Blair Park Sports Field

By Jeff Wieler

I believe it is essential that we provide adequate athletic opportunities to Piedmont's children, and believe Blair Park should be CONSIDERED as a potential sports field site. The Friends of Moraga Canyon, who are opposed to this project, asked the candidates to come for individual, 1-hour Q&A sessions, with the discussion to be based on four questions. I provided written responses, as follows.

Q1. Following the completion of the EIR, will you commit to establishing a Citizens' Task Force that includes Piedmont residents with diverse perspectives and interests to make recommendations on the suitability of the design and size, and the financing of the construction and maintenance of the proposed Blair Park/Coaches Field project? Would such a Task Force also be asked to a) consider options to better utilize the fields we presently have in Piedmont? And b) examine options for fields outside of Piedmont?

For a number of reasons, I will not commit to establishing a Citizens Task Force:

• Until we have further information from the EIR, we will not know whether a special committee will be needed. For example, if the EIR demonstrates that Moraga Canyon is a totally inappropriate location, or an ideal location that will improve every aspect of life in Piedmont, there would be no need.

• If the EIR gives a qualified go-ahead, then the City has existing Commissions (Recreation, Parks, Planning, and, depending on timing, a Municipal Tax Review Committee) comprised of a broad cross-section of Piedmont residents who have a wide range of perspectives and skill-sets. These Commissions should review the proposed project and EIR and make findings and recommendations to the Council.

• Creating a special committee requires the assent of at least three Council members, and would take place only after public hearing and comment. I would not want to foreclose having a robust public process or Council discussion by pre-judging the need for a special committee.

• Ultimately, the Council will make the final decisions on this matter. The Council should make every effort to obtain a wide range of opinions and should consider alternatives, including alternative ways of obtaining information and public input. However, creating a committee is only one method of achieving that goal.

Q2. Do you support referring the Blair Park/Coaches Field project to the City Commissions for their input and guidance? If you support the establishment of a Citizens' Task Force, will you ask that the City Commissions work with that Task Force to reach a consensus on the future of Blair Park and Coaches Field before any development takes place in Moraga Canyon?

As previously stated, I fully support referring the Blair Park/Coaches Field project to City Commissions. Although reaching consensus on significant issues is obviously an ideal outcome, I do not believe that consensus should be a goal in itself. Sometimes consensus cannot be reached. For example, the United States failed to reach consensus in 1861, and is unable to achieve consensus today on health care. Failure to achieve consensus is not always a good reason for inaction.

Q3. Are you concerned about the long-term fiscal sustainability of the City? If so, do you intend to see that all funding of the Blair Park/Coaches Field project is in place before any construction is begun, that cost overruns will not be funded out of City reserves, and that there is a mechanism for funding ongoing maintenance costs?

I am certain that all candidates wish to maintain a fiscally solvent City. Concerning the Blair Park/Coaches Field project, I do not believe that the City is currently in a position to make any material investment in constructing the project, nor do I believe it likely that it will be in such a position for years to come. The operating budget is under significant pressure, we have a large capital commitment at Havens, significant long-term issues with the Swim Club, a currently unusable property at 801 Magnolia that needs major investment, and a financial catastrophe in the Piedmont Hills undergrounding district.

However, it is not practical to "guarantee" that there will never be a cost over-run, as shown by the Havens and Piedmont Hills projects. Conservative budgeting, consideration of phased construction, and generous contingencies will greatly reduce + but can never eliminate + the risks of cost overruns.

As for ongoing maintenance costs + I am personally responsible in my "day job" for maintaining a FieldTurf field. The field is six years old and maintenance costs have been negligible. Admittedly, FieldTurf will not last forever, so part of the decision process will have to include determining whether the City budget can withstand the impact of replacement cost amortization. At this point I do not have the necessary information to make that determination, nor do I know whether the City can charge organized sports groups usage fees that would be sufficient to substantially or completely cover anticipated costs.

Q4. As written in the City Council Minutes of October 5, 1992, regarding Coaches Field, "The Council reiterates that field lighting is not an element of the approved plan nor is its addition being contemplated. But out of respect for the neighborhood's strong desire that a lighting ban be agreed to, retain Section 2.81 as originally proposed, banning field lighting for all uses other than for security." Do you think the City Council should/should not honor its commitment to Moraga Canyon residents regarding no lights at Coaches?

