Letters
Last updated 3/21/2011
We’ve written and received many letters in support of Moraga Canyon. Here are a few that we think make important points about the proposed development and the flawed process the City has engaged in so far.
Note: This page does not include the extensive list of letters received detailing deficiencies in the July 2010 Draft EIR; see Responses to the Draft EIR for those letters.
March 21, 2011: From professional city planner Dan Marks:
As I have noted before, the project design has been completely unconstrained by cost considerations: huge underground vaults, massive walls and grading, relocating sewer mains, water mains and storm drains, roundabouts (or signals or bridges, depending on what project is selected), artificial turf, etc. The turf alone is over $1 M. Knowledgeable sources tell me the cost could be double or triple the amounts asserted by the proponents – but any estimate is unreliable without a careful evaluation of the project.
What I find troubling is that the City Council would be at this point of considering this project without an objective cost estimate being presented to it. Raising $6.5 million from private sources for this project would be daunting – even in Piedmont. It is very hard to imagine raising double or triple that amount. And that is without establishing the cost and responsibility for maintaining this “gift” (including turf replacement in 10 years). I fail to understand why the Council would continue to put the community through the kind of divisive process already engendered by this project with no sense of how feasible it is to implement.
March 17, 2011: From the Audubon Society, a detailed follow-up letter on their opposition to the project:
We ask only that the City of Piedmont be forthright with the community about the potential impacts of the project and make informed decision about shared open space. While we understand that financial and political incentives making this project appealing to the City, such pressures do not provide an excuse to deprive stakeholders of an extensive and comprehensive exploration of sound alternatives that could provide a win-win-win solution rather than cause untold damage to the natural surroundings and create animosity amongst the local residents.
Therefore, we ask that the City Council:
- Make a commitment to preserve and protect the last open space in Piedmont
- Designate a committee of seven people, with representation from Friends of Moraga Canyon, Piedmont Recreational Facilities Organization (PRFO), the Golden Gate Audubon Society and neutral members of the community to explore, identify and analyze preferred alternate sites over the next 2-3 months and present to the City Council at a future meeting for serious consideration. An open and transparent process of this kind must be put into place in order to be accountable to the public.
Click to read the full letter (PDF)
Click to read their previous letter from January (PDF)
March 18, 2011: From Piedmont resident James Hughes, focusing on the financial issues, and recalling the undergrounding fiasco:
Focusing on the potential financial issues provides an independent reason to turn down the PRFO plan. Although characterized as a “gift” by proponents, it would be a mistake to believe that the City of Piedmont would not be undertaking a significant financial exposure:
- Is the city fully protected from cost overruns? The recent undergrounding debacle shows how this exposure can have a dramatic impact on the city’s funds. Are plan proponents prepared to sign personal guarantees to cover any and all cost overruns?
- What provisions have been made for maintenance? What are the yearly maintenance costs? Someone could “give” us the Witter mansion, but we’d go bankrupt trying to maintain it.
- Will a “sinking fund” be established for replacement of the artificial turf? We have seen at Witter Field that turf replacement can be required at an earlier date than anticipated and that the cost of replacement is substantial. What would be the source of money for turf replacement?
- What other costs will be borne by the city—or more accurately, its taxpayers?
March 17, 2011: From Piedmont Soccer Club alumni Serra Sabuncuoglu:
As a long time Piedmont resident, since my years at Beach Elementary School, through Middle School and High School, I have taken the Moraga Canyon Road many a times. [...] I am angered and frustrated by the lack of environmental awareness and ignorant ideals of those who support and encourage the building of Blair Park through the destruction of a beautiful, green and natural Canyon.
As my father noted, there are plenty of cement lots and abandoned or unused spaces outside of Piedmont as an alternative, rather than destroying something as important and vital as a space of trees and grass and animal life.
Though I was not there physically on March 12th to tie a ribbon around the oak tree, I was in spirit and asked that one be placed in my name and my family’s. I think it is a key note to remember that Oaks far out live our own relatively short lives, and it is this short-sided and rather selfish and narrow direction of Blair Park supporters to not recognize the importance of preservation for generations after us and for the future which is more vast than our contemporary and immediate imaginations.
March 17, 2011: From engineer Takashi Nakamura:
- From the civil engineering viewpoint the planned construction is absurd. The design plan requires so much soil to be scraped away from the hill and to be built up to make room for a level soccer field, stressing the ground, destroying the trees, and causing possible destruction of the neighboring hillside.
- Safety for children is a grave concern. Moraga Ave is a busy artery road. Heavy traffic and children to and from the soccer field will be a dangerous mix. The City of Piedmont will be responsible for tragic accidents that result from this project.
