Member since Jun 24, 2011

click to enlarge img_1138_jpg-magnum.jpg

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Occupy Oakland Vs. the One-Percenters

the REAL truth of the matter, despite what pundits and most of the media say . . .

Posted by SK on 11/10/2011 at 1:36 AM

Re: “The Blair Park Project

Re Norcal Local's 6-28 comment: Let's stick to the subject here; this is not the place for divisive tit-for-tat squabbling. Linking field space, libraries, and traffic is jumbled and nonsensical.

Oaklanders do NOT say, "there is plenty of space to play;" they say that we all face the same problem. There is no linkage between field space shortages and Oakland considering having to shut down some library branches. Oaklanders do not "moan" about "theoretical traffic issues on Moraga;" they speak up about a real and dangerous problem that already exists, and would be made much worse if this oversized project were built. And the "yet happily speed down the canyon and refuse to put in a stop light or stop sign at Harbord and Moraga Ave, in Oakland" is a bit puzzling: Piedmonters also speed, and so do east-of-the-tunnel people. INDIVIDUALS speed. Can NorCal Local determine their city of residence merely by looking at them? Is N.L. saying that the SPEEDERS refuse to put in a stop light or sign at Harbord and Moraga? Oakland residents have been trying for years to get some sort of traffic control at that intersection; we are NOT refusing it. Traffic sign regulations (line of sight, etc.) and budget constraints have kept this from happening.

The traffic study done for the EIR was completely superficial and inadequate. Moraga traffic was studied for 30 minutes, and the weekday practice pickup time, which coincides with rush hour, was NOT studied. The study contains other serious flaws, such as the conclusory pronouncement that cars leaving the fields after practice will not turn right (the safe turn) on Moraga, and cut through side streets to return to Piedmont. This is simply a ludicrous assumption. Also, Moraga is a designated evacuation route for Oakland. Piedmont doesn't give a fig for that important designation; even now, they are designing ways to "gum up the works" (project architect Clarence Mamuyac's own words) to make Moraga safe(r) for kids to cross. Moraga is a major east-west arterial roadway. Piedmont's desire to "gum it up" just so it can build this oversized and dangerous project is just plain selfish. Piedmont seems to think it "owns" part of Moraga, and can do what it darn well pleases. That's like building a dam in a river, and taking all the water just for your own use, and to heck with people up- and downstream.

N.L. is SO wrong about the NIMBY accusation. Those against the project (and, OH! that includes Piedmonters, too!) are concerned about safety of children, traffic flows, geological, seismic, & hydrological issues, and about the safety of the entire area from Broadway Terrace down to Park Blvd; those streets are the closest east-west arterials, if Moraga gets "gummed up" on purpose, and just TAKEN OUT as an evacuation route, just because of some Piedmont peoples' selfish insistence on this, and ONLY this, project.

Oh, and by the way, there are alternative plans that would be much less expensive, less damaging, and safer. But the proponent/contributors will ONLY contribute to THIS design. Just thought you should know.

Posted by SK on 06/28/2011 at 6:38 PM

Re: “The Blair Park Project

Some of the "facts" are not correct. Their current plan is NOT smaller than the original; in fact it is LARGER, because the upper parking lot is bigger. It does not have "one field instead of three;" there never were three, and they just rounded the corners of the smaller field and are calling it "the grassy glade." It would still be used for practice, but they think calling it a glade makes the whole project smaller. How Orwellian. It cuts into the hillside just as much as the original plan, so it is NOT smaller. The EIR that was wrongly approved simply glossed over dealing with the utilities. The article says the plan calls for "rerouting sewer lines in the hillside;" it does NOT talk about the sewer MAIN that would have to be relocated somewhere IN THE HILLSIDE behind the retaining walls, nor the 20-inch water main, nor about the storm drain, nor the gas lines, all of which mean more digging into the hill. It doesn't talk about the OTHER digging: the design of the walls calls for 50-foot "tie-backs," which means digging 50 feet into the hillside BEHIND the retaining walls to install the tie-backs in multiple places (which would end up going beyond some peoples' property lines). The boring into the hillside that is required by this type of retaining wall, combined with the long list (above) of utilities that would need to be relocated by digging into the hillside BEHIND the retaining wall, is serious land destabilization. And yet, the details about the utilities and how much digging would be required to relocate them did not come to light until AFTER the EIR was approved!

The PRFO and city council (except Keating) are promoting a very dangerous plan. People who THINK they are in favor of this project need to take a serious look at what the REAL issues are, the ones the PRFO and most of the council have glossed over and tried to suppress, the ones raised by the Planning Commission in its UNANIMOUS REJECTION of this project.

Posted by SK on 06/24/2011 at 1:57 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2018 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation