as a detailed traffic analysis by engineer Tom Brohard, on our website).

Despite nearly four years of strong, reasoned opposition to this ill-conceived, dangerous and destructive project by many Piedmont residents, as well as the City of Oakland, the Sierra Club, the Golden Gate Audubon Society, and Piedmont’s own Planning Commission, PRFO is ramping up to steamroll this project through the City Council. The publicity blitz in recent issues of the Piedmont Post confirms our fears.

The City Council meeting on December 5th will be crucial, and we need your immediate help!

Here’s what you can do:

• Write to the City Council members and tell them your objections. A list of key points to make on the issues is available on our website. You can email the City Council via the City Clerk at jtulloch@ci.piedmont.ca.us, or by mail to Piedmont City Hall, 120 Vista Ave, Piedmont, CA 94611.
• Write to the local press to publicize our opposition. Here are links to directly email the Piedmonter, the Piedmont Post, the Piedmont Patch, the Piedmont Civic Association, the Montclarion, and the Oakland Tribune. You can also submit letters to the SF Chronicle via the SFGate website.
• Attend the City Council meeting on Dec. 5th at 7:30 pm in the City Council chambers at 120 Vista. Speak during public comment, or just come out to show your support.
• Talk to neighbors and friends and ask them to visit moragacanyon.org to sign our petition and join our email list. We know there are many people out there who oppose this project but have remained silent so far—now is the time to speak out.
• Donate. http://www.moragacanyon.org/donate has a PayPal button that makes it easy. Immediate donations will pay for legal responses and an expert traffic analysis of the “final” plan.

If we are to win this battle, we need immediate donations to help pay for our ongoing legal expenses and traffic analysis of the “final” plan. Further, if the Council approves the plan on December 5th without the Supplemental EIR required by CEQA, we then will have 30 days to take legal action.  PRFO is weighing how serious the opposition is. With the weight of reason on our side—and with the strength of your continued support—we can show them just how serious we are.

With your help, we know we can put a stop to this poorly planned, unnecessary, and destructive project that has caused such divisiveness in our community. Thank you once again for everything you do.

Click here to read both reports (PDF, 3.7 MB)

In this 57-page document, attorney Gabriel Ross of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, and traffic engineer Tom Brohard, of Tom Brohard & Associates, conclude that the EIR “is profoundly flawed” and that the city is legally obligated to revise and recirculate a supplemental EIR. To date, there has been no response from Piedmont officials, and no date has been set for a City Council vote on whether to approve the project.

In his letter, Ross points out that “the environmental review has been flawed from the beginning and has resulted in an EIR that violates the minimum standards of adequacy under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” Because the project has changed so frequently, he notes, “The public at large now has no idea what, precisely, the City will actually consider for approval. “The City’s willingness to entertain Project changes after certification of the EIR reveals a certain disregard for CEQA,” he said. He further questions how seriously the City took the EIR process in the first place.

Citing all the ongoing design changes, including new, proposed roundabouts on Moraga Ave., changes in number of fields and parking spaces and type of pedestrian crossing, Ross said, “The City has progressed through this environmental review process with apparently no idea of what the Project actually looks like. Or, if the City has such an idea, it has chosen not to share the details with the public.”

Delineating all the errors in the EIR, Ross concludes that the project cannot be approved until there is a clear description of all of its features and an EIR that thoroughly analyzes the impacts of those features.

Similarly, Tom Brohard notes that the EIR relied on a fundamentally flawed traffic study. For example, nearly all traffic speeds on Moraga were measured in the area near Monte Ave, where traffic is slower, not in the vicinity of the project, itself. This error led the EIR to underestimate average traffic speeds on Moraga at the project site, which led to incorrect stopping distances and signal warrants.

Brohard asserts that the proposed 66 parking spaces at Blair Park is only half of what is needed and that overflow parking on Moraga Ave. “cannot be safely accommodated.” Parking on Moraga, he said, will adversely affect bicyclists on the street and will have a significant safety impact. “There is substantial evidence,” he said “that the project will have adverse traffic and parking impacts that have not been properly disclosed, analyzed and mitigated in the EIR.”