- The project will make the area vulnerable to seismic damages, including homes above the park. Will Piedmont City be able to take responsibility for such an enormous liability?
March 17, 2011: From Piedmont residents Margaret and Tony Leong:
Dear Piedmont City Council Members.
We are totally against the proposed Moraga Canyon aka Blair Park sports complex fields for the following reasons:
- Too big. We have seen Blair Park which appears to be a narrow mini/pocket park. There are single family estates in Piedmont that have take up as much land as Blair Park. This is akin to building a full size Macy store in a strip mall. (no offense to Macy)
- Last open undeveloped land. Blair Park represents and symbolizes the last of its kind in Piedmont. It is the link to nature which is the home to at least 22 species of birds along with deer, fox and other wild life as well as the growing place of many plants including but not limited to 55 coast oaks. The proposed sports complex would destroy 155 trees and displace the wild life that reside there. The reality is that humans have invaded and eradicated all living life forms for their own well being.
- Hidden cost to the city. We recently received a glossy post card that read “Blair Park…It’s a gift!” The City Council should beware of this “gift” with hidden cost to the city such as relocating the main sewer line and 25 lateral sewer lines and run through the park, additional up keep and increase in law enforcement. It may very well be the Trojan Horse. Yet, there was a recent article in one of the local newspaper that mentioned the city wants to share the cost of the Fire Chief with another city to save money. Really?
- Health and safety issue. Blair Park is located on Moraga which is a narrow two lane street with no side walks and no 4 way stop signs/lights from the Warren freeway to Highland. Drivers do not heed the speed limits on this stretch of road. It is an accident(s) and waiting to happen. Will that accident be your loved one?
Let Blair Park be.
There are other alternatives that are more sane and reasonable for everyone which the Cty Council should seriously consider before making this decision.
Drs. Tony and Margaret Leong
Piedmont, CA
March 17, 2011: From Piedmont resident Will King:
Piedmont has an unfortunate history of responding to well-intentioned initiatives by small groups of self-interested parties who propose private uses of public spaces, without the City examining alternative uses of the public domain. In this case, no one has looked at possible alternatives, including a small elder housing community that would generate a) a sale of property to a private developer which would restore Piedmont’s finances through the proceeds and property taxes, b) quieter use, and c) more limited traffic than the proposed sports fields. Or, better, just leaving it alone.
We can only hope that the City Council respects the unanimous vote of the City’s Planning Commission, which considered this proposal ridiculous on its face and said, in effect, that if we as homeowners proposed something comparable in scale and risk for our lot, they would laugh us out of town.
March 17, 2011: From the law firm of Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger LLP, representing Friends of Moraga Canyon:
Each of the Project changes described above could result in new or more severe impacts. The elimination of the pedestrian bridge would require everyone crossing between the two ballfields, or between the fields and parked cars, to cross Moraga Avenue directly. This would increase the hazard to pedestrians and the traffic wait times caused by pedestrians. The new park features will increase traffic: whole new categories of park users, like exercise enthusiasts and parents of toddlers, will be drawn to the park, adding potentially substantial amounts of traffic. [...]
In short, these examples demonstrate that the Project’s EIR does not analyze the Project as it currently stands. The Project that is before the Council—to the extent the details of that Project can be discerned—will have potentially significant impacts that have never been analyzed, disclosed to the public, or mitigated. The “hybrid” Project now on the table will, by City staff’s own admission, have further impacts and require further analysis, despite the lack of any concrete information about the content of this proposal. Agenda Report at 2.
The purpose of CEQA is to allow “informed self-government” by exposing all of a project’s impacts to public scrutiny and discussion. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 392. Because the Project now under debate is not the Project analyzed in the EIR, that document does not meet CEQA’s standards or fulfill its purposes. Unless and until a supplemental EIR provides thorough, public analysis of all of these new features and the whole Project, CEQA bars the City from taking any action to approve the Project or any portion thereof.
March 17, 2011: From Piedmont resident Paulette Traverso:
Question: The traffic, pedestrian and bicyclist safety have only been superficially reviewed. The traffic “plan” changes seemingly with the weather: first a pedestiran bridge, then traffic lights and now roundabouts. AND this is in addition to narrowing the canyon road and introducing 2 driveways into parking lots. Considering that this project has children as it’s primary beneficiaries, it seems absolutely at odds that their safety as well as that of others, is not at the top of the list of importance.
