A letter submitted on Mini-Roundabouts and impact on bicyclists

View proposed Roundabout and Mini-Roundabout

> Click to read more…

Piedmont Civic Association Commentary on the Decision-making Process

The decision on the Blair Park proposal requires careful consideration by the Council as Piedmont’s fiduciaries. Piedmont residents have been unhappy because of  recent debacles costing almost $3 million of City funds.  To date, the Blair Park and Coaches Field proposals have cost the City over $200,000.  And no stable figures have been produced on the fiscal implications of the project for Piedmont taxpayers.

To satisfy the burden of due diligence and fulfill its “fiduciary responsibility” in considering this consequential proposal, the Council must examine all of the costs and independently assess liability risks in a long term plan.  The Council needs to know the risks and the costs before accepting a project in any form.

Piedmont property owners want to be protected from another risky liability situation as occurred in the Piedmont Hills Underground District bailouts, Crest Road collapse, and Hampton-Sea View litigation.

Letter to the City Administrator on Proposed Roundabouts for Blair Park/Moraga Canyon

Re: Conventional Roundabouts and Mini-Roundabouts

Dear Mr. Grote,

At the February 24th Planning Commission meeting for the Moraga Canyon Sports Field Project, PRFO Architect Clarence Mamuyac and traffic Engineer Michael Moule misrepresented their new “traffic calming” design solutions for Moraga Avenue-as a “Conventional Roundabout”.   All dialogue & PRFO slide show photos were only of “large” Conventional Roundabouts. > Click to read more…

A Letter on the Absence of a Council Vote on Termination of Swim Club Negotiations:

March 7, 2011

Dear Council Members,

The approved minutes of the Feb. 7 Council meeting state that “the Council directed the City Administrator to terminate negotiations with the Piedmont Swim Club regarding the lease of City property at 777 Magnolia Avenue and begin the process for the City to assume pool operation.”

However, there is no record of a resolution or a vote on the issue, which was noticed as an informational item only. > Click to read more…

Piedmont Civic Association Commentary on Undergrounding Reports from the Audit Subcommittee and the League of Women Voters

To date, the efforts of the Audit SubCommittee and the League of Women Voters have emphasized contract administration analysis.  Information and analysis of undergrounding concerns provides a valuable shared knowledge base to the Council and residents in their upcoming efforts to undertake substantial revisions to City undergrounding policy.  It is hoped both the Audit Subcommittee and LWV will continue their much appreciated efforts, providing analysis and recommendations to the Council and the community on:

• The use of public funding to facilitate the creation of  private undergrounding districts
• The loss of 20A public funds
  
• The City’s financial stake in approving Districts
• The potential or perceived impact of a financial stake on the decision-making process
• The magnitude of 20B projects in comparison to City revenues and reserves
  
• Other  undergrounding options:  20C Districts and city-wide undergrounding
  
• Chiang analysis:  Does the City become the  “ultimate insurer” of every 20B undergrounding project?
• Will immediate knowledge and reporting of cost overruns improve the City’s options?
• Shifting cost risk from the City to private districts
• Preventing misunderstandings by Staff and/or Council of the nature of City contracts
  
• The extent and appropriate use of informal meetings, without formal public notice, between homeowners and city staff
• Review of additional aspects of past experience
• Optimum threshold level of support – review, comparison and a specific recommendation
• Grounding the report upon the Piedmont City Charter
  

The use of public funding to facilitate the creation of  private undergrounding districts

Current undergrounding policy prohibits the use of “general funds” for pre-formation expenses.  However, this policy has been interpreted to refer only to the City’s General Fund, and to allow the use of 20A public funds (a separate account containing monies received from PG&E for undergrounding major arterial streets) for the benefit private 20B districts.  Use of these public funds has been authorized as follows:

• $25,000 for Central Piedmont (due to seed money shortage – see p. 15)
• $128,000 for Central Piedmont (to satisfy remaining district debt when it failed to be approved)
• $150,000 for Piedmont Hills
• $150,000 for Hampton Sea-View (p. 5) > Click to read more…

An opponent of the Blair Park development provides the following 10 minute video clip of excerpts from the Planning Commission hearing of February 24 on Blair Park/Moraga Canyon sports facilities

Video Clip:  Planning Commission Hearing Excerpts

Editors’ Note: The following is the email sent with the above video clip.

As you may remember, my neighbors and I have been involved in a long battle with the city over the conversion of Blair Park to a soccer facility. I am aware that some Piedmonters and Oaklanders view the claims of the neighbors as biased. I am, therefore, providing this link to a You Tube video of the Planning Commission reaction registered at last week’s meeting. The Commission unanimously rejected the plan but the City Council appears poised to move ahead with the project at its March 21st meeting.I hope you might take about 10 minutes to watch the video and perhaps pass the link along to any friends who might be interested in the controversy.

Ralph Catalano

Editors Note: The complete video of the February 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting may be viewed on the City website.