(In reality, of course, the concession stand being proposed at Blair Park would provide a great deal of incentive for kids to cross the street from Coaches Field, as pointed out by Councilmember Garrett Keating in a comment on the Piedmont Civic Association website.)

I am relieved by PSC President Mark Landheer’s May 25 Post letter stating, “Kids at Blair Park will not cross Moraga Avenue.” The unsafe traffic mitigation proposed by ELS will no longer be necessary.

The Maxwelton Avenue mini-roundabout on a 7% slope in narrow-winding Moraga Avenue with no sidewalks, limited sight lines and obtuse angle side streets, is contrary to every standard practice in the Feb. 2010 Federal Highway Admin. Mini-roundabout Technical Summary (FHWA-SA-10-007). Placement at Maxwelton Avenue would be suicidal for bicyclists. Although previously adhering to FHA practices, ELS traffic engineer Michael Moule’s radical and experimental Maxwelton Avenue mini-roundabout would have been the first of its kind on the planet. With no children present, as Mark Landheer indicates, it is no longer needed.

Pedestrian activated crosswalks are ignored 3% of the time by drivers and by at least 30% of underage pedestrians. When these two percentages converge, disaster awaits. Fortunately, this crosswalk will not be needed, as no children will be crossing Moraga Avenue, according to Landheer.

If our City Council determines that children may indeed cross Moraga Avenue, realistic traffic mitigations should be analyzed by a reputable traffic engineering firm and considered carefully before implementation. To date, ELS has added and subtracted traffic elements at will. I ask for appropriate oversight and independent due diligence by City Administrator Grote.

Rick Schiller

We talked about our goal: to save the oak woodland which in addition to the live oaks, includes 100 other trees. We oppose having 155 trees unnecessarily sacrificed for a soccer field which is too big for the space. Our grassroots organization, which now has over 950 endorsers and the support of the Sierra Club and the Golden Gate Audubon Society, seeks a win-win solution that will bring the two opposing sides together. To that end, we support enlarging Coaches Field which will serve much of the need for field space without destroying the environment.

At the end of our ceremony, 8 people read quotations about trees, such as:

Afterwards, FOMC member Paulette Traverso gave out copies of a lovely tree card she had designed in honor of Arbor Day and our message. It starts out “Be tender to our earth…… “ Many of us are handing out copies to our neighbors. Thank you, Paulette!

Following our witness, some of us had the chance to talk with city officials after the tree planting ceremony. Many thanks to all who attended our event and to all those who have written such great letters to the media. The April 22nd Piedmonter & Montclarion had 13 letters from our supporters and there have been many in the other papers and blogs as well!

• Over 730 people have signed our petition opposing the Blair Park sports complex.
• Over 420 of those are from Piedmont.
• The City Council received 126 personally-written, thoughtful, detailed, and fact-based letters from opponents of the complex.
• The City Council only received 36 letters from proponents, nearly all of which were robo-form-letters.
• At the meeting, nearly 2/3 of the speakers spoke out against the complex, including Oakland Councilmember Libby Schaaf and representatives from both Golden Gate Audubon and the Sierra Club.
• And while we weren’t able to make a comparative headcount, we had a great turnout from our side. People wearing “Save Moraga Canyon” badges appeared to outnumber people wearing PRFO paraphernalia.

Unfortunately, the City Council voted 4-1 (with only Garrett Keating opposed) to proceed with PRFO’s plan for developing sports fields in Blair Park, subject to a further traffic analysis to be provided by PRFO’s own consultants.

At the beginning of the meeting, FOMC President Jim Semitekol presented our arguments about why the project must be stopped. Two alternatives involving expanding Coaches Field and reducing the size of the Blair Park fields were presented by William Blackwell and Chuck Oraftik. The Council decided to ignore these alternatives after PRFO indicated that it would be unwilling to pay for them, despite the fact that they were potentially less destructive and less costly.