Why the Blair Park Sports Complex is Wrong


Video:
Too Big for Blair Park

Image:
155 Trees

Video:
Planning Commission Says No

The Moraga Canyon Sports Complex plan advanced directly from its proponents to the City Council, which certified the project EIR in December 2010. The project’s advocates and the City Council have had no real dialog with the larger community on the need, feasibility or merits of the plan. And the Council completely dismissed many serious concerns of the City’s own Planning Commission, which unanimously rejected the plan (see excerpts and quotes). Additionally, the EIR that was conducted for a previous development plan in Blair Park found that because of safety concerns in crossing Moraga Avenue, the Blair Park site was unsuitable for sports field development.

But don’t just take our word for it:

If you agree with us that this project must be stopped, sign our petition and find out what else you can do to take action!

Update, November 2011:

The date is set for the Piedmont City Council to vote again on the Blair Park/Moraga Canyon sportsfield project on Monday, December 5th. The City has promised to post project documents on the city website 10 days in advance (November 25th). Staff reports will be posted on the city website by Friday, December 2nd.

The latest “final” plan replaces the original pedestrian bridge across Moraga with a mini-roundabout and a crosswalk at Maxwelton and a pedestrian-operated light and crosswalk at Red Rock Road. These changes will significantly impact traffic on Moraga Avenue. Further, the proposed roundabout may actually create a hazard for bicyclists riding up Moraga. These changes alone trigger the need for a full Supplemental EIR, according to FOMC’s attorneys (see the letter featured in this post). Yet the City, advised by PRFO attorneys, is pursuing a mere addendum to the existing EIR.

Some of the changes in the latest plan—i.e. shortening the retaining wall from 35 to 33 feet and changing the wall along Moraga Ave. from concrete to a mechanically strengthened system and fence totalling 37 feet high—are minor and do nothing to improve the project.

No objective, itemized cost estimates have ever been provided for this monumental project—either for the proposed Phase 1 or Phase 2.

Here are some of the many problems with the current plan.

Fiscal Impacts
  • Contrary to PRFO’s “gift,” over $300,000 of taxpayer money has already been spent from the City’s General Fund and CIP funds (not reimbursed by private funds), PLUS untold dollars in staff salaries.
  • Draft contract documents state that city staff and city attorney time spent on this project will not be reimbursed by private funds.
  • The city has not adopted any of the risk management procedures recommended by the League of Women Voters Undergrounding Task Force to limit potential liabilities of a new private/public project. Guarantees to prevent public funding of potential city liabilities (such as foundation damage to homes above Blair Park, or other project related damages or accidents) have not been established. We cannot afford another $2.5 million mistake!
  • An independent cost estimate for the project is essential. No itemized cost estimates have ever been provided to the public. Commitments of private funds must be received by the City before a shovel hits the ground to assure that ALL costs will be borne by PRFO.
  • Maintenance costs and capital improvements/replacements have not been defined or specifically addressed.
  • If home values decline in neighborhoods above and adjacent to Blair Park, due to construction of an unsightly, noisy sports field, this will affect the tax base of the entire city.
Project Shortfalls
  • One new large field without lights will not replace the two fields used by 330 soccer players at Alameda Point. Even if the teams double up for practice, there is not enough daylight between 4 pm and dusk for two practice sessions a night during the soccer season.
  • The proposed field does not have sideline space needed for team areas and spectators. No sports field anywhere relegates spectators to a single bench in the end zone.
  • Private sports clubs supplement school athletic programs. Piedmont High has a staff of nearly 40 coaches and athletic directors and offers 14 sports for both boys and girls.
Traffic and Pedestrian Safety
  • Traffic expert Tom Brohard, retained by FOMC, finds that the EIR relied on a fundamentally flawed traffic study (see letter linked from this blog post).
  • Significant new traffic plan requires a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, not a simple addendum.
  • Proposed Maxwelton round-about and narrowing of traffic lanes to 9 feet wide on Moraga Avenue pose dangers to bicyclists, emergency vehicles and all traffic trying to exit Maxwelton Rd.
  • Sight lines have not been determined at pedestrian crosswalks at Maxwelton or Red Rock Road.
  • Documented “unsafe driver behavior on Moraga Avenue” is the greatest danger to pedestrians. Subsequent traffic study of Moraga Ave. by the city of Piedmont indicates an 85th-percentile speed of 38 mph and maximum speeds up to 60 mph!
Environmental Impacts
  • A peaceful oak woodland, home to native wildlife, plants and trees, will be forever destroyed by an artificial surface, limited-use sports field requiring a 22-foot high mechanically stabilized ‘berm’ along Moraga Avenue, topped with 17 feet of field fencing; a three-story high retaining wall to support a 60-foot deep cut into the existing hillside, and two hard surface parking lots.
  • The project is categorically opposed by the Golden Gate Audubon Society and the Sierra Club.
  • The Piedmont Planning Commission unanimously rejected the project, citing issues consistent with the “significant and unavoidable” (no mitigations possible) environmental impacts in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
  • Significant and unavoidable environmental impacts found in the FEIR include:
    • Land use & planning policy (violates Piedmont’s General Plan of 2009)
    • Aesthetics (use of retaining walls, high landscape berms and fencing)
    • Biological resources (loss of oak woodland)
    • Hazards & hazardous materials (use of artificial turf)
    • Traffic & circulation (unsafe speeds, unacceptable intersection delays)
    • Noise (canyon effects)
Flawed City Process
  • EIR determined to be inadequate and flawed by FOMC attorney, Gabriel Ross of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger LLP, requiring a Supplemental EIR (per CEQA guidelines) (see letter linked from this blog post).
  • The City Council is allowing PRFO attorneys (project proponents) to be part of the “City team” serving as the City’s counsel on CEQA requirements. The legal agreements between the City and PRFO were made behind closed doors and never reported in a public meeting.
  • The City did not make plans and documents available to the public, until FOMC filed a Public Records Request.
  • The project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and with CIP priorities identified in the City’s own General Plan Survey. (More sports fields were a low priority for Piedmont residents.)
  • The City is bound to honor its commitment of no lighting at any field in Piedmont except Witter and Beach. This was agreed to by the City Council in 1992 (as shown in this document), made a part of that recertified EIR, and codified in a city ordinance.
City Ignores Alternatives
  • Two reasonable alternatives to the PRFO plan have been proposed by Piedmont architects. Neither plan has been analyzed by city staff or seriously considered by the City Council.
  • The alternatives would enlarge Coaches Field into a full-size, regulation soccer field the same size as the field proposed at Blair Park. One alternative would build a smaller field at Blair Park that would reduce the environmental destruction, eliminate the huge retaining walls and save 65 percent of the usable area as a park.
  • PRFO will only consider their own plan. They—and the city—refuse to review or analyze the alternatives, despite the fact they would cost far less to build than the proposed project.
  • The City Council has made no effort to negotiate with PRFO or to work for a compromise plan.

If you agree with us that this project must be stopped, sign our petition and find out what else you can do to take action!