(This letter expresses the personal opinions of the author. All statements made are the opinion of the writer and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.)

An Opinion from a Piedmont Resident regarding Best Management Practices (BMP) and the proposed expansion of Coaches Field:

Blair Park-Coaches Field & Untreated Water Costs
Before obtaining a building permit for construction of the Blair Park (BP) project, PRFO and the City of Piedmont have to meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) C-3 provisions and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permit from the RWQCB. The NDPES permit entails how all storm water runoff and discharge from the BP project will be handled into the existing storm culvert water infrastructure system, eventually reaching Lake Merritt (LM). The Piedmont Blair Park-Coaches Field projects will need specialized solutions to meet C-3 requirements to properly discharge their storm water to match pre-construction flow rates. PRFO design is to use massive wet vaults or cisterns. > Click to read more…

A letter from Margaret Ovenden, Tracey Woodruff, Andy Madeira, Ray Marshall, Mariam Marshall, Nancy Roscelli, Steve Baronian, Kimberly Moses, Reed Foster, Karen Franchino, Cathy Girr, Kara Christenson on the alternative Blair Park proposal:

To the Editor:

As parents of school-aged kids who play sports, we’re in favor of reasonable development of new recreational space.  Although we appreciate the efforts of PRFO to do this at Blair Park, an alternative proposal has emerged that we believe merits serious consideration. This proposal is to expand Coaches Field westward by extending the fill area into the canyon, possibly expanding eastward by cutting into the Corporation Yard, as well as putting in a very much smaller field at Blair.  This would create almost the same amount of new field space as the currently proposed Blair project, at a lesser expense, without having to loom out over Moraga Avenue and cut into a hillside with homes on top.

Everyone should view the story poles erected at Blair Park to experience how massive the currently proposed project is.  The poles show the level of canyon infill, the cut into the wooded hillside, and the large retaining wall next to Moraga Avenue.  In contrast, the Coaches alternative is much less intrusive and would be almost invisible to passersby.

The Coaches alternative would also probably cost less, because of its lesser scale.  Our City is already stretched to its limit by the general economic situation and the cost overruns from undergrounding.  And we now have financial responsibility for the swimming pool. Should we also expose ourselves to the public financial risk that the proposed project entails without fully exploring the alternatives?  In addition, the long-term operation and replacement costs for the proposed Blair project have not been provided to the community, and we believe approving the project without this information would be imprudent.

The proponents of the Blair project say we have to act now because the lease for Alameda soccer fields is running out.  But we do have time.  The City of Alameda is preparing an RFP for leases on these fields, so our teams still may be able to use them.  An EIR was developed for an even larger project at Coaches in the 1980’s, so we already have much information about what the impact of development in that area would be.  This needs to be updated, and a solid cost estimate for the Coaches expansion developed.

The City’s approval process appears to be moving very quickly.  We urge PRFO, the Commissions and the City Council to take the time to carefully consider the Coaches field alternative proposals.

— Margaret Ovenden, Tracey Woodruff, Andy Madeira, Ray Marshall, Mariam Marshall, Nancy Roscelli, Steve Baronian, Kimberly Moses, Reed Foster, Karen Franchino, Cathy Girr, Kara Christenson

(This letter expresses the personal opinions of its authors. All statements made are the opinion of the writers and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.)

A letter from the President of the Piedmont Swim Club:

The Piedmont Swim Club has finally obtained a quote on the million-dollar pollution insurance the City demanded we purchase as part of a new lease.  The annual premium is $10,325, with a $10,000 deductible, for the $1 million of coverage the city insisted on.  At the Feb. 7  City Council meeting, City Attorney Tom Curry said he was concerned about liability to the City from chlorine somehow leaching into the ground, and Council Members Fujioka and Wieler stated that this lease provision was non-negotiable despite the unknown cost and questionable benefit.

The chlorine is stored in one-gallon plastic jugs, four jugs to a plastic crate. The jugs contain mostly water – the actual chlorine content is only twice that of ordinary laundry bleach. If a jug were to spring a leak, the containment crate were to also leak, and chlorine were to then find its way through a 4-6 inch thick concrete slab, some part of that gallon could get into the ground  – where, presumably, it would make the ground-water safer, as it does the water in the pool.  A spill of more than a gallon would require the spontaneous leaking of multiple jugs and multiple crates. > Click to read more…

A letter from a Piedmont resident providing history and analysis on storm water runoff:

Are Mountain View Cemetery’s 3 Earthen Dams Safe?

A.  Before obtaining a building permit for construction of the Blair Park (BP) project, PRFO (Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization) and the City of Piedmont has to meet the RWQCB C-3 provisions and obtain a NDPES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit from the RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). The NDPES permit entails how all storm water runoff and discharge from the BP project will be handled into the existing storm culvert water infrastructure system, eventually reaching Lake Merritt (LM). The Piedmont Blair Park-Coaches Field projects will need specialized solutions to meet C-3 requirements to properly discharge their storm water > Click to read more…