Question: There is a major earthquake fault line running along Highway 13., 2700 feet from the proposed project site. Moraga Avenue is the only emergency thoroughfare. Already a source of major traffic (I myself have driven on this road well over 10,000 times in over 2 decades as a resident). Additional traffic would be introduced and greatly impede emergency vehicles and, in case of emergency, residents’ evacuation. I have been here and experienced first hand the ’89 earthquake and the ’91 firestorm. Even now, traffic has increased to such a degree that during peak traffic times it can take several minutes of waiting to enter on to Moraga Avenue from the side streets. Canyon residents are the experts on traffic in the canyon yet they have not been heard. Why does this plan sound safe?
Question: Repeat: there is a major earthquake fault running along Highway 13. Given the tragic 9.0 earthquake disaster in Japan just a week ago, a country famed for it’s earthquake and tsunami preparedness, proposing a sports complex project that will create landfill up to 38′ high along a narrow canyon road and excavating into the hillside beneath 25 homes, seems ill advised. Imagine the collapse of said land fill onto Moraga Avenue. No thoroughfare. What possible sense is there in disturbing hillsides and creating landfill, especially in a site not suited for a project that is too big and inappropriate for the site?
March 17, 2011: From Piedmont resident Narciso Jaramillo:
Those of you who support this project have your hearts in the right place. We all want to give our kids the best possible opportunities, and we want to keep them close to home.
But on Blair Park, you’re being misled.
You’re being misled by the leaders and designers of this dangerous and misguided project. And it’s not just me saying this: it’s the entire Piedmont Planning Commission, which voted unanimously to reject it. It’s also the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and many others.
You’re being misled on safety. When it was pointed out years ago that Moraga Avenue has fast traffic, no sidewalks, and two blind curves on either side of the park, the project designers added a pedestrian bridge. When it was pointed out that pedestrian bridges don’t actually work without associated street-level fencing, they removed it, then tried to add traffic lights and crosswalks to the design, which have long been known to be untenable due to limited sight distances on Moraga. Now they’ve switched it to roundabouts–all of this with no real study of the impact of all these variations on safety and traffic flow.
When they converted the small field to a so-called “glade”, they neglected to include a fence to keep kids from running after balls into the street. And they’ve made no attempt to consider the very real possibility of damage to homes above Blair Park from carving sixty feet into the hillside.
These are not simple design details that can be worked out later. As the chair of the Planning Commission, herself an architect, said of the pedestrian and vehicle safety situation: “It’s a recipe for disaster.” And of the hillside construction, she said, “The property damage potential from the construction is tremendous.”
We should not trust a project of this enormity to designers for whom your safety—and the safety of your children—is an afterthought.
March 17, 2011: From Oakland resident Patricia Ternahan:
1) Why would anyone want to build an elevated playing field for children on the Hayward Fault ?
2) Why would anyone want to build an elevated playing field for children on a very busy street with no pedestrian access no bicycle lanes and no parking?
3) Has anyone considered the city’s liability in the event that the proposed construction causes slides or other destabilization to the existing homes on the ridge-line above the proposed construction?
March 17, 2011: From Piedmont resident Tim Herrlinger:
To the Piedmont City Council:
As a Piedmont citizen and a Ph.D. biologist at UC Berkeley with an emphasis in ecology, I am writing to express my view that the Moraga Canyon Sports Fields Project be abandoned. The proposed development is detrimental to the environment and would be yet one more scar on our landscape. The loss of habitat and wildlife is significant and further destruction of natural habitats will be irreversible. Strictly from an ecological point of view, this project would reduce the available habitat for a number of native species and threaten the shrinking connectivity with other wildlife corridors in our area. The elimination of natural open spaces is counter to the values of those who appreciate the few remaining undeveloped areas that are repeatedly threatened by increasing and unchecked urbanization.
I hope you will vote AGAINST developing Moraga Canyon.
Tim Herrlinger
March 18, 2011: From FOMC board member Joannie Semitekol:
We opted to take our son out of public school in 4th grade and drove him (car pooled of course) 25 miles away, 5 days a week, for the next 5 years. He played sports in town and practiced at the elementary schools and the new playfields which were built as part of the master plan of the city. I still needed to drive him to those games (until he has old enough to ride his bike) as the fields were on the other side of town where it was not so densely housed. [...]
We make choices, we make sacrifices for our children.
If fields are not built in Blair Park, what are the options? Find somewhere else to play outside of Piedmont and make the choice to drive (car pool) there or not. Instigate try-outs for the older groups – is that really the end of the world? Find another outlet – play basketball at home with neighbors, play bounce and fly and make up your own rules.