There are two opposing arguments on questions such as this. As a basic premise, one Council cannot bind a successor Council, because times and circumstances change. On the other hand, citizens should be able to have the basic expectation that commitments will not be lightly abandoned.

At this point I do not have sufficient information to take a position one way or another. For example, the above quotation consists of two sentences from Council minutes that are 17 years old. At a minimum, I would want to read the entire set of minutes to place the quotation in context, and I would also want to know if other Council decisions on this question were made at other times.

I would also want to know the outcome of an EIR study on lighting, and hear testimony from qualified lighting experts. Again, I've learned from my day job that lighting technology has changed hugely since 1992. As just one example, modern "sharp-cutoff" lights are much more efficient in directing a high percentage of light output on the desired area, and reducing light "spillage" on other areas.

Another question that needs to be answered is whether there are reasonable alternatives to lights. Question #1 asked whether we should "consider options to better utilize the fields we presently have in Piedmont?" I absolutely think this should be done. Inefficiencies should always be identified and corrected where possible.

However, more efficient use of existing fields (or creating fields outside of Piedmont) isn't the only possible alternative to installing lights at Coaches Field. For example, the Moraga project might turn out to be a less obtrusive alternative for the neighborhood than lights at Coaches Field. In that case, the City + and Council + might be able to avoid lights at Coaches Field while still addressing the shortage of field space.

Finally, and most importantly, I would want to hear from all the interested parties as to why they support + or oppose + lighting. I would not want to lightly abandon a previous commitment, but I also would not want to blindly adhere to a past policy that may have been wrongly decided. Piedmont Councils generally make good decisions, but that doesn't mean that every decision every Council ever made was a good decision + or if even if good once, whether it is still appropriate today.

General comments:

It is obvious there are strong feelings about the proposed Moraga development project, and I believe that much more information is needed before good decisions can be made. For example, traffic is an obvious concern. I frequently drive up and down Moraga, entering and exiting at Harbord or Estates. Moraga is not a safe street with good sightlines!

But to oppose developing Moraga solely because of traffic concerns is premature. Perhaps the EIR will steer us away because of traffic + or child + safety. But it is also possible that developing sports fields could provide a mechanism for improvements that would make Moraga safer. Since I'm not a traffic engineer, I just don't know.

I will give the same answer about other concerns. I'm not qualified to evaluate ecosystems, so I can't evaluate the impact on wildlife. I'm not a botanist, geologist, soils expert, construction cost estimator, etc., etc., so I will seek information from those who are.

From a broader perspective, I do believe that the existing Alameda fields are not likely to be available forever. Eventually the area will be developed as per the Alameda master plan, or the plan will be modified so that some or all of the field space will be limited to use by Alameda residents. When that will be, I don't know. I do believe that loss of those fields would be a crushing blow to Piedmont's youth sports programs.

I also doubt that the City realistically can hope to develop field space outside of Piedmont. I've just spent four years trying to find available, undeveloped land. There isn't very much available, and what there is, is extremely expensive. Our municipal budget cannot afford to construct sports fields, inside or outside of Piedmont, much less sustain the cost to acquire the land. Nor do I see any great likelihood that private money will pay for a major project outside of Piedmont.

Even if affordable land could be found outside of Piedmont, and even if private money could be found to purchase the land and build fields, question #3 implies that the City's ability to pay for maintenance is in doubt. If there's a question about Piedmont's financial ability to maintain a donated sports field, then it's even more questionable whether the City can afford to buy a site, and then pay to build and maintain a sports field.

Moraga MAY be a financially viable site + if the development costs are paid for by private parties. However, we're talking a fundraising effort that will need to be many times greater than anything ever before seen in Piedmont. Bake sales will not finance this project.

In conclusion, I believe that sports are important for youth, and that adequate field access is essential for youth sports. Moraga may not be the ideal location and certainly poses significant challenges, but it also may be the best + or least bad + alternative. Or, it may not be.

However, until much more information is available, and until I've had the opportunity to hear a full spectrum of views, I cannot and will not commit to any course of action. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.