More fields in Piedmont just may not be an option. The town is not made for it. Our schools are great, but are built on postage-stamp size lots. We are densely housed with hilly geography that is not condusive to large flat sports fields. There are no areas for fields that do not impact neighbors. Piedmont is 1.7 square miles – we’re small – we’re all neighbors – we’re all in each other’s back yard.
March 17, 2011: From a Piedmont resident:
Please note that myself and my family which includes 2 minor children in the Piedmont school system, are opposed to Blair Park. We concur with many of the reasons in the No campaign, especially the adverse environmental impact as well as the fact that it will cause congestion and pose a traffic hazard to residents and pedestrians. My children’s soccer sports needs have been filled most adequately to date at the various alternative venues in Alameda or in Oakland and they have never been found wanting.
We see no benefit to destroying a placid and restful “green” area as well as to incur the burden of upkeep once the project is completed.
August 2010: From the Sierra Club, responding to the Draft EIR:
The main concerns expressed by our members include:
- Loss of native habitat for plants and animals in a narrow corridor that cannot be replaced
- Water retention problems, runoff to Moraga Ave, and into the storm system in Oakland
- Creation of new filled land in a seismically active area (right on top of the Hayward Fault)
- Increase in traffic around the area of the new construction
- Danger to pedestrians and bicyclists along Moraga Ave.
- Noise from the removal of oak trees and creation of a flat field in the area known as Blair Park
May 2009: From Al Peters, former Mayor of Piedmont (read the full letter in this blog post):
Only one design is under consideration, that of the most expansive proposal requiring:
- extensive excavation into the canyon hillside and fill to the street side,
- a 40-foot retaining wall plus fencing at the back of the canyon,
- a 20-foot retaining wall plus fencing on the frontage of Moraga Avenue,
- a handicap ramp and pedestrian bridge over Moraga Avenue,
- two playing fields,
- a concession stand and
- two parking lots.
This is a massive multi-million-dollar development of a sensitive open space in a time of great economic uncertainty.
September 2009: From Dan Marks, professional city planner (read the full letter here (PDF)):
As a professional planner who has worked on Parks and Recreation Master Plans, Parks and Open Space Elements of General Plans, and on planning studies for parks and recreation facilities, I’m also disturbed by the City’s backwards approach to this major capital improvement project. A standard process that would eventually lead to a $8-10 M investment in a sports park (not to mention a half million dollars in studies for the sports park) would begin with a needs assessment and an assessment of alternatives for meeting that need.
September 2009: From Mia and Stephen Tindle, Piedmont residents (read the full letter here):
Now that we see the full plans, we are even more concerned that the approval process be reconsidered. This proposed project is massive and all out of proportion with the site, an extremely narrow oak woodland and open space nestled at the bottom of a steep canyon.
We urge you to please pause, and allow the larger community to have input into the plan design. Most of Piedmonters have no idea what is being proposed in Moraga Canyon, let alone the enormous size and scale. All we’re asking is that you please allow everyone to have a say into any plan for the canyon, the last piece of open space in our beautiful city.
September 2009: From David Kaplan, a local soccer coach (read the full letter here):
As no doubt you are aware, the Piedmont Soccer Club, Rockridge Soccer Club, and other neighboring clubs form collectively the Jack London Youth Soccer League (JLYSL). In addition, the Skyline Lacrosse Club (SLC) has a significant number of Piedmont residents as participants. Being an active parent with these associations, I am keenly aware that both the JLYSL and SLC are facing severe field shortage issues and that I and my sons would personally benefit from the addition of new fields in the area.
While the goal of adding new field space for the benefit of Piedmont residents (and neighboring communities) should be applauded, seeking to partially solve this problem by developing Moraga Canyon is not the solution. The current course of action will lead to years of litigation, unwanted and undesirable negative media attention on Piedmont, wasted economic resources, and failure to address the underlying issue of benefiting our communities’ kids in any reasonable time frame.
September 2009: From Ken Koretz, Oakland resident (read the full letter here):
Excluding cheering families, that’s 112 players, refs and concession workers on site at one time. How may parked cars does that translate to – 70? 80? 112?
Oops. According to the ‘Design Narrative’ and the ‘Landscape Plan’ of the Design Summary, there are only 40 parking spaces – 26 at the small east field (“nestled between the landscaped berm along Moraga Avenue to the north and the existing hillside to the south, keeping visual impact to a minimum”) and 14 spaces at the large west field (“nestled at the base of the hillside…a low profile with minimal visual impact”). Where will the other cars nestle with minimal visual impact, along Moraga Avenue like the cars strung along the road shoulder of Shepherd Canyon in Oakland? Will street shoulder parking displace the planned screen of trees? Is that safe? Is it legal? Is it wise?
Visit